School's transgender policy trumped teacher's religious rights, US court rules

[Ghost of a Rider]

Transgenderism is also very rare and just because they are a small percentage of the population doesn't mean we're going to allow you to be bigots and treat them like trash.

Are you saying I’m treating them like trash?

It is also rare for people to be born left handed yet how fucking weird and stupid would it be if a group of bigots got together and decided to harrass them based on how they were born? That's what you idiots look like to everyone who isn't biologically ignorant. You look like ignorant bigots attacking left handed people.

Don’t be an idiot. Your analogy is not apt because no one ever said humans are, or should be, right handed.

I explained the difference between objective and subjective to you, that doesn't mean I hate subjectivism. I don't even know what that means. Are you accusing me of hating my own feelings? Do you know what subjectivism is?

Wait, you jumped on me for saying transgenderism is as subjective as religion but you don’t even know what subjectivism is? Is that what you’re telling me?

Also I don't give a shit if you're atheist. Atheists can be ignorant as well.

That wasn’t the point dumbass. The point was that you made the assumption that I’m a Bible-thumper who went to school in a trailer and that my views on transgenderism were informed by these things. Your assumption was wrong and misinformed by your own bigotry.

Not whatever they say they are, what their biology says they are. It is both subjective in that we each have our own indivdual biological make ups and objective in that our biological make up is determined by objective factors like chromosomes, hormones and DNA.

In other words, male or female.

I get that some males feel like females and vice versa. But how they feel doesn’t change their actual biological makeup.

I'm pointing out you are both ignorant of the science and ignorant of how biology is subjective.

What sex is the individual? Whatever it is, it will be objectively male or female.

No one said they had the market cornered on suffering. This is a strawman.

Considering that the entire issue is about the pronoun suffering of transgenders, no, it is not a strawman.

One of the most divisive issues in this country right now is transgenderism and this began when transgenders started behaving like put upon victims as if their suffering deserved special attention. It does not.

If you want to prove to me you understand human nature then acknowledge there are biological components to transgenderism.

First, I don’t need to prove anything to you. Second, the biological components result in two sexes: male and female.

And legislation that marginalizes at risk youths like gay or trans teens and that prevents them from seeking advice from teachers and counselors like Florida's Don't Say Gay bill only exacerbates that problem.

“Don’t say gay” is a conflation of the meaning and purpose of the bill. All it says is that schools cannot teach kindergartners through third graders about homosexuality and transgenderism.

All the bullshit about homo- and transphobia aside, there’s no practical reason why children that young need to be taught these things and schools should not be teaching children about things that probably should be taught by or discussed with parents.

And I don't have much sympathy for bigots.

Good for you.

If I meet a person and they ask me to address them in a certain way, only an asshole would insist on addressing them in a manor they ask you not to. If you kept addressing a black man as boy after repeated requests by him for you to stop I'd also think you were a bigot and a racist.

You’re conflating the issue. Some of the more vehement voices regarding transgenderism you may encounter on this board notwithstanding, most conservatives don’t give much of a shit one way or the other.

The problem is that there is a growing group of people in this country that are sick and goddam tired of all the self proclaimed “victims” bleating about imaginary slights and offences all the time. I know I am.

So after years of being called racist for moronic reasons, I can’t say I give much of a fuck anymore.

 

[Curried Goats]

Are you saying I’m treating them like trash?

Yes, by speaking about them ignorantly.

Don’t be an idiot. Your analogy is not apt because no one ever said humans are, or should be, right handed.

It is apt because there is no specific way humans should be. That implies intent in our creation. There is only how humans are.

Wait, you jumped on me for saying transgenderism is as subjective as religion but you don’t even know what subjectivism is? Is that what you’re telling me?

I'm arguing you don't know what subjectivism is since you can't seem to fathom how transgenderism is less subjective than religion. I can. There is no biological correspondence for religion, there is for transgenderism.

That wasn’t the point dumbass. The point was that you made the assumption that I’m a Bible-thumper who went to school in a trailer and that my views on transgenderism were informed by these things. Your assumption was wrong and misinformed by your own bigotry.

I played the odds. I don't actually care where your ignorance originates. I think the more important fact it that you are indeed ignorant of said facts.

In other words, male or female.

I get that some males feel like females and vice versa. But how they feel doesn’t change their actual biological makeup.

How we all feel is also influenced by our biology. Our feelings don't spring out of thin air. They are a combination of stimuli from our senses being processed by our brains and influenced by chemical reactions and hormones. Contextually how we feel about who we are is more significant to our identities than our chromosomes. Women with a disorder of XY chromosomes can live thinking they're normal women without any clue of their disorder.

What sex is the individual? Whatever it is, it will be objectively male or female.

Which only means thats how we choose to catagorize them today. Future societies might consider the biological realities of brain chemistry a more determinate feature that reproductive organs. These labels that make sense for scientific cataloging however will never be an excuse for bigotry, hate or marginalization. It might be relevant to a doctor that their patient has chromonal disorder where they have a vagina and XY chromomes or that they are chomosomally male but are a transfemale, it is not relevant for how they ask to be addressed and treated with respect in public.

Considering that the entire issue is about the pronoun suffering of transgenders, no, it is not a strawman.

It is. No one thinks its okay for you to call some dick face when they ask you not to just because you want to. Now you can say dick face is an insult but what insults people is subjective and trans people have let it be known that calling them by these pronouns is insulting. You can either be the type of person who respects that or you can be the type of asshole who doesn't but I'm not going to pretend or entertain the notion that there is a scientific excuse for your bigotry. There isn't.

One of the most divisive issues in this country right now is transgenderism and this began when transgenders started behaving like put upon victims as if their suffering deserved special attention. It does not.

They are giving voice to issues that affect them and their communities. Thats what politics is all about. Apparently trans people engaging in the same rights as everyone else is triggering to a snowflake little bitch like you. I don't care if you find it divisive.

First, I don’t need to prove anything to you. Second, the biological components result in two sexes: male and female.

Sometimes males with vaginas, sometimes females with testes, sometimes trans men and trans women. Don't be frightened of these realities.

“Don’t say gay” is a conflation of the meaning and purpose of the bill. All it says is that schools cannot teach kindergartners through third graders about homosexuality and transgenderism.

Or discuss it with them. How does this help gay and trans children?

All the bullshit about homo- and transphobia aside, there’s no practical reason why children that young need to be taught these things and schools should not be teaching children about things that probably should be taught by or discussed with parents.

Of course there are practical reasons. Just because a moron like you can't think of any doesn't mean none exist.

Good for you.


You’re conflating the issue. Some of the more vehement voices regarding transgenderism you may encounter on this board notwithstanding, most conservatives don’t give much of a shit one way or the other.

All the legislation would be evidence to the contrary.

The problem is that there is a growing group of people in this country that are sick and goddam tired of all the self proclaimed “victims” bleating about imaginary slights and offences all the time. I know I am.

You triggered Snowflakes are quite amusing.

So after years of being called racist for moronic reasons, I can’t say I give much of a fuck anymore.

Good. Marginalizing you from the mainstream and pushing your mutant kind to the fringes of society is the goal.

 

[Kilroy2]

Apparently you did not read the source of the OP. You're dismissed.

Feel free to quote said source to make your point as I am sure the OP will be flattered.

 

[Concerned American]

Feel free to quote said source to make your point as I am sure the OP will be flattered.

Feel free to read it yourself and maybe you'll be able recover some of your self respect.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Actually it didn't. Growing up in the 60s and 70s nobody ever used the word gender in place of sex. That changed when the moral majority decided sex was a bad thing and did not even want to say the word.



Gender was initially a literary concept. Masculine, feminine, neuter and common were genders assigned to words.

What are the four genders of noun?

In English, the four genders of noun are masculine, feminine, common, and neuter. Masculine nouns refer to words for a male figure or male member of a s

www.cliffsnotes.com

So, even the meaning of the word is subjective.

This all started when I said transgenderism is as subjective as religion. When I said this, Curried Goats said it was ignorant of science. Then he proceeded to try to prove this by showing how subjective gender is.

I don’t know.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So, even the meaning of the word is subjective.

This all started when I said transgenderism is as subjective as religion. When I said this, Curried Goats said it was ignorant of science. Then he proceeded to try to prove this by showing how subjective gender is.

I don’t know.

It is foolish, when arguing with someone who is so deeply and severely fucked in the head as to be confused about the difference between male and females, to try to force or expect them to think or argue in a manner that is logically consistent.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Yes, by speaking about them ignorantly.

You mean saying there are two sexes is speaking about them ignorantly?

It is apt because there is no specific way humans should be. That implies intent in our creation. There is only how humans are.

There IS intent in our biological sexes you nitwit. The intent is procreation.

Nature and evolution devised male and female sexes to effect the procreation and propagation of the species.

I'm arguing you don't know what subjectivism is since you can't seem to fathom how transgenderism is less subjective than religion. I can. There is no biological correspondence for religion, there is for transgenderism.

No. In transgenderism, a person’s gender is whatever they say it is or whatever they feel it is. In religion, God or the gods, their nature and what they require of us is whatever they say or feel it is.

You’ve been telling me gender is not fixed. That means it is subjective, yes?

I played the odds. I don't actually care where your ignorance originates. I think the more important fact it that you are indeed ignorant of said facts.

You’re not getting off that easily. The more important fact here is that you assumed wrongly where my “ignorance” comes from.

In other words, due to your own ignorance and bigotry, your lazy ass fell back on a tired stereotype.

How we all feel is also influenced by our biology. Our feelings don't spring out of thin air. They are a combination of stimuli from our senses being processed by our brains and influenced by chemical reactions and hormones. Contextually how we feel about who we are is more significant to our identities than our chromosomes. Women with a disorder of XY chromosomes can live thinking they're normal women without any clue of their disorder.

So, once again, gender is subjective.

Let me ask you: Do you doubt that people of faith feel in their hearts, minds and spirits that God exists, gives them purpose, and makes himself known in various, intangible ways?

Which only means thats how we choose to catagorize them today. Future societies might consider the biological realities of brain chemistry a more determinate feature that reproductive organs. These labels that make sense for scientific cataloging however will never be an excuse for bigotry, hate or marginalization. It might be relevant to a doctor that their patient has chromonal disorder where they have a vagina and XY chromomes or that they are chomosomally male but are a transfemale, it is not relevant for how they ask to be addressed and treated with respect in public.

This all may or may not be true but, given what I know about human nature, I can’t help but think that many of these “transgenders” are just acting out to get attention due to feelings of loneliness or isolation caused by other factors.

I’m not saying this is done consciously; I’m sure it’s subconscious and they may actually think they’re transgender. But given this country’s recent penchant for catering to the latest victim group, I can’t discount that possibility. This is why I simply don’t dwell on it. Put simply, whatever angst transgender people feel is not a priority for me and constitutes a personal problem.

I don’t know any transgender people and as far as I know, have never interacted with any. But I will say that if I do, I will treat them with the same respect and civility as I do with anyone else.

It is. No one thinks its okay for you to call some dick face when they ask you not to just because you want to. Now you can say dick face is an insult but what insults people is subjective and trans people have let it be known that calling them by these pronouns is insulting. You can either be the type of person who respects that or you can be the type of asshole who doesn't but I'm not going to pretend or entertain the notion that there is a scientific excuse for your bigotry. There isn't.

No, it is not a strawman. Some transgenders act like an undesired pronoun is actual suffering. It is not.

That type of suffering is a choice. Depression, anxiety, bullying and various forms of abuse are actual suffering that is thrust upon them.

They are giving voice to issues that affect them and their communities. Thats what politics is all about. Apparently trans people engaging in the same rights as everyone else is triggering to a snowflake little bitch like you. I don't care if you find it divisive.

Oy vey.

You have completely misconstrued what I’ve been saying. But that’s not surprising; most wokists do.

If transgenders are being discriminated against in the workplace or whatever or are being assaulted or are victims of prejudice in any way that violates basic civil rights then by all means, something should be done about that.
But, sorry to say, for me, using the “wrong” pronoun just does not pop up on my radar as real suffering.

Sometimes males with vaginas, sometimes females with testes, sometimes trans men and trans women. Don't be frightened of these realities.

Why would I be frightened?

Or discuss it with them. How does this help gay and trans children?

It doesn’t and wasn’t meant to.

The purpose of the bill was to place the burden and the right of teaching children about sexuality with the parents where it should be.

Of course there are practical reasons. Just because a moron like you can't think of any doesn't mean none exist.

So, what are the practical reasons? Explain to me why this is something that just can’t wait until Grade 5 or 6 or later. Are gays and trans going to die if they don’t?

All the legislation would be evidence to the contrary.

What “all the legislation”, other than the one in Florida, are you referring to?

Besides, I’m not necessarily talking about the politicians, I’m talking about average civilian conservatives. Most don’t give a shit one way or the other.

You triggered Snowflakes are quite amusing.

Yet you’re here stomping the grounds for people who whine about pronouns.

Good. Marginalizing you from the mainstream and pushing your mutant kind to the fringes of society is the goal.

Do I sound marginalized to you?

I for one will never bow down to woke hypocrisy or social causes being promulgated for their own sake.

People like me are not going anywhere.

 

[San Souci]

"An Indiana high school did not break the law by allegedly forcing a music teacher to quit after he refused on religious grounds to use transgender students' preferred names, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Friday."

School's transgender policy trumped teacher's religious rights, US court rules

An Indiana high school did not break the law by allegedly forcing a music teacher to quit after he refused on religious grounds to use transgender students' preferred names, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Friday. Forcing a teacher to quit over his refusal to use transgender students' preferred...

www.reuters.com

Very good.

In fact, this has nothing to do with ‘religious rights’ – one’s subjective religious beliefs don’t ‘justify’ engaging in racism, bigotry, and hate directed at others.

Should go to Supreme Court. These Trannies are SICK fucks.

 

[San Souci]

You mean saying there are two sexes is speaking about them ignorantly?


There IS intent in our biological sexes you nitwit. The intent is procreation.

Nature and evolution devised male and female sexes to effect the procreation and propagation of the species.


No. In transgenderism, a person’s gender is whatever they say it is or whatever they feel it is. In religion, God or the gods, their nature and what they require of us is whatever they say or feel it is.

You’ve been telling me gender is not fixed. That means it is subjective, yes?


You’re not getting off that easily. The more important fact here is that you assumed wrongly where my “ignorance” comes from.

In other words, due to your own ignorance and bigotry, your lazy ass fell back on a tired stereotype.


So, once again, gender is subjective.

Let me ask you: Do you doubt that people of faith feel in their hearts, minds and spirits that God exists, gives them purpose, and makes himself known in various, intangible ways?


This all may or may not be true but, given what I know about human nature, I can’t help but think that many of these “transgenders” are just acting out to get attention due to feelings of loneliness or isolation caused by other factors.

I’m not saying this is done consciously; I’m sure it’s subconscious and they may actually think they’re transgender. But given this country’s recent penchant for catering to the latest victim group, I can’t discount that possibility. This is why I simply don’t dwell on it. Put simply, whatever angst transgender people feel is not a priority for me and constitutes a personal problem.

I don’t know any transgender people and as far as I know, have never interacted with any. But I will say that if I do, I will treat them with the same respect and civility as I do with anyone else.


No, it is not a strawman. Some transgenders act like an undesired pronoun is actual suffering. It is not.

That type of suffering is a choice. Depression, anxiety, bullying and various forms of abuse are actual suffering that is thrust upon them.


Oy vey.

You have completely misconstrued what I’ve been saying. But that’s not surprising; most wokists do.

If transgenders are being discriminated against in the workplace or whatever or are being assaulted or are victims of prejudice in any way that violates basic civil rights then by all means, something should be done about that.
But, sorry to say, for me, using the “wrong” pronoun just does not pop up on my radar as real suffering.


Why would I be frightened?


It doesn’t and wasn’t meant to.

The purpose of the bill was to place the burden and the right of teaching children about sexuality with the parents where it should be.


So, what are the practical reasons? Explain to me why this is something that just can’t wait until Grade 5 or 6 or later. Are gays and trans going to die if they don’t?


What “all the legislation”, other than the one in Florida, are you referring to?

Besides, I’m not necessarily talking about the politicians, I’m talking about average civilian conservatives. Most don’t give a shit one way or the other.


Yet you’re here stomping the grounds for people who whine about pronouns.


Do I sound marginalized to you?

I for one will never bow down to woke hypocrisy or social causes being promulgated for their own sake.

People like me are not going anywhere.

Except Hell. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. AIDS was a warning. This evil will be eradicated by God Himself.

 

[Curried Goats]

You mean saying there are two sexes is speaking about them ignorantly?

No. This is a strawman. You Bingos should learn how to debate without relying on argumentative fallacies. It is your comparison to religion that is ignorant as is your belief that some Trans are just seeking attention and your general misunderstanding on the nature of subjectivity.

There IS intent in our biological sexes you nitwit. The intent is procreation.

That is not intent. That is ability. Many people choose not to procreate, some desire to but because of their biology they are unable to. Are you suggesting there was intent there on the part of nature to prevent those people from procreating?

Nature and evolution devised male and female sexes to effect the procreation and propagation of the species.

It didn't devise or plan anything. We don't claim nature intended to hurl a meteor at us when one impacts the Earth do we?

No. In transgenderism, a person’s gender is whatever they say it is or whatever they feel it is. In religion, God or the gods, their nature and what they require of us is whatever they say or feel it is.

The difference is that our notions of self are tied to our biological make ups. Those feelings stem from biological components. There are studies being conducted that show the volumes and brain patterns of trans people look more like the brains of the gender they identify as than the sex they were assigned at birth. We will probably one day be able to better diagnose trans people with MRIs. There is no such correspondence with religion. We will never be able to look at an MRI and predict someone is Catholic opposed to Muslim or Atheist.

You’ve been telling me gender is not fixed. That means it is subjective, yes?

This where your misunderstanding of the nature of subjectivity becomes clear. Gender is subjective, meaning it is dependent of the perspective of the subject, but those subjects, i.e. people, each have their own objective biological properties. More accurately gender is subjective and objective, just in different ways. Subjective in that it depends on the person and objective in that person is a product of their biology.

You’re not getting off that easily. The more important fact here is that you assumed wrongly where my “ignorance” comes from.

Okay. Big whoop. I assumed wrongly where your ignorance comes from but I wasn't wrong that you are indeed ignorant. Also I am going to get off easily because I'm not going to lose a moments peace over the fact that I assumed your ignorance was religiously inspired. You feel free to stay salty over it.

In other words, due to your own ignorance and bigotry, your lazy ass fell back on a tired stereotype.

I have no problem whatsoever admitting I was ignorant of where your ignorance originates. I don't think ignorance is a dirty word and I fully admit there are many things I'm ignorant about.

So, once again, gender is subjective.

And objective.

Let me ask you: Do you doubt that people of faith feel in their hearts, minds and spirits that God exists, gives them purpose, and makes himself known in various, intangible ways?

No. But those feelings are caused by chemical reactions and hormones and we can induce those same feelings of euphoria and peace people feel from religious ceremony with drugs, with exercise, with sex. Those feelings aren't dependent on religion itself as identity and sexuality are reliant on biological factors.

This all may or may not be true but, given what I know about human nature, I can’t help but think that many of these “transgenders” are just acting out to get attention due to feelings of loneliness or isolation caused by other factors.

What that is is ignorant.

I’m not saying this is done consciously; I’m sure it’s subconscious and they may actually think they’re transgender.

You're not sure of anything by your previous admission, what you are doing is speaking out of literal ignorance.

But given this country’s recent penchant for catering to the latest victim group, I can’t discount that possibility. This is why I simply don’t dwell on it. Put simply, whatever angst transgender people feel is not a priority for me and constitutes a personal problem.

Good for you I guess?

I don’t know any transgender people and as far as I know, have never interacted with any. But I will say that if I do, I will treat them with the same respect and civility as I do with anyone else.

Judging by your pervious comments I'm going to go ahead and seriously doubt that very much but all in all I care very little about how you claim to act in public and more about what you can prove in debate.

No, it is not a strawman. Some transgenders act like an undesired pronoun is actual suffering. It is not.

You can't literally know that. You don't know how people react to vitriol and meaness, biologically.

That type of suffering is a choice. Depression, anxiety, bullying and various forms of abuse are actual suffering that is thrust upon them

Where did you get your medical license?

Oy vey.

You have completely misconstrued what I’ve been saying. But that’s not surprising; most wokists do.

If transgenders are being discriminated against in the workplace or whatever or are being assaulted or are victims of prejudice in any way that violates basic civil rights then by all means, something should be done about that.
But, sorry to say, for me, using the “wrong” pronoun just does not pop up on my radar as real suffering.

Why pretend you're sorry? I don't care if you want to be an asshole. Have at it. I'm debating science, how you comport yourself in public isn't my concern. I'm not your daddy.

Why would I be frightened?

I don't know but you clearly seem to be.

It doesn’t and wasn’t meant to.

The purpose of the bill was to place the burden and the right of teaching children about sexuality with the parents where it should be.

Why is that where it should be? Why shouldn't parents just teach their kids everything then?

So, what are the practical reasons? Explain to me why this is something that just can’t wait until Grade 5 or 6 or later. Are gays and trans going to die if they don’t?

Maybe. Suicide among children is not unheard of but the more common concern is depression and anxiety that can affect their ability to learn or to make friends or to just live a normal happy life. The GOP is so sex obsessed that is all they can think about but as children our relationships are involving. We learn there are biological differences and we start seperating into groups. Boys tend to play with boys and girls with girls. It could be a boy who ends up being gay later in life feels more comfortable playing with girls and is unsure why. I remember a kid like that in my elementary school class and all the other boys picked on him for it, me included. Also before we get to sex we learn to flirt, we develop crushes. I remember my first crushes being in third grade. A part from Ms. Ward who all the boys had a crush on there was Lindsey and me and Lindsey flirted by chasing each other around the play ground and kicking each other's feet under the desk in class. The point is that there are good reasons for educators to want to influence positively, the way students learn and grow into interacting and socializing with one another.

What “all the legislation”, other than the one in Florida, are you referring to?

Well I live in South Florida and have nieces and nephews and god children who go to school down here so it is a more pressing issue for me and while initially this legislation was confined to very young children as we knew and predicted they would the Florida GOP is looking to expand this legislation to all grades, including Highschool.

Besides, I’m not necessarily talking about the politicians, I’m talking about average civilian conservatives. Most don’t give a shit one way or the other.

Culture war nonsense is all they care about.

Yet you’re here stomping the grounds for people who whine about pronouns.

I like to come here to point and laugh at ignorant bigots. Its a leisure activity. What I'm not doing is trying to hinder the lives of my fellow citizens through legislation.

Do I sound marginalized to you?

You sound ignorant to me.

I for one will never bow down to woke hypocrisy or social causes being promulgated for their own sake.

What is a woke policy and isn't the opposite of woke, asleep? How is that better?

People like me are not going anywhere.

You are. Polling data show younger voters are overwhelmingly progressive. Voters 35 and younger break hard for the Democratic Party and we are starting to see their influence in elections especially recently in Wisconsin and Chicago.

 

[JoeMoma]

It is your comparison to religion that is ignorant as is your belief that some Trans are just seeking attention and your general misunderstanding on the nature of subjectivity.

Dylan Mulvaney is just seeking attention IMO. If being trans wasn't bringing him fame and fortune, he probably wouldn't bother.

 

[Curried Goats]

Dylan Mulvaney is just seeking attention IMO. If being trans wasn't bringing him fame and fortune, he probably wouldn't bother.

Who gives a shit about your opinion?

 

[JoeMoma]

Who gives a shit about your opinion?

Your Mama!

 

[Curried Goats]

Your Mama!

Is that who fantasize being relevant to? My mama? Okay. I'll take you at your word that you're desperate for my moms approval.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

No. This is a strawman. You Bingos should learn how to debate without relying on argumentative fallacies.

What fallacies am I guilty of?

It is your comparison to religion that is ignorant

Uh, I’m not the one who made the comparison, C. Clayton did. Remember?

He said that religionists criticize transgenderism based on their subjective religious beliefs. I then said that both are subjective and that’s when you got triggered and told me my comment was ignorant of science.
Since then you’ve been trying to prove transgenderism is not subjective by telling me how subjective gender is relative to the sexes.

Did you forget all this already or have you been too obsessively focused on making me out to be an ignorant Bible-thumping redneck?

as is your belief that some Trans are just seeking attention and your general misunderstanding on the nature of subjectivity.

Sorry but, from what I’ve seen, some are just seeking attention. They may or may not know they are but they are just the same.

That is not intent. That is ability.

That is intent. There is no other purpose for the male/female sexes but procreation and propagation of the species. It is the mechanism that nature devised for this purpose.

As for ability, that is a separate issue. Whether a couple is able to procreate or choose not to is irrelevant to the purpose of the sexes. And if they do decide to procreate, male/female intercourse is the only way they’ll be able to achieve this.

Unless you’re telling me there is a way to procreate without the joining of female egg and male sperm, you’re just going to have to acknowledge this.

Many people choose not to procreate, some desire to but because of their biology they are unable to. Are you suggesting there was intent there on the part of nature to prevent those people from procreating?

Are you suggesting that you’re not aware that nature is not perfect?

The intake of food and nutrients has the purpose of nourishing our bodies to keep us alive. Yet, people and animals starve anyway.

Are you suggesting that if a person starves then that means that food really doesn’t have the purpose of nourishing our bodies?

Your reasoning here is twisted.

It didn't devise or plan anything. We don't claim nature intended to hurl a meteor at us when one impacts the Earth do we?

If you get eaten by a shark, we don’t claim nature intended for you to get eaten by a shark. However, nature did instill the instinct to survive in the shark to eat whatever’s at hand. And so it does.

I suggest you read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.

The difference is that our notions of self are tied to our biological make ups. Those feelings stem from biological components. There are studies being conducted that show the volumes and brain patterns of trans people look more like the brains of the gender they identify as than the sex they were assigned at birth. We will probably one day be able to better diagnose trans people with MRIs. There is no such correspondence with religion. We will never be able to look at an MRI and predict someone is Catholic opposed to Muslim or Atheist.

Another inapt analogy. There have also been studies that show that people of faith are generally happier and more content than people who are not. Therefore, MRI scans of religionists will appear somewhat different than those of people with no faith.

Again, no surprise there.

In fact, here is a link to an article from the government website NCBI (National Center of Biotechnology Information), published in 2009, that shows that MRI scans of people of faith differ from non-religious:

The Neural Correlates of Religious and Nonreligious Belief

This where your misunderstanding of the nature of subjectivity becomes clear. Gender is subjective, meaning it is dependent of the perspective of the subject,

Right, just like religionists. That’s what I’ve been saying the whole time.

but those subjects, i.e. people, each have their own objective biological properties. More accurately gender is subjective and objective, just in different ways. Subjective in that it depends on the person and objective in that person is a product of their biology.

Perhaps. But to what degree is this the case from individual to individual? I’m betting no one knows this yet.

Okay. Big whoop. I assumed wrongly where your ignorance comes from but I wasn't wrong that you are indeed ignorant.

Yes you were. At most we can only say this is your opinion. This means that you may, indeed, be wrong.

Also I am going to get off easily because I'm not going to lose a moments peace over the fact that I assumed your ignorance was religiously inspired. You feel free to stay salty over it.

Feel free to continue to revel in your own prejudices, biases and bigotry.

In your narrow mind and limited understanding of the complexities of human nature, it never occurred to you that an atheist might disagree with you on matters of transgenderism.

You just knew that I must be a Christian because you have preconceived notions of both Christians and atheists.

I have no problem whatsoever admitting I was ignorant of where your ignorance originates. I don't think ignorance is a dirty word and I fully admit there are many things I'm ignorant about.

But you DO have a problem acknowledging that you could be wrong about my supposed ignorance.

And objective.

Objective to what? That’s right, the two sexes.

No. But those feelings are caused by chemical reactions and hormones and we can induce those same feelings of euphoria and peace people feel from religious ceremony with drugs, with exercise, with sex. Those feelings aren't dependent on religion itself as identity and sexuality are reliant on biological factors.

Irrelevant. Don’t people who have sex changes take drugs and hormones to make them look and feel like their preferred gender?

What that is is ignorant.

Young people commit suicide out of desperation to be accepted for Christ’s sake. Why is it so hard to believe that some might adopt a transgender attitude and lifestyle as a way of coping?

I’ll bet you would say this is what Christians do, yes?

Keep in mind here that I am not saying they all do this. I’ve only ever said some. You are the only one here speaking in terms of absolutes.

You're not sure of anything by your previous admission, what you are doing is speaking out of literal ignorance.

If I’m not sure about something, I allow for that. You don’t.

Good for you I guess?

?

Judging by your pervious comments I'm going to go ahead and seriously doubt that very much but all in all I care very little about how you claim to act in public and more about what you can prove in debate.

That’s because you’re incapable of seeing opinions on a messageboard and personal interaction as separate things.

I’m just expressing my views here; they have no bearing on how I interact with people.

You can't literally know that. You don't know how people react to vitriol and meaness, biologically.

Actually, I do. I’ve seen videos of transgenders going off on expletive-filled rants because someone accidently used the wrong pronoun.

One in particular that comes to mind is a video of a transgender going apeshit on a store clerk in an airport somewhere.

Where did you get your medical license?

Where did you get yours?

Why pretend you're sorry? I don't care if you want to be an asshole. Have at it. I'm debating science, how you comport yourself in public isn't my concern. I'm not your daddy.

You’re not debating science else you wouldn’t constantly be denigrating my moral character.

I don't know but you clearly seem to be.

Transgenders don’t scare me, nor do gays or anyone else. Being an atheist, I have no convictions about their lifestyle choices one way or the other. I really don’t give a shit; as I said, their lifestyle has no bearing on my life.

Why is that where it should be? Why shouldn't parents just teach their kids everything then?

Are you saying parents should have no say in what or how their children are taught about social issues? If you’re not then there’s no reason they should be taught about these things in schools at such a young age.

Maybe. Suicide among children is not unheard of but the more common concern is depression and anxiety that can affect their ability to learn or to make friends or to just live a normal happy life. The GOP is so sex obsessed that is all they can think about but as children our relationships are involving. We learn there are biological differences and we start seperating into groups. Boys tend to play with boys and girls with girls. It could be a boy who ends up being gay later in life feels more comfortable playing with girls and is unsure why. I remember a kid like that in my elementary school class and all the other boys picked on him for it, me included. Also before we get to sex we learn to flirt, we develop crushes. I remember my first crushes being in third grade. A part from Ms. Ward who all the boys had a crush on there was Lindsey and me and Lindsey flirted by chasing each other around the play ground and kicking each other's feet under the desk in class. The point is that there are good reasons for educators to want to influence positively, the way students learn and grow into interacting and socializing with one another.

Teaching acceptance of gays and transgenders is fine. Teaching kindergartners about transgenderism and homosexuality and the attendant sex acts is simply not necessary.

Well I live in South Florida and have nieces and nephews and god children who go to school down here so it is a more pressing issue for me and while initially this legislation was confined to very young children as we knew and predicted they would the Florida GOP is looking to expand this legislation to all grades, including Highschool.

So teach them yourself.

Culture war nonsense is all they care about.

Are you a conservative? No? Then how can you possibly know or understand what the typical conservative thinks or feels about these things outside of a few loudmouths on a fucking messageboard?

I like to come here to point and laugh at ignorant bigots. Its a leisure activity. What I'm not doing is trying to hinder the lives of my fellow citizens through legislation.

While stomping the grounds for whiners complaining about pronouns.

You sound ignorant to me.

Everyone sounds ignorant to an ignorant person.

What is a woke policy and isn't the opposite of woke, asleep? How is that better?

I said woke hypocrisy.

You are. Polling data show younger voters are overwhelmingly progressive. Voters 35 and younger break hard for the Democratic Party and we are starting to see their influence in elections especially recently in Wisconsin and Chicago.

That’s not what I asked. I asked if I sound marginalized to you.

 

[Curried Goats]

Uh, I’m not the one who made the comparison, C. Clayton did. Remember?

He said that religionists criticize transgenderism based on their subjective religious beliefs. I then said that both are subjective and that’s when you got triggered and told me my comment was ignorant of science.
Since then you’ve been trying to prove transgenderism is not subjective by telling me how subjective gender is relative to the sexes.

I never read Clayton's original comment I was only responding to your own and your continued misunderstanding of the subjective nature of identity and even more fundamentally the nature of subjectivity itself. It is true that trans identities are subjective but for some reason you have only singled out trans identities as being subjective and have from there concluded that this means they are made up in the same way religion is made up. What you seem to be missing is the fact that all identities are subjective, not just trans identities. Your identity is subjective as is mine. If they weren't we'd be a hive mind, as it is your identity is not my identity and vice versa which makes everyone's identity subjective with respective to everyone else's.

That's one layer of subjectivity. Perspective. The other layer is true or false. You seem to be conflating the two. Let's take something like a sunset for example. Two people with their unique perspectives, biologies and subsequent capabilities might make various conclusions about a sunset that can be both mixtures of subjective and objective. One might conclude the sunset is beautiful and the other might conclude it's ugly. Neither one is wrong in their assessment. It's not a matter of true or false. Objectively they can look at the same sunset and subjectively one can feel inspired and the other unimpressed. Their perspectives and biologies allows for that variation. There's also the layer of true and false. Maybe one believes the sunset is caused by the Earth's rotation and the other believes an invisible pegasus sent from the heavens comes and fetches the sun every night. One of those beliefs is based in objective observation and can be verified with experimentation while the other is entirely made up. It might also be an objective fact however that the man who believes in the made up pegasus theory of sunsets genuinely finds them to be beautiful because of this made up belief even though that underlying belief is objectively false. Objectivity and subjectivity get woven into how we talk about feelings, experiences and observations and it can get a little confusing.

With all that said hopefully we can discuss and debate transgenderism and gender indentity in a way that provides more context for how we are each using these terms because there is nuance to the ways im which transgenderism and gender identity are both objective and subjective.

First the subjective. There is a common phrase that I'm sure you've heard that goes something like gender is a social construct, i.e. subjective. What does that mean exactly? Well it is referring to societal and individual notions of masculinity or feminitity. These ideas can vary person to person or culture to culture. I'm a child of divorce and even though both of my fathers are Jamaican, around the same age, grew up in similar towns going to similar schools, they both had different ideas of what it meant to be a man. I got two wildly different and entertaining "talks" when it came to the topic of sex. One full of machismo and lust the other concerned with honesty and companionship. When people talk about gender non conformity they are referring to subverting these subjective ideas about how a man or woman or gentleman and lady are supposed to behave or dress and comport themselves. It is entirley subjective. There is no one objectively correct way men and women are supposed to act or behave or dress. In one society it might be manly to great your male friends by kissing them on both cheeks and others not so much. In another society you might get punched for attempting that.

As for the objective side that would be the transgendered people who feel an incongruity between their identity and their assigned sex at birth. Even though we tend to talk about transgendered people and gender non conformists (who don't wish to live by societies subjective notions of masculinity or feminity) in the same discussions they really aren't the same thing. The gender non conformists are like the people with different feelings towards the sunset. Is it beautiful, is it ugly? There is no right answer. The people who feel they were born in the wrong body are more like the people making an observation about the objective nature of the sunset. They are acknowledging objectively that there are biological differences between males and females, between XX chromosomes and XY chromosomes and between male sex organs and female sex organs and they are claiming to feel an incongruity with these biological traits and their sense of self. You can't get that incongruity if you don't acknowledge something is off. They aren't claiming notions of biological sex are subjective, they are saying there are objective differences in male and female bodies and they feel they were born in the wrong one and while it might sound as wild as the theory that an invisible pegasus is responsible for the sun setting unlike the pegasus believers there is actually objective evidence to support their claim.

That is intent. There is no other purpose for the male/female sexes but procreation and propagation of the species. It is the mechanism that nature devised for this purpose.

As for ability, that is a separate issue.

Are you suggesting that you’re not aware that nature is not perfect?

Your reasoning here is twisted.

I suggest you read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.

I suggest you re-read the title. Its called The Blind Watchmaker. When Dawkins and others talk about the purpose of life being to pass on genes they are speaking metaphorically. Dawkins doesn't think genes or evolution has intent. That's not how evolution or natural selection works. Life is a chemical process that has been playing out according to physics in the same way planets moving around the sun are behaving according to the laws of physics that dictate gravity and motion. There is no intent in either though there is a tendency to mistake intent when it comes to life because we see so many animals and fauna that are adapted to their environment that we think evolution must be a visionary watchmaker but Dawkins is telling you no, he's actually blind. We don't evolve to suit our environment and our cells and genes undergo random mutation not because nature is imperfect but because randomness is an inherent feature of our universe. We develop natural mutations and maybe they help us survive better in our environment and maybe they don't. You are only seeing the results of other successful mutations. Here's a short 4:30 minute video explaining it better than I am hopefully.

Another inapt analogy. There have also been studies that show that people of faith are generally happier and more content than people who are not. Therefore, MRI scans of religionists will appear somewhat different than those of people with no faith.

Well obviously. The brains of people who are happy are going to be showing activity in the area of the brain that governs happiness where as the brains of people who aren't happy will not be showing any activity in that area. You can do the same thing with pain or pleasure. That wasn't my point. We observe functional differences in male and female brains and in trans brains as we start to look at them under MRIs we are seeing a shift from the brain of the sex they were assigned at birth towards the brains of the sex they identify with.

Transgender brains more closely resemble brains of the sex they align with, rather than what they were born with

Again, no surprise there.

In fact, here is a link to an article from the government website NCBI (National Center of Biotechnology Information), published in 2009, that shows that MRI scans of people of faith differ from non-religious:

The Neural Correlates of Religious and Nonreligious Belief

Your link does not say that. In fact it says the exact opposite.

Our study was designed to produce high concordance on nonreligious stimuli (e.g., “Eagles really exist”) and high discordance on religious stimuli (e.g., “Angels really exist”). The fact that we found essentially the same signal maps for belief minus disbelief in both groups, on both categories of content, argues strongly for the content-independence of belief and disbelief as cognitive processes. Despite the fact that religious believers and nonbelievers accepted and rejected diametrically opposite statements in half of our experimental trials, the same neural systems were engaged in both groups throughout. This would seem to rule out the possibility that these results could be explained by any property of the stimuli apart from their being deemed “true” or “false” by the subjects in our study. The involvement of the VMPFC for belief is consistent with our earlier findings.

In your narrow mind and limited understanding of the complexities of human nature, it never occurred to you that an atheist might disagree with you on matters of transgenderism.

Of course it occurs to me that even other atheists might disagree with me on other topics or even on the nature of atheism itself. I just found it more likely that I'd get disagreement from religious believers. As I said previously I was playing the odds and have no problem admitting my assumption earlier about you being an ignorant religious nut was wrong. You're an ignorant atheist. Congratulations.

But you DO have a problem acknowledging that you could be wrong about my supposed ignorance.

I don't have any problem acknowledging I was wrong about the nature of your ignorance.

Irrelevant. Don’t people who have sex changes take drugs and hormones to make them look and feel like their preferred gender?

To alleviate the dysphoria they feel.

Young people commit suicide out of desperation to be accepted for Christ’s sake. Why is it so hard to believe that some might adopt a transgender attitude and lifestyle as a way of coping?

Because I don't typically believe things people provide no evidence for. You seem to be a rather shitty atheist if I'm being honest. But that's just my opinion.

Keep in mind here that I am not saying they all do this. I’ve only ever said some. You are the only one here speaking in terms of absolutes.

You hedging your bet isn't going to make me forget the fact that you provided no evidence to support your claim. Why should I take your word for it any more than I would take the word of someone who told me to believe in God without proof? I will believe as much of your claim as you can prove with evidence.

Actually, I do. I’ve seen videos of transgenders going off on expletive-filled rants because someone accidently used the wrong pronoun.

And? I've seen people go off on video because someone wished them happy holidays instead of merry Christmas but I don't know what the relevance of that it to this debate.

You’re not debating science else you wouldn’t constantly be denigrating my moral character.

That is simply for my own amusement.

Are you saying parents should have no say in what or how their children are taught about social issues? If you’re not then there’s no reason they should be taught about these things in schools at such a young age.

No. I'm asking you why you are drawing the line at socializing.

Teaching acceptance of gays and transgenders is fine. Teaching kindergartners about transgenderism and homosexuality and the attendant sex acts is simply not necessary.

Nothing is necessary. It isn't necessary to teach children anything. It may be prudent to teach them some things though. Things like how to manage your attraction to your fellow classmates. How to deal with rejection. What do healthy intimate relationships look like? Why is that any of that less important than math? Intimacy is kind of a big deal in human life.

Are you a conservative? No? Then how can you possibly know or understand what the typical conservative thinks or feels about these things outside of a few loudmouths on a fucking messageboard?

I have the power of observation.

I said woke hypocrisy.

What is woke hypocrisy? What does woke even mean to you? It started in the Black community and was about waking up to the propaganda that perpetuates white supremacist ideology and culture. An example of that would be looking at our Founders and our founding with objective eyes rather than rose tinted glasses. When I was in grade school I was taught George Washington fought for liberty and justice against the tyranny of taxation without representation. In reality Washington was a slaver not a liberator. He was an aristocrat looking to break free from the shackles of a system that would always see him beneath the status of a King. The Decleration of Independence?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

You're an atheist, do we have unalienable rights endowed to us by our creator? No. Of course not. No one has an unalienable right to life and the Founders for all their rhetoric certainly didn't operate that way. They denied most adults the right to vote or have any say in politics. Most voting was restricted to White male land owners except in rare occasions. If you want to talk about woke hypocrisy that's some objectively woke hypocrisy right there.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I never read Clayton's original comment I was only responding to your own and your continued misunderstanding of the subjective nature of identity and even more fundamentally the nature of subjectivity itself. It is true that trans identities are subjective but for some reason you have only singled out trans identities as being subjective

Wrong. To begin with, if you saw my comment then you should have seen his quoted comment that I was responding to in the same post. Secondly, C. Clayton singled out religion as being subjective. I said they were BOTH subjective. That’s where you came in.

and have from there concluded that this means they are made up in the same way religion is made up.

I never used the term “made up”, I only said their gender is subjective to whatever they say or feel it is.

I did say that I believe some use it as a way to get attention and I still believe this. I believe this because I know that the manner, motive, reasons and nature of transgenderism varies from individual to individual.
How a person arrives at transgenderism is not the same for every one of them. Human nature and culture is much too complex to make such a simplistic claim.

What you seem to be missing is the fact that all identities are subjective, not just trans identities. Your identity is subjective as is mine. If they weren't we'd be a hive mind, as it is your identity is not my identity and vice versa which makes everyone's identity subjective with respective to everyone else's.

In much the same way that Christians’ identity and beliefs are subjective.

That's one layer of subjectivity. Perspective. The other layer is true or false. You seem to be conflating the two. Let's take something like a sunset for example. Two people with their unique perspectives, biologies and subsequent capabilities might make various conclusions about a sunset that can be both mixtures of subjective and objective. One might conclude the sunset is beautiful and the other might conclude it's ugly. Neither one is wrong in their assessment. It's not a matter of true or false. Objectively they can look at the same sunset and subjectively one can feel inspired and the other unimpressed. Their perspectives and biologies allows for that variation. There's also the layer of true and false. Maybe one believes the sunset is caused by the Earth's rotation and the other believes an invisible pegasus sent from the heavens comes and fetches the sun every night. One of those beliefs is based in objective observation and can be verified with experimentation while the other is entirely made up. It might also be an objective fact however that the man who believes in the made up pegasus theory of sunsets genuinely finds them to be beautiful because of this made up belief even though that underlying belief is objectively false. Objectivity and subjectivity get woven into how we talk about feelings, experiences and observations and it can get a little confusing.

Here’s the thing, while people may have differing views about the meaning of sunsets, there is an objective reason for them: the Earth spins on its axis so the Sun “sets” in the west and the oblique angle of the sun relative to your position means the Sun’s rays are filtered through a wider band of the atmosphere (with its dust and other particles) creating the more vibrant colors.

Much in the same way that most people are biologically one sex or the other but their identified gender is relative to this.

With all that said hopefully we can discuss and debate transgenderism and gender indentity in a way that provides more context for how we are each using these terms because there is nuance to the ways im which transgenderism and gender identity are both objective and subjective.

First the subjective. There is a common phrase that I'm sure you've heard that goes something like gender is a social construct, i.e. subjective. What does that mean exactly? Well it is referring to societal and individual notions of masculinity or feminitity. These ideas can vary person to person or culture to culture. I'm a child of divorce and even though both of my fathers are Jamaican, around the same age, grew up in similar towns going to similar schools, they both had different ideas of what it meant to be a man. I got two wildly different and entertaining "talks" when it came to the topic of sex. One full of machismo and lust the other concerned with honesty and companionship. When people talk about gender non conformity they are referring to subverting these subjective ideas about how a man or woman or gentleman and lady are supposed to behave or dress and comport themselves. It is entirley subjective. There is no one objectively correct way men and women are supposed to act or behave or dress. In one society it might be manly to great your male friends by kissing them on both cheeks and others not so much. In another society you might get punched for attempting that.

As for the objective side that would be the transgendered people who feel an incongruity between their identity and their assigned sex at birth. Even though we tend to talk about transgendered people and gender non conformists (who don't wish to live by societies subjective notions of masculinity or feminity) in the same discussions they really aren't the same thing. The gender non conformists are like the people with different feelings towards the sunset. Is it beautiful, is it ugly? There is no right answer. The people who feel they were born in the wrong body are more like the people making an observation about the objective nature of the sunset. They are acknowledging objectively that there are biological differences between males and females, between XX chromosomes and XY chromosomes and between male sex organs and female sex organs and they are claiming to feel an incongruity with these biological traits and their sense of self. You can't get that incongruity if you don't acknowledge something is off. They aren't claiming notions of biological sex are subjective, they are saying there are objective differences in male and female bodies and they feel they were born in the wrong one and while it might sound as wild as the theory that an invisible pegasus is responsible for the sun setting unlike the pegasus believers there is actually objective evidence to support their claim.

There seems to be a contradiction here. On the one hand, the transgender person is not quite sure as to just what sex or gender they are and that this is a source of confusion and anxiety. On the other hand the transgender person is certain of their identity and prefers one sex or gender over the other, thus the conflicts over pronouns.

If one is not sure of their gender identity to begin with then I don’t understand the issue with pronouns.

I suggest you re-read the title. Its called The Blind Watchmaker. When Dawkins and others talk about the purpose of life being to pass on genes they are speaking metaphorically. Dawkins doesn't think genes or evolution has intent. That's not how evolution or natural selection works. Life is a chemical process that has been playing out according to physics in the same way planets moving around the sun are behaving according to the laws of physics that dictate gravity and motion. There is no intent in either though there is a tendency to mistake intent when it comes to life because we see so many animals and fauna that are adapted to their environment that we think evolution must be a visionary watchmaker but Dawkins is telling you no, he's actually blind. We don't evolve to suit our environment and our cells and genes undergo random mutation not because nature is imperfect but because randomness is an inherent feature of our universe. We develop natural mutations and maybe they help us survive better in our environment and maybe they don't. You are only seeing the results of other successful mutations. Here's a short 4:30 minute video explaining it better than I am hopefully.

I understand all this. But the fact remains that male/female intercourse is how genes are passed on and there is no other way this is done.

Well obviously. The brains of people who are happy are going to be showing activity in the area of the brain that governs happiness where as the brains of people who aren't happy will not be showing any activity in that area. You can do the same thing with pain or pleasure. That wasn't my point. We observe functional differences in male and female brains and in trans brains as we start to look at them under MRIs we are seeing a shift from the brain of the sex they were assigned at birth towards the brains of the sex they identify with.

The question is: are these differences hardwired or are they a result of lifestyle choices and adopted thinking processes?

Transgender brains more closely resemble brains of the sex they align with, rather than what they were born with

Your link does not say that. In fact it says the exact opposite.

Our study was designed to produce high concordance on nonreligious stimuli (e.g., “Eagles really exist”) and high discordance on religious stimuli (e.g., “Angels really exist”). The fact that we found essentially the same signal maps for belief minus disbelief in both groups, on both categories of content, argues strongly for the content-independence of belief and disbelief as cognitive processes. Despite the fact that religious believers and nonbelievers accepted and rejected diametrically opposite statements in half of our experimental trials, the same neural systems were engaged in both groups throughout. This would seem to rule out the possibility that these results could be explained by any property of the stimuli apart from their being deemed “true” or “false” by the subjects in our study. The involvement of the VMPFC for belief is consistent with our earlier findings.

Of course the same neural systems were engaged.

Of course it occurs to me that even other atheists might disagree with me on other topics or even on the nature of atheism itself. I just found it more likely that I'd get disagreement from religious believers.

“More likely” does not mean it is true in every case.

You assumed that I was a Bible-thumping Christian, which was incorrect and prejudiced to begin with. But then you doubled down by implying my education was lacking; that I was educated in a trailer. On top of all this, you assumed I was lying when I said I would treat a transgender with the same respect as I would anyone else.

You’re the only one here committing ad hominem attacks. Congratulations.

As I said previously I was playing the odds and have no problem admitting my assumption earlier about you being an ignorant religious nut was wrong. You're an ignorant atheist. Congratulations.

You were wrong about both. Congratulations.

I don't have any problem acknowledging I was wrong about the nature of your ignorance.

Like I said, you can’t acknowledge you could be wrong about my supposed ignorance.

To alleviate the dysphoria they feel.

But it’s drugs and hormones to induce those feelings just the same, correct?

Because I don't typically believe things people provide no evidence for.

Do you really require evidence that people are different from person to person? That their different and varied experiences might be a factor in one transgender’s views on his/her gender or sexuality being slightly different from another’s?

You seem to be a rather shitty atheist if I'm being honest. But that's just my opinion.

What is required to be an atheist beyond a lack of belief in God?

This is yet another example of your subjective preconceived notions about groups of people.

You just discovered in this discussion that individuals from a given group (in this case, atheists) do not necessarily agree with or think the same as all others from that group and yet you still can’t accept that some transgenders may have different reasons for identifying as transgender than others.

You hedging your bet isn't going to make me forget the fact that you provided no evidence to support your claim.

I’m not “hedging my bet”, I’m being realistic. In fact, I would go as far as to say that some transgenders probably don’t give a shit about the issue of pronouns.

Why should I take your word for it any more than I would take the word of someone who told me to believe in God without proof? I will believe as much of your claim as you can prove with evidence.

You haven’t provided evidence either. You’ve given me MRI scans which don’t tell the whole story.

You behave as if we fully understand transgenderism and that MRI scans explain everything. We do not and it does not.

And? I've seen people go off on video because someone wished them happy holidays instead of merry Christmas but I don't know what the relevance of that it to this debate.

I said: “Some transgenders act as if the wrong pronoun is suffering. It is not.”

You said: “You can't literally know that. You don't know how people react to vitriol and meaness, biologically.”

I then gave you an example of some transgender person flying off the handle over pronoun misuse. Given that this actually happened, I now know for a fact that some transgenders overreact to this sort of thing. In other words, they make out like they’re suffering when they are not.

The cashier in this case was not even trying to insult or disrespect the guy but he lost his shit anyway.

Remember, taking personal offense at something like this is always a choice. Therefore, being insulted by a pronoun gets no sympathy from me.
Be an adult and civilly and respectfully inform the person of your preference. Going off on a rant will never engender the kind of understanding you seek.

That is simply for my own amusement.

What was it you said to me? Oh yes: “I don't know what the relevance of that it to this debate.”

You’re full of shit.

No. I'm asking you why you are drawing the line at socializing.

I’m not. I’m drawing the line at government schools teaching kids about other-sexuality when they are too young to understand the concepts and should be focusing on development courses such as reading and creativity.

It’s not just the teaching of these things that parents are concerned with; it’s also the way these things are taught.

As an example, I was having a conversation with two coworkers just this evening about this very topic. One of them said he had a health teacher in high school tell them during sex education that the female reproductive system is more advanced because it is internal whereas the male’s is external (penis).

Wait, what?

Point is, you never know when a teacher might inject their own biases and viewpoints into their teachings that may not accord with the parents’ views on the matter and that they don’t want taught to their kids.

Especially on such current and divisive issues as transgenderism or CRT.

Nothing is necessary. It isn't necessary to teach children anything. It may be prudent to teach them some things though. Things like how to manage your attraction to your fellow classmates. How to deal with rejection. What do healthy intimate relationships look like? Why is that any of that less important than math? Intimacy is kind of a big deal in human life.

That’s not a school’s job. Besides, we see how some schools handle the issue of bullying. Far too many avoid the fact that it happens or simply sweep it under the rug when it does. Next thing you know, some fourteen year old girl commits suicide.

Schools and teachers are no better at teaching about these issues than parents.

I have the power of observation.

So do I. So?

What is woke hypocrisy?

Woke hypocrisy is, among other things, preaching acceptance and understanding while -as you yourself said - marginalizing an entire group of people for having different opinions.

Woke hypocrisy is redefining the word “racism” and pretending it was always defined this way.

Woke hypocrisy is looking at a burning building and calling it a “peaceful protest”.

It is a woman being considered for a Supreme Court position because she’s a black woman and yet she can’t define what a woman is.

It is championing the rights and free speech of groups like gays and transgenders while at the same time shutting and shouting down conservative speakers and groups on college campuses.

It is vilifying white slave traders while at the same time ignoring or denying the fact that African slaves were often sold to white slavers by other Africans.

It’s preaching that transgenderism is not subjective while arguing that gender is subjective.

It is telling your debate opponent that his comment is not relevant to the debate and then turning right around and saying some of your own comments are for your own amusement.

It is lecturing about deliberately offending people while at the same time deliberately insulting their intelligence, level of education and moral character.

Shall I go on?

What does woke even mean to you?

See above.

It started in the Black community and was about waking up to the propaganda that perpetuates white supremacist ideology and culture. An example of that would be looking at our Founders and our founding with objective eyes rather than rose tinted glasses. When I was in grade school I was taught George Washington fought for liberty and justice against the tyranny of taxation without representation. In reality Washington was a slaver not a liberator. He was an aristocrat looking to break free from the shackles of a system that would always see him beneath the status of a King. The Decleration of Independence?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

I know where the term comes from and I know the history of the U.S..

But I have to ask: Are you an American citizen and/or do you live here?

You're an atheist, do we have unalienable rights endowed to us by our creator? No. Of course not. No one has an unalienable right to life and the Founders for all their rhetoric certainly didn't operate that way. They denied most adults the right to vote or have any say in politics. Most voting was restricted to White male land owners except in rare occasions. If you want to talk about woke hypocrisy that's some objectively woke hypocrisy right there.

Yes, it IS hypocrisy. So is the answer to hypocrisy more hypocrisy?

 

[Curried Goats]

I never used the term “made up”, I only said their gender is subjective to whatever they say or feel it is.

You implied it was made up when you compared it to religion and you continue to be confused by the way it which identity is subjective. It's the tenents of religion that are made up, the belief in it could absolutely be genuine. It is an objective fact that we are individuals with independent thoughts and feelings. This is identity. That people have an identity is an objective fact. Its subjective in that our identities are individual, but its an objective fact that we each have our own thoughts and feelings that make up our own unique identities.

Objectively people feel what they feel even if those feelings are influenced by things that aren't real like religion. You can't turn your feelings off anymore than you can switch your eyesight to infrared. Trans people genuinely feel how they feel and when bigots talk about biology and sex characteristics being more important than how people feel then they are ignoring the biology of the brain and identity.

I did say that I believe some use it as a way to get attention and I still believe this. I believe this because I know that the manner, motive, reasons and nature of transgenderism varies from individual to individual.

That just sounds like an excuse for bigotry.

How a person arrives at transgenderism is not the same for every one of them. Human nature and culture is much too complex to make such a simplistic claim.

Its not a religious belief. It's not synonymous with people across different cultures and societies adopting a belief in christianity. It's biology which makes it a lot more like sexuality. People are born that way.

In much the same way that Christians’ identity and beliefs are subjective.

Only if we're talking about gender the social construct and not transgenderism the biological incongruity between the brain and biological sex.

Here’s the thing, while people may have differing views about the meaning of sunsets, there is an objective reason for them: the Earth spins on its axis so the Sun “sets” in the west and the oblique angle of the sun relative to your position means the Sun’s rays are filtered through a wider band of the atmosphere (with its dust and other particles) creating the more vibrant colors.

Much in the same way that most people are biologically one sex or the other but their identified gender is relative to this.

Your sense of self is influenced by your brain not your gentitals. You could lose your genitals like you could lose your foot or an eye and you'd still be you. You might be an angrier or sadder you but still you. It's brain damage and brain disorders that can competely change personality.

There seems to be a contradiction here. On the one hand, the transgender person is not quite sure as to just what sex or gender they are and that this is a source of confusion and anxiety. On the other hand the transgender person is certain of their identity and prefers one sex or gender over the other, thus the conflicts over pronouns.

If one is not sure of their gender identity to begin with then I don’t understand the issue with pronouns.

Who said they aren't sure of who they are? You are confusing gender non conformists with the transgendered. The transgendered know the difference between male bodies and female bodies and feel that they were born in the wrong one. That has to do with biology. Socially, they might also be gender non conformist but that doesn't have anything to do with biology. It has to do with cultural ideas of how men and women are supposed to act and behave. Russell Westbrook knows he's male and he likes to wear dresses. There's nothing about wearing dresses that is incongruent with being a biological male. What it confronts are social ideas of manliness.

I understand all this. But the fact remains that male/female intercourse is how genes are passed on and there is no other way this is done.

I'm fine with that statement. That speaks to ability as I previously said. There is nothing of intent or purpose. Your previous attempt to argue intent and purpose was to excuse trans bigotry. I likened people who refused to accept trans people for who they were as bigots attacking people for being born left handed and you argued that that was nonsense because people aren't supposed to be right or left handed but they are supposed to be male or female. Now we finally both acknowledge this as being a scientifically ignorant statement. We aren't suppose to be anything. We simply are who we are because of biology and nature. Mutation and random chance play their role and what we get is a range of possibilities for biological human constructs. People can be born right handed, left handed, gay, straight, bi sexual, asexual, intersexed, female, infertile, trans.... none of these are biologically inconsistent with human physiology and they certainly don't excuse hate or bigotry.

The question is: are these differences hardwired or are they a result of lifestyle choices and adopted thinking processes?

Bigots asks questions they never intend to answer themselves and if they do they certainly never provide any supporting evidence for the answers they give.

But it’s drugs and hormones to induce those feelings just the same, correct?

No. Puberty blockers and hormone treatments aren't mood enhancers. One blocks the effects of puberty and the other administers sex hormone (testosterone or estrogen) to encourage physiological development more in line with the gender they identify with.

Do you really require evidence that people are different from person to person? That their different and varied experiences might be a factor in one transgender’s views on his/her gender or sexuality being slightly different from another’s?

I require evidence when you make the claim that some are just doing it for attention or because of depression. Those also just sound like excuses for bigotry.

What is required to be an atheist beyond a lack of belief in God?

This is yet another example of your subjective preconceived notions about groups of people.

Skepticism is what I typically associate with atheism which is why I find it strange that you seem confused about my skepticism of your claims.

You just discovered in this discussion that individuals from a given group (in this case, atheists) do not necessarily agree with or think the same as all others from that group and yet you still can’t accept that some transgenders may have different reasons for identifying as transgender than others.

May this and may that is incredibly wishy washy and not a convincing reason for me to believe anything. How about you try constructing an argument supported by evidence.

I’m not “hedging my bet”, I’m being realistic. In fact, I would go as far as to say that some transgenders probably don’t give a shit about the issue of pronouns.

Which would prove what exactly?

You haven’t provided evidence either. You’ve given me MRI scans which don’t tell the whole story.

You behave as if we fully understand transgenderism and that MRI scans explain everything. We do not and it does not.

I provided MRI scans from studies that show, objectively, that the brains of the trans people in those studies were shifted away from what we would normally see in the brains of the sex they were assigned to at birth and towards the brains of the sex they identify with. I don't know anything about any Whole Story. This is more argumentative fallacy nonsense. A red herring. Under what premise was I obligated to provide you the whole story, whatever that is? I provided evidence of trans brains being different than the brains of cis gendered people. Do you have anything to say on the findings of that study or are you content to rest your argument on the faulty logic that it doesn't tell the whole story (which you haven't even defined) and therefore we can ignore the story it did tell?

I said: “Some transgenders act as if the wrong pronoun is suffering. It is not.”

That is your opinion and is entirely subjective.

You said: “You can't literally know that. You don't know how people react to vitriol and meaness, biologically.”

I then gave you an example of some transgender person flying off the handle over pronoun misuse. Given that this actually happened, I now know for a fact that some transgenders overreact to this sort of thing. In other words, they make out like they’re suffering when they are not.

Its your opinion that they over reacted, its not a biological fact that they didn't suffer from what they perceived as hateful or bigoted comments. You haven't even defined what suffering is in this context. If their feelings are hurt does that not count as suffering?

The cashier in this case was not even trying to insult or disrespect the guy but he lost his shit anyway.

As we established previously and even as the study you linked to previously proved, something doesn't have to be objectively true for people to perceive it that way.

Remember, taking personal offense at something like this is always a choice.

How peoples comments trigger emotional responses in your body however is not. If someone's comments make you angry or hurt your feelings you can decide to respond in kind or you can let it roll off your back but you can't turn off the mechanism that causes you to feel a type of way to those words any more than you can turn your ear on and off so you don't have to listen to them.

Therefore, being insulted by a pronoun gets no sympathy from me.

And your ignorance and bigotry get no sympathy from me.

Be an adult and civilly and respectfully inform the person of your preference. Going off on a rant will never engender the kind of understanding you seek.

Educate yourself before you come here and spout scientifically ignorant claims like an over confident Bingo.

I’m not. I’m drawing the line at government schools teaching kids about other-sexuality when they are too young to understand the concepts and should be focusing on development courses such as reading and creativity.

Intimacy isn't just about sex. Kids have crushes in school. They deal with attraction and rejection. They hold hands, they kiss, they experiment because these are natural human developments. Someone should be making sure we prepare them for these inevitabilities.

It’s not just the teaching of these things that parents are concerned with; it’s also the way these things are taught.

Give me an example of a way its being taught that you disagree with.

As an example, I was having a conversation with two coworkers just this evening about this very topic. One of them said he had a health teacher in high school tell them during sex education that the female reproductive system is more advanced because it is internal whereas the male’s is external (penis).

Something other than an ancedote since we don't really know the accuracy or context of those comments.

Wait, what?

Point is, you never know when a teacher might inject their own biases and viewpoints into their teachings that may not accord with the parents’ views on the matter and that they don’t want taught to their kids.

It's impossible not to inject our biases into things, we're only human after all. As adults we should be willing to discuss what biases we think are inappropriate or counter productive and why.

Especially on such current and divisive issues as transgenderism or CRT.

I get that bigots are afraid of these things like segregationists of last century were afraid of racial mixing but are their concerns valid or are they simply bigoted? Divisive doesn't mean much to me. Should it matter that racist bigots find it divisive to suggest that black and white kids go to school together?

That’s not a school’s job. Besides, we see how some schools handle the issue of bullying. Far too many avoid the fact that it happens or simply sweep it under the rug when it does. Next thing you know, some fourteen year old girl commits suicide.

It is societies job to put bigots in their place. At least in the society I want to live in.

Schools and teachers are no better at teaching about these issues than parents.

If that were true then people would be paying them to do it. Should I expect parents to be as good at other professions they weren't trained or educated in just because they're parents? Is that the logic we're (I mean you, sarcastically) going with?

Woke hypocrisy is, among other things, preaching acceptance and understanding while -as you yourself said - marginalizing an entire group of people for having different opinions.

Is that the premise of woke? To be universally accepting? I don't think it is. As I said it started in the black community as a word to describe the awakening to white supremacist idealogy and its insideous influence on our culture, society and laws.

And who's being marginalized and how?

Woke hypocrisy is redefining the word “racism” and pretending it was always defined this way.

You mean individuals get to have their own individual ideas of what is or isn't racist? Oh no!

Woke hypocrisy is looking at a burning building and calling it a “peaceful protest”.

No that's just lying.

It is a woman being considered for a Supreme Court position because she’s a black woman and yet she can’t define what a woman is.

Can you?

It is championing the rights and free speech of groups like gays and transgenders while at the same time shutting and shouting down conservative speakers and groups on college campuses.

That's not a violation of their free speech. The right to free speech isn't the same as a right to an audience or a respectful audience. It's also not their right to post on social media as those websites aren't their private property or the public square.

It is vilifying white slave traders while at the same time ignoring or denying the fact that African slaves were often sold to white slavers by other Africans.

Only one group of people vilifies one and not the other. They would be the Founder idolaters. Where have I made excuses for African slavers? Or asian slavers? Or Spanish slavers? I can say right now without any problem whatsoever that I think all slavers, past and present, future, were, are and will be human pieces of shit, in my opinion. How about you?

It’s preaching that transgenderism is not subjective while arguing that gender is subjective.

I can't help that you appear too stupid to grasp the nuanced distinctions.

It is telling your debate opponent that his comment is not relevant to the debate and then turning right around and saying some of your own comments are for your own amusement.

Its called honesty. My insults aren't arguments and I wouldn't want them to be mistaken for them.

It is lecturing about deliberately offending people while at the same time deliberately insulting their intelligence, level of education and moral character.

From my perspective you're insulting people because they were born left handed and I'm insulting you because you are choosing to be a bigot.

Shall I go on?

Feel free to Snowflake, your tears don't bother me.

I know where the term comes from and I know the history of the U.S..

But I have to ask: Are you an American citizen and/or do you live here?

I am and I do. My parents immigrated here in the 80s when my mother was pregnant with me and I was both in Miami where I currently still live. Well Pembroke Pines but increasingly that's the same difference.

Yes, it IS hypocrisy. So is the answer to hypocrisy more hypocrisy?

What hypocrisy? The imagined hypocrisy where I had all this love for African slavers? Where have you proved any hypocrisy on my part?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

You implied it was made up when you compared it to religion and you continue to be confused by the way it which identity is subjective.

I never said religion was made up either so that one doesn’t wash.

It's the tenents of religion that are made up, the belief in it could absolutely be genuine.

Maybe, maybe not. But we’re talking about the things each side claims they feel.

It is an objective fact that we are individuals with independent thoughts and feelings.

Exactly. If you know this then I don’t understand your refusal to acknowledge the possibility that beliefs, motives, reasons, etc. may be different from trans person to trans person.

This is identity. That people have an identity is an objective fact. Its subjective in that our identities are individual, but its an objective fact that we each have our own thoughts and feelings that make up our own unique identities.

Right. It’s also an objective fact that everyone is biologically male or female.

Objectively people feel what they feel even if those feelings are influenced by things that aren't real like religion. You can't turn your feelings off anymore than you can switch your eyesight to infrared. Trans people genuinely feel how they feel and when bigots talk about biology and sex characteristics being more important than how people feel then they are ignoring the biology of the brain and identity.

Nope. I’ve already acknowledged that these people genuinely feel transgender.

You keep arguing against things I never said.

That just sounds like an excuse for bigotry.

To most wokists like you, every dissenting opinion does.

For people like you, fighting the cause for transgenders is an end unto itself. It is clear to a lot of people that most are just virtue signalling to feel morally superior, which is what you’ve been doing since we started this romp.

Its not a religious belief. It's not synonymous with people across different cultures and societies adopting a belief in christianity. It's biology which makes it a lot more like sexuality. People are born that way.

Perhaps. But some would say that people of faith are born that way.

Only if we're talking about gender the social construct and not transgenderism the biological incongruity between the brain and biological sex.

So then, it iS subjective just as I said.

Your sense of self is influenced by your brain not your gentitals.

And what is the brain influenced by?

You could lose your genitals like you could lose your foot or an eye and you'd still be you. You might be an angrier or sadder you but still you. It's brain damage and brain disorders that can competely change personality.

Genitals are a manifestation of your genetic and hormonal makeup. Which means sex is still male or female even if you lose them.

Who said they aren't sure of who they are? You are confusing gender non conformists with the transgendered.

If either or both identify as other than their biological sex then what’s the difference?

The transgendered know the difference between male bodies and female bodies and feel that they were born in the wrong one. That has to do with biology. Socially, they might also be gender non conformist but that doesn't have anything to do with biology.

You just said I’m confusing transgenderism with gender nonconformism and that transgenders know or feel what gender they are. Now you’re telling me one person can be both.

I'm fine with that statement. That speaks to ability as I previously said. There is nothing of intent or purpose.

There’s no purpose to procreation and propagation of the species?

Your previous attempt to argue intent and purpose was to excuse trans bigotry.

Your moral posturing is getting stale and tiresome.

I likened people who refused to accept trans people for who they were as bigots attacking people for being born left handed and you argued that that was nonsense because people aren't supposed to be right or left handed but they are supposed to be male or female.

Wrong. I never said people were supposed to be male or female. I said everyone is one or the other.

You continue to conflate the things I say and it is disingenuous and dishonest.

Now we finally both acknowledge this as being a scientifically ignorant statement. We aren't suppose to be anything. We simply are who we are because of biology and nature. Mutation and random chance play their role and what we get is a range of possibilities for biological human constructs. People can be born right handed, left handed, gay, straight, bi sexual, asexual, intersexed, female, infertile, trans.... none of these are biologically inconsistent with human physiology and they certainly don't excuse hate or bigotry.

Have I displayed any hate here towards transgenders?

Bigots asks questions they never intend to answer themselves and if they do they certainly never provide any supporting evidence for the answers they give.

I ask questions that I know you can’t answer. I do this to make a point: You don’t understand it any better than I do.

Like I said before, you act as if we have transgenderism figured out but we don’t. We do not yet fully understand why some biological males feel female or vice versa.

You keep throwing around the word “biological” but this does not explain the disconnect between objective biology and abstract thought and feelings in some people.

No. Puberty blockers and hormone treatments aren't mood enhancers. One blocks the effects of puberty and the other administers sex hormone (testosterone or estrogen) to encourage physiological development more in line with the gender they identify with.

So they can be happier.

If they were not unhappy or did not feel incomplete with their biological sex then they wouldn’t feel the need to change it.

I require evidence when you make the claim that some are just doing it for attention or because of depression. Those also just sound like excuses for bigotry.

As I said, every dissenting opinion to you sounds like bigotry. That’s because you’re virtue signalling more than you are actually discussing the topic.

You are a two dimensional thinker who has constructed his own subjective paradigm where every debate of this type is: Agrees with me = woke/ Disagrees with me = bigot.

I’ve already said multiple times that I have no moral convictions one way or the other about transgenders, that they don’t frighten me and that I would treat them with the same respect I would anyone else.
In spite of all this and in spite of telling me yourself that every person is different, it still never occurred to you that I might just be debating from an intellectual, philosophical or scientific standpoint.

You are just as narrow minded as you think I am.

Skepticism is what I typically associate with atheism which is why I find it strange that you seem confused about my skepticism of your claims.

So it’s not enough for you that I am skeptical of your claims? Did that not occur to you either?

May this and may that is incredibly wishy washy and not a convincing reason for me to believe anything. How about you try constructing an argument supported by evidence.

After having just told me that everyone is different, you still can’t acknowledge that transgenders might be different from one another?

Jesus, what a hypocrite.

Which would prove what exactly?

That not all transgenders necessarily think alike. You didn’t get that?

I provided MRI scans from studies that show, objectively, that the brains of the trans people in those studies were shifted away from what we would normally see in the brains of the sex they were assigned

The MRI scans objectively show differences in thought processes. Anything beyond that is pure speculation. We still don’t know why some feel or behave differently from their biological sex.

As I said, you behave as if these MRI scans are the final word on transgenderism but they are most definitely not.

We still don’t fully understand how the brain works or why it works the way it does in other areas and any expert in the field will tell you this.

to at birth and towards the brains of the sex they identify with. I don't know anything about any Whole Story. This is more argumentative fallacy nonsense. A red herring. Under what premise was I obligated to provide you the whole story, whatever that is?

When did I say you were?

I said that you behaved like the MRI scans told the whole story. I didn’t say you were obligated to tell the whole story because I know goddamn well there isn’t one yet and you probably wouldn’t know it or would ignore it if there was.

I provided evidence of trans brains being different than the brains of cis gendered people. Do you have anything to say on the findings of that study

I’ve already made my views on the MRI scans known more than once.

or are you content to rest your argument on the faulty logic that it doesn't tell the whole story

Are you claiming it does?

(which you haven't even defined) and therefore we can ignore the story it did tell?

How can I define that which even science doesn’t know?

That is your opinion and is entirely subjective.

Are you saying that screaming, swearing and throwing shit around is a reasoned, mature response to someone unintentionally using the wrong pronoun?

Its your opinion that they over reacted,

Screaming and cussing and throwing shit is overreacting. My view will never change on that.

its not a biological fact that they didn't suffer from what they perceived as hateful or bigoted comments.

I told you already in my last post it was unintentional. In other words, not hateful or bigoted.

You haven't even defined what suffering is in this context. If their feelings are hurt does that not count as suffering?

It never occurred to you to wonder why the guy in the video “suffered” so much over something so small and unintentional?

How peoples comments trigger emotional responses in your body however is not. If someone's comments make you angry or hurt your feelings you can decide to respond in kind or you can let it roll off your back but you can't turn off the mechanism that causes you to feel a type of way to those words any more than you can turn your ear on and off so you don't have to listen to them.

Actually, you can.

There is no “mechanism” in our brains that triggers responses that we then choose to act or not act on. This implies that others have some control (however limited) to manipulate our own biological responses. They do not.

As I said before, reactions (and being triggered) are always a choice. Always.

You can choose to be triggered or you can choose to accept the reality that the other person is either ignorant, misinformed, unaware, has his/her own insecurites or is just being an asshole to be an asshole.

And your ignorance and bigotry get no sympathy from me.

Why would one need sympathy as a bigot?

Educate yourself before you come here and spout scientifically ignorant claims like an over confident Bingo.

Do you seriously think one comparitive MRI test makes you educated on the subject of transgenders?

Intimacy isn't just about sex. Kids have crushes in school. They deal with attraction and rejection. They hold hands, they kiss, they experiment because these are natural human developments. Someone should be making sure we prepare them for these inevitabilities.

Yes, parents.

Give me an example of a way its being taught that you disagree with.

I never claimed it was being taught in a way I disagree with.

Something other than an ancedote since we don't really know the accuracy or context of those comments.

You dumbass. There IS no context where the female reproductive system is more advanced than the male’s.

Jesus Christ, you’re just arguing to argue at this point.

It's impossible not to inject our biases into things,

Well, you are certainly the poster child for injecting bias but the fact is, it is not impossible not to.

we're only human after all. As adults we should be willing to discuss what biases we think are inappropriate or counter productive and why.

With other adults. Keep your biases away from my kid.

I get that bigots are afraid of these things like segregationists of last century were afraid of racial mixing but are their concerns valid or are they simply bigoted?

Would you acknowledge they were valid even if they were? I sincerely doubt that.

You have already made up your mind that any concerns or opinions expressed by conservatives on such matters is rooted in bigotry. Don’t insult my intelligence with fake magnanimity and nobility and pretend this isn’t so.

Divisive doesn't mean much to me. Should it matter that racist bigots find it divisive to suggest that black and white kids go to school together?

Should it matter that idiots like you pretend you know everything about transgenderism when you don’t?

It is societies job to put bigots in their place. At least in the society I want to live in.

No, it’s not. Society doesn’t have a “job”.

If that were true then people would be paying them to do it.

Paying who?

Should I expect parents to be as good at other professions they weren't trained or educated in just because they're parents? Is that the logic we're (I mean you, sarcastically) going with?

Should I expect teachers to teach children that a single comparative MRI test somehow means that biological males should be allowed in the girls’ bathroom?

Is that the premise of woke? To be universally accepting? I don't think it is. As I said it started in the black community as a word to describe the awakening to white supremacist idealogy and its insideous influence on our culture, society and laws.

As I said, I know the word’s origin. A lot of conservatives just think it’s a lame and cheesy term so it’s become a term of ridicule for any liberal/progressive person, idea or action that seems illogical, stupid, extreme or hypocritical

And who's being marginalized and how?

So no one’s being marginalized? If not, will people be marginalized in the future? If not then why did you say people like me would be marginalized? If so then why are you asking who’s being marginalized?

You mean individuals get to have their own individual ideas of what is or isn't racist? Oh no!

Not what I said moron.

No that's just lying.

Of course it’s lying. That’s what makes it hypocritical.

Can you?

Not the point dummy. She was nominated because she’s a black woman and she knows she was. Yet she can’t define her own identity?

That's not a violation of their free speech.

From a legal and Constitutional standpoint, no. But it is unethical and chickenshit.

I don’t know how long you’ve been in this country but in the America I grew up in, the kind of shit we see on college campuses today - the shouting down of speakers, disrupting events and assaulting people - was unheard of and would have been condemned by Republicans and Democrats both.

To think this shit started at the school that championed free speech in the sixties.

Only one group of people vilifies one and not the other. They would be the Founder idolaters.

What?

Where have I made excuses for African slavers? Or asian slavers? Or Spanish slavers?

Didn’t say you did.

I can say right now without any problem whatsoever that I think all slavers, past and present, future, were, are and will be human pieces of shit, in my opinion.

Fine, but you’re not the only one with an opinion on the matter. Others ignore it or outright deny it.

How about you?

I’m the bigot, remember? So you tell me what I think.

I can't help that you appear too stupid to grasp the nuanced distinctions.

Your “nuances” contradict each other.

Its called honesty. My insults aren't arguments and I wouldn't want them to be mistaken for them.

They’re not relevant to the debate. I thought that was what you were concerned with.

From my perspective you're insulting people because they were born left handed and I'm insulting you because you are choosing to be a bigot.

Irrelevant. It’s about deliberately insulting people which is a point you brought up.

Preaching about deliberately insulting people while you deliberately insult people makes you look like a hypocrite.

Feel free to Snowflake, your tears don't bother me.

Apparently the truth does.

I am and I do. My parents immigrated here in the 80s when my mother was pregnant with me and I was both in Miami where I currently still live. Well Pembroke Pines but increasingly that's the same difference.

So how do you feel about your mother bringing you from a (presumably) woke paradise to the bigoted cesspool of America?

What hypocrisy? The imagined hypocrisy where I had all this love for African slavers? Where have you proved any hypocrisy on my part?

Didn’t say you did.

 

[Curried Goats]

I never said religion was made up either so that one doesn’t wash.

Im saying religion is made up you moron, you're not saying much of anything anymore because you're too chicken shit.

Maybe, maybe not. But we’re talking about the things each side claims they feel.

Where do you're feelings come from and what prococess them? Ill answer and then we'll see if you can.

Hormones and the brain.

Right. It’s also an objective fact that everyone is biologically male or female.

What is a bioligical male or female? You never answered that. Are people born with XY chromosomes, vaginas, and testes male or female because that happens.

For people like you, fighting the cause for transgenders is an end unto itself. It is clear to a lot of people that most are just virtue signalling to feel morally superior, which is what you’ve been doing since we started this romp.

Morals aren't objectively real. Anyone who feels morally superior to anyone else is a moron. The only objectively true thing I can say about morality is that we each have our own subjective morality. I don't care if you hate or love trans people, it's your arguments that are trash from a rational and logical standpoint.

Perhaps. But some would say that people of faith are born that way.

And those people would be fucking stupid because people are born religious, the're taught religion.

So then, it iS subjective just as I said.

Gender as a social concept of what is masculine or feminine is subjective in the way religion its tenants are entirely made up. Your idea of masculinity will be different than my notions of masculinity.

Transgenderism as a condition where your brain doesn't match your biological body is not subjective just as its not subjective that some people are born left handed, blind or gay.

And what is the brain influenced by?

Chemistry and hormones.

Genitals are a manifestation of your genetic and hormonal makeup. Which means sex is still male or female even if you lose them.

And Identity and sense of self are manifestations of your brain.

If either or both identify as other than their biological sex then what’s the difference?

Gender non conformist don't identity as anything other than their biological sex. I explained this to you. Russell Westbrook is a famous NBA player, he's male and he likes to wear dresses and skirts time to time.

You just said I’m confusing transgenderism with gender nonconformism and that transgenders know or feel what gender they are. Now you’re telling me one person can be both.

You seem confused by the terminology. I've been trying to make the distinction between gender non conformists and gender identities but maybe the people who write the actual manual om diagnosis can explain it better to you.

What is Gender Dysphoria?

The term “transgender” refers to a person whose sex assigned at birth (i.e. the sex assigned at birth, usually based on external genitalia) does not align their gender identity (i.e., one’s psychological sense of their gender). Some people who are transgender will experience “gender dysphoria,” which refers to psychological distress that results from an incongruence between one’s sex assigned at birth and one’s gender identity. Though gender dysphoria often begins in childhood, some people may not experience it until after puberty or much later.
People who are transgender may pursue multiple domains of gender affirmation, including social affirmation (e.g., changing one’s name and pronouns), legal affirmation (e.g., changing gender markers on one’s government-issued documents), medical affirmation (e.g., pubertal suppression or gender-affirming hormones), and/or surgical affirmation (e.g., vaginoplasty, facial feminization surgery, breast augmentation, masculine chest reconstruction, etc.). Of note, not all people who are transgender will desire all domains of gender affirmation, as these are highly personal and individual decisions.
It is important to note that gender identity is different from gender expression. Whereas gender identity refers to one’s psychological sense of their gender, gender expression refers to the way in which one presents to the world in a gendered way. For example, in much of the U.S., wearing a dress is considered a “feminine” gender expression, and wearing a tuxedo is considered a “masculine” gender expression. Such expectations are culturally defined and vary across time and culture. One’s gender expression does not necessarily align with their gender identity. Diverse gender expressions, much like diverse gender identities, are not indications of a mental disorder.
Gender identity is also different from sexual orientation. Sexual orientation refers to the types of people towards which one is sexually attracted. As with people who are cisgender (people whose sex assigned at birth aligns with their gender identity), people who are transgender have a diverse range of sexual orientations.

There’s no purpose to procreation and propagation of the species?

There's whatever purpose you give to it, nature and evolution do not work with purpose or intent.

Wrong. I never said people were supposed to be male or female. I said everyone is one or the other.

So what is Caster Semenya? She was identified as a girl at birth because she had a vagina. She dressed as a girl, identified as a girl and only later in life discovered she had XY chromosomes and internal testes instead of ovaries.

Have I displayed any hate here towards transgenders?

In my opinion yes.

I ask questions that I know you can’t answer. I do this to make a point: You don’t understand it any better than I do.

I do understand better than you do which is why my arguments are supported by facts, studies and medical opinion and yours aren't.

Like I said before, you act as if we have transgenderism figured out but we don’t. We do not yet fully understand why some biological males feel female or vice versa.

We don't have to fully understand it to understand something things. We don't fully understand life or the universe but we know somethings about it.

You keep throwing around the word “biological” but this does not explain the disconnect between objective biology and abstract thought and feelings in some people.

MRIs showing their brains shifted towards the other sex are the beginnings of an explanation.

So they can be happier.

If they were not unhappy or did not feel incomplete with their biological sex then they wouldn’t feel the need to change it.

And if you didn't feel like you had a headache you wouldn't feel the need to take advil. Why are you describing how medication works like you're a confused moron?

As I said, every dissenting opinion to you sounds like bigotry. That’s because you’re virtue signalling more than you are actually discussing the topic.

Every opinion supported by ignorance rather than knowledge does sound like bigotry to me. Why shouldn't it?

So it’s not enough for you that I am skeptical of your claims? Did that not occur to you either?

Be skeptical but when you can't even address my claims or the evidence I present then your intention becomes more evident.

After having just told me that everyone is different, you still can’t acknowledge that transgenders might be different from one another?

Different how? Be specific. You're not even trying to make an argument, your just looking for an excuse to be a bigot.

That not all transgenders necessarily think alike. You didn’t get that?

That's a fundamentally useless statement. In what way do you mean? We all have different thoughts so we all think differently than one another. Males and female brains in some ways function differently as my link showed and your link showed that same part of the brain lights up when people who believe in religion say angels and people who believe in science say planes are real. In what way are you trying to imply trans people think differently than one another?

The MRI scans objectively show differences in thought processes. Anything beyond that is pure speculation. We still don’t know why some feel or behave differently from their biological sex.

That's a poor description of what it shows. Male brains present in one way, female brains present in another and trans brains are shifted from what we would normally see in cis gendered people towards the gender they identify. But I'll link to what it says so you can't stop pretending as if it offered no insights.

Brain Sex in Transgender Women Is Shifted towards Gender Identity

The observed shift away from a male-typical brain anatomy towards a female-typical one in people who identify as transgender women suggests a possible underlying neuroanatomical correlate for a female gender identity. That is, all transgender women included in this study were confirmed to be genetic males who had not undergone any gender-affirming hormone therapy. Thus, these transgender women have been subject to the influence of androgens and grown up (at least up until a certain age) in an environment that presumably treated them as males. The combination of male genes, androgens, and (to some degree) male upbringing should ordinarily be expected to result in a male-typical brain making a female-typical brain anatomy extremely unlikely. Yet, the brain anatomy in the current sample of transgender women is shifted towards their gender identity—an observation that is at least partly in agreement with previous reports, as discussed in the following.

As I said, you behave as if these MRI scans are the final word on transgenderism but they are most definitely not.

In this debate they are the only word since you have presented nothing whatsoever to support any of your claims.

I said that you behaved like the MRI scans told the whole story. I didn’t say you were obligated to tell the whole story because I know goddamn well there isn’t one yet and you probably wouldn’t know it or would ignore it if there was.

Care to ever address the story it did tell?

Are you saying that screaming, swearing and throwing shit around is a reasoned, mature response to someone unintentionally using the wrong pronoun?

No. I'm saying you don't know if their feelings were hurt by the comments that came before.

Screaming and cussing and throwing shit is overreacting. My view will never change on that.

And bigotry is something I'll never change my mind on.

I told you already in my last post it was unintentional. In other words, not hateful or bigoted.

I don't believe you.

There is no “mechanism” in our brains that triggers responses that we then choose to act or not act on. This implies that others have some control (however limited) to manipulate our own biological responses. They do not.

Our brains process stimuli including the things people say to us. This isn't some wild claim, this is basic human biology. I didn't say they control how you respond, I said you can't control that's these various stimuli invoke feelings in you. Whether you're looking out at a sunset and feeling beauty any contentment, or looking at your child accomplishing something and feeling proud or hear the growl of animal while your hiking in the woods and feel fear, you can't control that your body processess all this incoming stimuli.

As I said before, reactions (and being triggered) are always a choice. Always.

Reactions sure, feelings not so much.

You can choose to be triggered or you can choose to accept the reality that the other person is either ignorant, misinformed, unaware, has his/her own insecurites or is just being an asshole to be an asshole.

You keep trying really hard to argue a different point than I am.

Do you seriously think one comparitive MRI test makes you educated on the subject of transgenders?

I've seen more than that one study and the study I linked to discussed some of those in their findings. What I know is that I know more than you.

No, it’s not. Society doesn’t have a “job”.

Society is a tool you moron that we control it through laws and culture. When enough of decide to use it as a tool against say, segregationists then we put laws and culture to work on stamping it out. Me and the progressive left are intent on using that tool to stomp out bigotry where ever we find it.

Should I expect teachers to teach children that a single comparative MRI test somehow means that biological males should be allowed in the girls’ bathroom?

The reasons why girls and boys should or shouldn't use seperate bathrooms are not biological, they're sociological. Teachers should absolutely teach the difference between biology and sociology so we can avoid producing more Bingos like you.

So no one’s being marginalized? If not, will people be marginalized in the future? If not then why did you say people like me would be marginalized? If so then why are you asking who’s being marginalized?

I'm asking because I don't know who you're claiming is marginalized and how. How am I supposed to discuss something you haven't clearly defined?

Of course it’s lying. That’s what makes it hypocritical.

No it just makes it lying. In order for it to be hypocritical you'd have to compare their statements to what they said about other incidents. The problem is you don't talk in specifics you just argue in vague generalities.

Most of the BLM protests were peaceful. There were thousands of them all over the country in big cities and small towns and most of them you never heard about because nothing much happened at them except some people marched and chanted. There were also protests where protesters got violent. If you have a specific incident of hypocrisy you'd like to discuss then present it but your hypothicals don't leave much room for debate.

Not the point dummy. She was nominated because she’s a black woman and she knows she was. Yet she can’t define her own identity?

Does her being a Black woman make her unqualified? So what Joe Biden wanted to put a Black woman on the Supreme Court? That was a promise he made to Black voters. It was important to us to have representation in the court.

From a legal and Constitutional standpoint, no. But it is unethical and chickenshit.

That's your opinion. Why do I give a shit what you find unethical or chicken shit? I find speakers who run at the sight of counter protesters to be chicken shit, so what? You have a right to say whatever you want in public, on you're private property and on property you've been invited on to do so, but so does everyone else. Deal with it.

I don’t know how long you’ve been in this country but in the America I grew up in, the kind of shit we see on college campuses today - the shouting down of speakers, disrupting events and assaulting people - was unheard of and would have been condemned by Republicans and Democrats both.

Assault should always be condemned and those people should be prosecuted, who has suggested otherwise?

To think this shit started at the school that championed free speech in the sixties.

Unless you're talking about a specific instance is assault, which you have not presented, no one's free speech has been violated.

Fine, but you’re not the only one with an opinion on the matter. Others ignore it or outright deny it.

I don't care about all the imaginary people you're debating in your head. Who are these others? Are they real people or just more hypothetical people you made up?

I’m the bigot, remember? So you tell me what I think.

Your dodge is just more confirmation that you are a bigot. Do you think the Founders were pieces of human shit for being slavers? Yes or no? It's a simple question. You get all righteous when you talk about imaginary people loving African slavers but are too chicken shit to exercise your free speech and share your opinion on American slavers.

So how do you feel about your mother bringing you from a (presumably) woke paradise to the bigoted cesspool of America?

My family came from Jamaica who's indeginous people were all slaughtered or died from disease brought by Europeans. The people there now are mostly descdents from victims of colonialism and slavery. How my family feels is fortunate enough that the cuck whites in this country were stupid enough to give up their demographic dominance by giving birthright citizenship constitutional protection. It has allowed immigrants from all over the West Indes and South America, people who's ancestors were victims of colonialism, to come to this country and take over demographically which will eventually allow us to take over politically and socially and ultimately redirect the wealth of this nation back to the people it was stolen from. So I guess thank you for being the morons you all are.