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

[Ghost of a Rider]

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

You said I said religion is made up and I never said that.

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

Ask a person of faith. We are talking about stated feelings of religionists vis-a-vis transgenders after all.

Hormones and the brain.

Sure, but that’s likely only part of it.

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.

These are rare exceptions. The rule is XY -Male; XX-Female.

You’ve been saying transgenders feel different than their biological sex. You seem to be suggesting here that sex can’t be defined. If that’s true then how does one feel they are not something that can’t be defined?

Morals aren't objectively real. Anyone who feels morally superior to anyone else is a moron.

And yet you do anyway.

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.

Bullshit. You’ve been saying I’m a bigot almost from day one.
What’s more, you’ve talked about marginalizing people like me to the “fringes of society”.
And, you proclaimed loudly that it is society’s job to “put bigots in their place”.
And, you also proclaimed that all slavers were “human pieces of shit” and then exhorted me to agree.

Don’t hand me this fake intellectual nobility horseshit about logic and reason now after all your moral judgments about my character.

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

And what have you been taught about transgenders, an MRI comparison that tells us virtually nothing?

Let us revisit this vaunted article of yours and see what it actually says. I took a closer look at it and gleaned these quotes that either contradict what you’ve been saying, does not support what you’ve been saying or simply did not mention what you’ve been saying.

But first let me say that I never disputed their findings. I’ve said all along that the test results were no surprise. My skepticism about all this is the claims you have made based on this one study.

1.) “Bakker’s study was small: looking at only about 150 individuals. As such, its findings should be interpreted with caution.”

2.) “This research area is still very much in its early days,” he said. “There have been relatively few studies and the methods have not been consistent. Consequently, there are few findings regarding specific brain areas that have been shown to be reliable and more research is needed.”

3.) “Because studies so far have focused on group averages, he said, individuals could vary considerably.”
As you can see, the experts clearly feel more research is called for. Why? Because they don’t have the whole story.

As you can also see, they make no mention of the subjects’ identified gender being biological.
That’s not to say it isn’t; it might very well be. But for you to make that claim at this point before science does means it is pure speculation on your part.

Finally, the third quote is precisely what I have been telling you all this time and yet you’ve basically been telling me I’m full of shit.

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.

In other words, subjective.

This subjectivism line in our discussion has gone like this:

Me - “It’s subjective.”

You - “Gender is subjective because…”.

Me - “So it’s subjective as I said.”

You - “But it’s subjective because…”

Me - “So it’s subjective.”

You - “But it’s subjective because…”

By the way, “tenants” are residents of apartment buildings and dormitories and such.

The correct word is “tenets”.

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.

What you don’t understand is that it is an objective reality that they don’t feel like their biological sex but what they say or feel they are is subjective. Especially in the case of someone who claims they are non-binary or some other subjective gender that supposedly requires a heretofore non-existent pronoun such as “ze”.

Chemistry and hormones.

To what degree is a transgender’s identified gender affected by chemistry and hormones?

See, no one knows this yet.

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

Of course they are.

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.

And is this chemistry and hormones?

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.

I’m not the one who said one can be both, you did.

You said, and I quote:

“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.”

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 know all this.

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

Survival of the species is not intent?

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.

And? These are rare exceptions to the rule.

You’ve already mentioned this and I’ve already given you this response.

In my opinion yes.

Where?

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

Bullshit. As I already showed you, the researchers in the study that you cited think more studies and research needs to be done.

Also, as I already pointed out, I said that transgenders are likely different from one another in various ways and the leader of the study said precisely that.

Having said that, I remind you, I never disputed the study, I’ve only disputed some of your claims.

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.

Irrelevant. I repeat: we don’t yet fully understand transgenderism.

You, however, seem to think you understand more than the scientists who conducted the study. You’ve made claims based on this study that the scientists who conducted the study never said.

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

Of course they are. I never disputed that.

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?

Where did I describe how medication works?

I said they take these medications for a given purpose. I have no fucking clue how they work.

Idiot.

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

Because you’re virtue signalling.

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

Irrelevant. This is about your claim that I’m a shitty atheist because apparently I’m not skeptical enough.

I’m skeptical of your claims, not the results of the study.

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

I already told you how they might be different dumbass.

That's a fundamentally useless statement.

The study leader said the same thing I did as quoted above.

In what way do you mean?

Again, I already told you.

We all have different thoughts so we all think differently than one another.

Which means transgenders think differently from 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?

You just said “We all think differently than one another.” So why are you asking me?

That's a poor description of what it shows.

Then the study is a poor description because it is exactly what the study leader said.

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.

Not necessary. I know what insights the study offered and, as I said, I don’t dispute them.

I dispute your insights because your insights conflate what the scientists said and manufacture things they did not say.

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

The only claim I made is that transgenders are likely not all the same. This is supported by your own words that we all think differently from one another.

Care to ever address the story it did tell?

I never disputed it or offered any arguments to counter it, so what would be the point?

I don’t dispute the study and I don’t dispute that transgenders genuinely feel what they feel.

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

Irrelevant. I asked if screaming, cussing and throwing shit is a reasoned, mature response.

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

Good for you. Although what that has to do with adults throwing temper tantrums, I don’t know.

I don't believe you.

Of course you don’t. That would mean the guy overreacted and we can’t have your pet victims behaving badly now, can we?

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.

That’s just it: you can.

I know from personal experience and attending a series of ontology-based workshops years ago that you can, in fact, train yourself not to be physiologically and emotionally triggered by things.

The things that used to trigger me to anger, anxiety, resentment and fear no longer do. In fact, these days I often find these people and situations amusing.

None of this is to say I’m never triggered anymore, only that they are few and far between and I am a much happier person today.

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.

The key here is that not everyone is moved by sunsets or in the same way or to the same degree.

Reactions sure, feelings not so much.

Yes, they are.

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

No shit dumbass. That’s why we’re here debating.

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.

So what are the other studies?

Society is a tool you moron that we control it through laws and culture.

Wrong. Laws are the tools we use to effect a relatively harmonious society. Society itself is not the tool.

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.

That’s fine as far as it goes. The problem is, who gets to decide what is bigotry?

You call me a bigot merely for being skeptical of the speculative claims you’ve made based on one limited study. A study whose researchers made clear was limited because it only involved 150 subjects. A study that does not report much of what you claim and a study I never even disputed in the first place.

If you are the typical example of who and how bigotry is adjudged - disagreement on technical details - then I truly fear for the future of this country. No exaggeration.

The reasons why girls and boys should or shouldn't use seperate bathrooms are not biological, they're sociological.

No shit Sherlock.

Teachers should absolutely teach the difference between biology and sociology so we can avoid producing more Bingos like you.

How about bingo males who use the girls’ restroom? You do know this has happened, right?

There has also been cases of biological males dressed as girls physically assaulting a girl (in one case) and sexually assaulting and raping a girl (in another case) in girls’ restrooms in public schools.

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?

I didn’t say anyone was being marginalized. I said that because YOU are the one who brought up marginalization of people.

You stated outright that people like me would be marginalized. So again, why are you bothering to ask who’s being marginalized when your stated purpose is to marginalize?

Jesus you’re a fucking moron.

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.

January 6? Hello.

The problem is you don't talk in specifics you just argue in vague generalities.

Did it not occur to you to ask why the reporters lied?

They lied because the BLM rioters were black and because they and the Antifa rioters were supposedly fighting a noble cause.

The only way to reconcile the cause with the violence was to downplay the violence. Hence the phrase “mostly peaceful protest”.

This is hypocrisy.

Most of the BLM protests were peaceful.

Most of them were. But far too many were not. They caused billions in damage to property belonging to, and assaulting people who had nothing to do with the police shootings.

Does her being a Black woman make her unqualified?

No. I said absolutely nothing about qualifications.

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.

Fine. But that’s irrelevant to the issue of her being nominated for being a black woman but not being able to define a woman.

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.

All you’re doing here is lashing out.

As a Constitutionally principled conservative, I would never try to prevent a speaker I don’t agree with from speaking in any way and I would resist anyone else who tried.

As the saying goes: I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

I would never speak of marginalizing people as you have. I believe it is more ethical, humane and more effective and longer lasting to educate people on logical and practical merits.

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

The point is not so much whether or not these actions are being prosecuted but rather, why violence and shouting down is more and more becoming a commonplace manner of protest?

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

* 4/12/2019 - Michael Knowles of Turning Point USA is physically assaulted by a protester at University of Missouri for saying men are different from women.
* 2/19/2019 - Hayden Williams of the Leadership Institute is punched in the face by a protester at U. C. Berkely.
* 4/7/2022 - Therese Purcell, chairwoman of the University at Buffalo Young Americans for Freedom invited Lt. Col. Allen West to speak on campus. The mob became violent and chased her from the lecture hall and then pursued her across campus where she barricaded herself in a men’s room with a locking door. She had to call 911 from the restroom so authorities could escort her to safety.
* More recently on 4/6/2023, Riley Gaines, a competitive swimmer and advocate for women’s rights in sports (advocating against biological males competing in womens’ sports) gave a speech at San Francisco State and at some point soon after this, a mob broke into the hall and rushed the podium.
She was pushed and shoved and a man in a dress hit her twice. She had to be spirited out of the room by a campus officer and barricaded in another room for three hours.

I can’t help but wonder if the dude in the dress’ feelings about committing violence were as genuine as his feelings about being a woman.

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?

Take look at this article from August 2019:

'Willful amnesia': How Africans forgot — and remembered — their role in the slave trade

A few quotes:

* “There is a willful amnesia about the roles that we (Africans)played in the slave trade,” said Nat Amarteifio, a local historian who’s also a former mayor of Accra, Ghana's capital.”

* “There was already a domestic slave trade when they (The Portguese) arrived, Amarteifio said,”
* “But Amarteifio says the Europeans weren’t going out and capturing Africans. They couldn’t — they got sick and died from illnesses like malaria. Some African ethnic groups went into business, warring with other groups so they could capture prisoners they sold as slaves to the Europeans. Amarteifio says they were organized and intentional about it.”

Your dodge is just more confirmation that you are a bigot.

How convenient for you. I’m already a bigot which means any answer I give won’t change your mind about that and if I don’t answer I’m a bigot.

What a fucking moron.

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.

Who said anything about people “loving” African slavers? I said people ignore it or deny it.

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.

And there you have it

 

[Curried Goats]

You said I said religion is made up and I never said that.


Ask a person of faith. We are talking about stated feelings of religionists vis-a-vis transgenders after all.


Sure, but that’s likely only part of it.


These are rare exceptions. The rule is XY -Male; XX-Female.

You’ve been saying transgenders feel different than their biological sex. You seem to be suggesting here that sex can’t be defined. If that’s true then how does one feel they are not something that can’t be defined?


And yet you do anyway.


Bullshit. You’ve been saying I’m a bigot almost from day one.
What’s more, you’ve talked about marginalizing people like me to the “fringes of society”.
And, you proclaimed loudly that it is society’s job to “put bigots in their place”.
And, you also proclaimed that all slavers were “human pieces of shit” and then exhorted me to agree.

Don’t hand me this fake intellectual nobility horseshit about logic and reason now after all your moral judgments about my character.


And what have you been taught about transgenders, an MRI comparison that tells us virtually nothing?

Let us revisit this vaunted article of yours and see what it actually says. I took a closer look at it and gleaned these quotes that either contradict what you’ve been saying, does not support what you’ve been saying or simply did not mention what you’ve been saying.

But first let me say that I never disputed their findings. I’ve said all along that the test results were no surprise. My skepticism about all this is the claims you have made based on this one study.

1.) “Bakker’s study was small: looking at only about 150 individuals. As such, its findings should be interpreted with caution.”

2.) “This research area is still very much in its early days,” he said. “There have been relatively few studies and the methods have not been consistent. Consequently, there are few findings regarding specific brain areas that have been shown to be reliable and more research is needed.”

3.) “Because studies so far have focused on group averages, he said, individuals could vary considerably.”
As you can see, the experts clearly feel more research is called for. Why? Because they don’t have the whole story.

As you can also see, they make no mention of the subjects’ identified gender being biological.
That’s not to say it isn’t; it might very well be. But for you to make that claim at this point before science does means it is pure speculation on your part.

Finally, the third quote is precisely what I have been telling you all this time and yet you’ve basically been telling me I’m full of shit.



In other words, subjective.

This subjectivism line in our discussion has gone like this:

Me - “It’s subjective.”

You - “Gender is subjective because…”.

Me - “So it’s subjective as I said.”

You - “But it’s subjective because…”

Me - “So it’s subjective.”

You - “But it’s subjective because…”

By the way, “tenants” are residents of apartment buildings and dormitories and such.

The correct word is “tenets”.


What you don’t understand is that it is an objective reality that they don’t feel like their biological sex but what they say or feel they are is subjective. Especially in the case of someone who claims they are non-binary or some other subjective gender that supposedly requires a heretofore non-existent pronoun such as “ze”.


To what degree is a transgender’s identified gender affected by chemistry and hormones?

See, no one knows this yet.


Of course they are.


And is this chemistry and hormones?


I’m not the one who said one can be both, you did.

You said, and I quote:

“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.”


I know all this.


Survival of the species is not intent?


And? These are rare exceptions to the rule.

You’ve already mentioned this and I’ve already given you this response.


Where?


Bullshit. As I already showed you, the researchers in the study that you cited think more studies and research needs to be done.

Also, as I already pointed out, I said that transgenders are likely different from one another in various ways and the leader of the study said precisely that.

Having said that, I remind you, I never disputed the study, I’ve only disputed some of your claims.


Irrelevant. I repeat: we don’t yet fully understand transgenderism.

You, however, seem to think you understand more than the scientists who conducted the study. You’ve made claims based on this study that the scientists who conducted the study never said.


Of course they are. I never disputed that.


Where did I describe how medication works?

I said they take these medications for a given purpose. I have no fucking clue how they work.

Idiot.


Because you’re virtue signalling.


Irrelevant. This is about your claim that I’m a shitty atheist because apparently I’m not skeptical enough.

I’m skeptical of your claims, not the results of the study.


I already told you how they might be different dumbass.


The study leader said the same thing I did as quoted above.


Again, I already told you.


Which means transgenders think differently from one another.


You just said “We all think differently than one another.” So why are you asking me?


Then the study is a poor description because it is exactly what the study leader said.


Not necessary. I know what insights the study offered and, as I said, I don’t dispute them.

I dispute your insights because your insights conflate what the scientists said and manufacture things they did not say.


The only claim I made is that transgenders are likely not all the same. This is supported by your own words that we all think differently from one another.


I never disputed it or offered any arguments to counter it, so what would be the point?

I don’t dispute the study and I don’t dispute that transgenders genuinely feel what they feel.


Irrelevant. I asked if screaming, cussing and throwing shit is a reasoned, mature response.


Good for you. Although what that has to do with adults throwing temper tantrums, I don’t know.


Of course you don’t. That would mean the guy overreacted and we can’t have your pet victims behaving badly now, can we?


That’s just it: you can.

I know from personal experience and attending a series of ontology-based workshops years ago that you can, in fact, train yourself not to be physiologically and emotionally triggered by things.

The things that used to trigger me to anger, anxiety, resentment and fear no longer do. In fact, these days I often find these people and situations amusing.

None of this is to say I’m never triggered anymore, only that they are few and far between and I am a much happier person today.


The key here is that not everyone is moved by sunsets or in the same way or to the same degree.


Yes, they are.


No shit dumbass. That’s why we’re here debating.


So what are the other studies?


Wrong. Laws are the tools we use to effect a relatively harmonious society. Society itself is not the tool.


That’s fine as far as it goes. The problem is, who gets to decide what is bigotry?

You call me a bigot merely for being skeptical of the speculative claims you’ve made based on one limited study. A study whose researchers made clear was limited because it only involved 150 subjects. A study that does not report much of what you claim and a study I never even disputed in the first place.

If you are the typical example of who and how bigotry is adjudged - disagreement on technical details - then I truly fear for the future of this country. No exaggeration.


No shit Sherlock.


How about bingo males who use the girls’ restroom? You do know this has happened, right?

There has also been cases of biological males dressed as girls physically assaulting a girl (in one case) and sexually assaulting and raping a girl (in another case) in girls’ restrooms in public schools.




I didn’t say anyone was being marginalized. I said that because YOU are the one who brought up marginalization of people.

You stated outright that people like me would be marginalized. So again, why are you bothering to ask who’s being marginalized when your stated purpose is to marginalize?

Jesus you’re a fucking moron.


January 6? Hello.


Did it not occur to you to ask why the reporters lied?

They lied because the BLM rioters were black and because they and the Antifa rioters were supposedly fighting a noble cause.

The only way to reconcile the cause with the violence was to downplay the violence. Hence the phrase “mostly peaceful protest”.

This is hypocrisy.


Most of them were. But far too many were not. They caused billions in damage to property belonging to, and assaulting people who had nothing to do with the police shootings.


No. I said absolutely nothing about qualifications.


Fine. But that’s irrelevant to the issue of her being nominated for being a black woman but not being able to define a woman.


All you’re doing here is lashing out.

As a Constitutionally principled conservative, I would never try to prevent a speaker I don’t agree with from speaking in any way and I would resist anyone else who tried.

As the saying goes: I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

I would never speak of marginalizing people as you have. I believe it is more ethical, humane and more effective and longer lasting to educate people on logical and practical merits.


The point is not so much whether or not these actions are being prosecuted but rather, why violence and shouting down is more and more becoming a commonplace manner of protest?


* 4/12/2019 - Michael Knowles of Turning Point USA is physically assaulted by a protester at University of Missouri for saying men are different from women.
* 2/19/2019 - Hayden Williams of the Leadership Institute is punched in the face by a protester at U. C. Berkely.
* 4/7/2022 - Therese Purcell, chairwoman of the University at Buffalo Young Americans for Freedom invited Lt. Col. Allen West to speak on campus. The mob became violent and chased her from the lecture hall and then pursued her across campus where she barricaded herself in a men’s room with a locking door. She had to call 911 from the restroom so authorities could escort her to safety.
* More recently on 4/6/2023, Riley Gaines, a competitive swimmer and advocate for women’s rights in sports (advocating against biological males competing in womens’ sports) gave a speech at San Francisco State and at some point soon after this, a mob broke into the hall and rushed the podium.
She was pushed and shoved and a man in a dress hit her twice. She had to be spirited out of the room by a campus officer and barricaded in another room for three hours.

I can’t help but wonder if the dude in the dress’ feelings about committing violence were as genuine as his feelings about being a woman.


Take look at this article from August 2019:

'Willful amnesia': How Africans forgot — and remembered — their role in the slave trade

A few quotes:

* “There is a willful amnesia about the roles that we (Africans)played in the slave trade,” said Nat Amarteifio, a local historian who’s also a former mayor of Accra, Ghana's capital.”

* “There was already a domestic slave trade when they (The Portguese) arrived, Amarteifio said,”
* “But Amarteifio says the Europeans weren’t going out and capturing Africans. They couldn’t — they got sick and died from illnesses like malaria. Some African ethnic groups went into business, warring with other groups so they could capture prisoners they sold as slaves to the Europeans. Amarteifio says they were organized and intentional about it.”


How convenient for you. I’m already a bigot which means any answer I give won’t change your mind about that and if I don’t answer I’m a bigot.

What a fucking moron.


Who said anything about people “loving” African slavers? I said people ignore it or deny it.


And there you have it

Jesus Christ dude. Let's break this down.

You did claim religion was made up when said gender identity was just as subjective. Just as is an admission you find it subjective. My original comments to were because you seem to be confused and still so about how they are subjective. There is no objective evidence for any religious tenants. None. It doesn't matter if people really believe it, it's made up. There is objective evidence for diverse gender identities that would be the MRI study I presented earlier. There are others. It's not a large study and more are needed but they did find objective evidence, even if tenious evidence for an objective expanation for biological trans variance.

Gender identity is not the same as gender expression. Gender expression doesn't have to do with biology or brains shifted towards the other sex, it has to do with style and mannerism and how you present to the world. That is also as entirely subjective as religion.

I don't believe in objective morality but I do believe in subjective morality. That means we each have our own values and those values are just different, there's no natural arbiter to say who's is better. Now you could have approaches to solving problems that are better than others, like reducing the availablity of guns does a lot better job of reducing gun violence than making it easier for law abiding citizens to get guns, but there is no objectively superior morality to another. That said I will use morality in furtherance of political and social goals because its a useful tool in that regard. Calling you a bigot is messaging as much as it is rhetoric.

As for bathrooms women are attacked in bathrooms by men a lot more frequently than they are by trans people. Making it so trans people can use the bathroom the identify with does not make it legal to assault anyone. That's still against the law.

 

[badger2]

Trannies are their own special "race" now?

And all they had to do was say "transgender." And it worked without any mutilation!

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Jesus Christ dude. Let's break this down.

You did claim religion was made up when said gender identity was just as subjective.

I implied it is made up but I did not say it is made up as you claimed. Understand?

This is one of the nuances of language you don’t seem to understand.

I do in fact think religion is largely made up but I can’t prove it. In any case, that is not relevant to the point I was trying to make; that stated beliefs and feelings for both religionists and transgenders are subjective because neither can be proven at this point.
Also as I said, MRI scans of people of faith look different from those of non-believers just the same as transgender MRIs will look different.

And as I said, ask any person of faith about their convictions and how they know them to be true and it will sound much the same as transgenders.

My original comments to were because you seem to be confused and still so about how they are subjective.

I understand exactly what you’re saying about that and I have from the beginning. But I’m saying you don’t know enough about the science of it to claim that their feelings are based in their biology. Science hasn’t even made that claim yet. At least not in anything you’ve shown me.

There is no objective evidence for any religious tenants.

Again, it’s “tenets”, not “tenants”.

None. It doesn't matter if people really believe it, it's made up. There is objective evidence for diverse gender identities that would be the MRI study I presented earlier.

Wrong. The study only showed that transgender MRIs show that their brain patterns reflect the gender they prefer or identify as.
At this point we don’t know anything beyond that and the article clearly states this.

There are others. It's not a large study and more are needed but they did find objective evidence, even if tenious evidence for an objective expanation for biological trans variance.

What does “tenious” mean? Did you mean “tentative”?

Anyway, they haven’t found objective evidence of anything except that their brain/thinking patterns reflect their preferred gender.

You keep pointing out that gender is a social construct and that gender is subjective and also that the MRI study results show that their self identity is rooted in their biology. That being the case, here’s a good question: If a biologically male transgender person identifies as a “ze” gender, would that show up differently than one who simply identifies as female?

At least one source I’ve found lists up to 105 genders. If we did a large enough MRI study of transgenders, would we find 105 distinct biologically-rooted genders?

I seriously doubt it.

Gender identity is not the same as gender expression. Gender expression doesn't have to do with biology or brains shifted towards the other sex, it has to do with style and mannerism and how you present to the world. That is also as entirely subjective as religion.

And would that show up in an MRI study?

I don't believe in objective morality but I do believe in subjective morality. That means we each have our own values and those values are just different, there's no natural arbiter to say who's is better. Now you could have approaches to solving problems that are better than others, like reducing the availablity of guns does a lot better job of reducing gun violence than making it easier for law abiding citizens to get guns, but there is no objectively superior morality to another. That said I will use morality in furtherance of political and social goals because its a useful tool in that regard. Calling you a bigot is messaging as much as it is rhetoric.

In other words, subjective. Which means you could be wrong, yes?

As for bathrooms women are attacked in bathrooms by men a lot more frequently than they are by trans people. Making it so trans people can use the bathroom the identify with does not make it legal to assault anyone. That's still against the law.

As usual, you’re missing the point. Has it not occurred to you that a biological male who identifies as female and rapes a female might be faking it?

I’ve been saying I believe some fake it and you called me a bigot for it. So how do you explain something like this?

 

[Curried Goats]

I implied it is made up but I did not say it is made up as you claimed. Understand?

This is one of the nuances of language you don’t seem to understand.

I understand perfectly you moron. I'm not here to debate the nuances of language with you, both and I know what you were trying to imply so why you are being a bitch about I dont know.

I do in fact think religion is largely made up but I can’t prove it. In any case, that is not relevant to the point I was trying to make; that stated beliefs and feelings for both religionists and transgenders are subjective because neither can be proven at this point.

It is relevant. It shows how faulty your thinking is. Its not on anyone to disprove religious beliefs are real, its on people who believe to provide evidence.

Also as I said, MRI scans of people of faith look different from those of non-believers just the same as transgender MRIs will look different.

Yes you said that before and it was wrong when you said it then. The MRIs of religious belivers and non religious believers were the same according to the study you presented.

And as I said, ask any person of faith about their convictions and how they know them to be true and it will sound much the same as transgenders.

It has nothing to do with if they sound true and everything to do with if any part of it can be proven as true.

I understand exactly what you’re saying about that and I have from the beginning. But I’m saying you don’t know enough about the science of it to claim that their feelings are based in their biology. Science hasn’t even made that claim yet. At least not in anything you’ve shown me.

There is evidence of biology being the key, there is no evidence of it being pathological and there is certainly more reason to believe trans people are real than Jesus christ but when people tell you they are trans you have skepticism and when they tell you they are christian, even though you dont believe you probably respect their faith. You probably don't go around purposely calling the Muslim or Satan worshipers because that would be unnecessarily disrespectful.

Wrong. The study only showed that transgender MRIs show that their brain patterns reflect the gender they prefer or identify as.
At this point we don’t know anything beyond that and the article clearly states this.

Thats objective evidence dipshit.

Anyway, they haven’t found objective evidence of anything except that their brain/thinking patterns reflect their preferred gender.

They haven't found objective evidence other than this objective evidence.....

You keep pointing out that gender is a social construct and that gender is subjective and also that the MRI study results show that their self identity is rooted in their biology.

Gender Identities (trans people) are not social constructs. Gender expressions (a guy wearing dresses) is subjective.

That being the case, here’s a good question: If a biologically male transgender person identifies as a “ze” gender, would that show up differently than one who simply identifies as female?

You're talking about pronouns, what people would rather be called. Let's put it like this, if your name was Jeff and you decided you wanted people to call you Jim do you think your MRI would he different after?

At least one source I’ve found lists up to 105 genders. If we did a large enough MRI study of transgenders, would we find 105 distinct biologically-rooted genders?

You're still confusing gender identity with gender expression.

As usual, you’re missing the point. Has it not occurred to you that a biological male who identifies as female and rapes a female might be faking it?

Rape is still illegal yes, whether or not the rapist identifies as a man or not?

I’ve been saying I believe some fake it and you called me a bigot for it. So how do you explain something like this?

I don't have to. Your argument that "some are faking it" is bigotry in search of a target. I don't play hypothetical games with bigots. If there is some specific person you want to accuse of faking it then we can discuss that but Im not qualifying your bigotry guy.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I understand perfectly you moron. I'm not here to debate the nuances of language with you,

Since you don’t understand it, that’s not surprising.

both and I know what you were trying to imply so why you are being a bitch about I dont know.

I already said it was what I implied. I just didn’t say it as you claimed. Understand the difference?

It is relevant. It shows how faulty your thinking is. Its not on anyone to disprove religious beliefs are real, its on people who believe to provide evidence.

Exactly. That’s why I said I can’t prove it.

Yes you said that before and it was wrong when you said it then. The MRIs of religious belivers and non religious believers were the same according to the study you presented.

Wrong. If there truly had been no differences then the study would have been scrapped and nothing would have been published about it except to say no differences were found.

The study was published precisely because differences were found.

It has nothing to do with if they sound true and everything to do with if any part of it can be proven as true.

This is a moot point since you haven’t proven a biological link to preferred gender.

There is evidence of biology being the key,

But not proof. Like they said, more studies and research is needed.

there is no evidence of it being pathological and there is certainly more reason to believe trans people are real than Jesus christ but when people tell you they are trans you have skepticism

Wrong. All I said was that their claims are still subjective at this point until we have more evidence and that some are probably faking it.

and when they tell you they are christian, even though you dont believe you probably respect their faith.

I don’t respect the beliefs but I respect that their beliefs are very important to them. Get it?

You probably don't go around purposely calling the Muslim or Satan worshipers because that would be unnecessarily disrespectful.

No, I don’t. But I don’t do that with transgenders either.

Thats objective evidence dipshit.

Right, that transgender MRIs show that their brain patterns reflect the gender they prefer or identify as.

The study shows no objective evidence of anything else.

They haven't found objective evidence other than this objective evidence.....

Wrong. They have found no objective evidence to support your claims.

The study might suggest a link but this has not been definitively determined yet.

Gender Identities (trans people) are not social constructs.

They might be. You don’t know they’re not.

You're talking about pronouns, what people would rather be called. Let's put it like this, if your name was Jeff and you decided you wanted people to call you Jim do you think your MRI would he different after?

You’re obfuscating. You’ve been telling me that the scans show their brain patterns reflect their preferred GENDER. So, what does the gender that corresponds to “ze” look like on an MRI scan? Or “xim” or “vis” for that matter?

You’re the one claiming a biological link to preferred gender and yet you also keep telling me gender is subjective.

This is your house of cards, not mine.

You're still confusing gender identity with gender expression.

You keep overlooking the fact that you contradict yourself and that subjective, preferred gender cannot be biological.

Rape is still illegal yes, whether or not the rapist identifies as a man or not?

Not the point Sparky.

The rapist identified as a girl. Did you seriously miss that?

I don't have to. Your argument that "some are faking it" is bigotry in search of a target.

Not because you say so. That’s a subjective opinion based on nothing than more a disagreement over a viewpoint based on an observation of cultural human behavior.

My opinion on this is based on human behavior, not transgender behavior. But as with everything else, you conflated it because you’re virtue signalling so every differing viewpoint MUST be bigotry.

Which reminds me, I asked you to point out where I expressed hate for transgenders here and you have failed to do so.

I don't play hypothetical games with bigots. If there is some specific person you want to accuse of faking it then we can discuss that but Im not qualifying your bigotry guy.

Fucking coward.