Musk buys Twitter

[Niya]

Some guy might be left-handed, need corrective lenses to see well, be shorter than average, missing toes due to an accident, grown up with one parent who died and left him orphaned at 9 years old, had to leave school to work at age 14, etc, etc.

All of those can be obstacles to one degree or another in most human societies. Combined, things only get rougher for him.

I don't think leftists are aware of these things. They think the worst thing that can happen to a person is that they get "misgendered" or cat called in the street and if both happens then I guess it's time to declare a state of emergency and call in the army...I guess when you live a life of privilege in a first world country, you have the luxury of pretending these are actual problems.

[jmcilhinney]

Two-headed chickens exist so we have to consider them normal?

We can certainly consider them to be outliers but, as you say yourself, they do exist so we don't deny that existence because there only being one-headed chickens would make like simpler for us.

[jmcilhinney]

Interesting how you say and then go on in this very same post to make an argument for why I should accept it.

Why is that interesting? You seem to be implying that there's some kind of contradiction there but it's the complete opposite. If I actually thought that you were obliged to accept something as fact then there would be no reason for me to make any argument at all. The very fact that I'm making an argument is evidence that I don't think you're obliged. If I were forcing - or trying to force - you to do something then I wouldn't be trying to give you a reason to do it of your own accord.

I am looking for something objective to ground these gender theories for me. Because if it's all in your head, then it remains in the domain of religion and not science.

As I pointed out earlier, you seem quite OK with things like love being real, even though that's just as much all in your head. I would suggest that you're applying a double-standard because there are numerous things that we all take for granted that don't have the sort of evidence you claim is required for you to accept something as real.

As I also pointed out on a number of earlier occasions, gender is not the same as religion in that regard. The experiences are objective in each case, or at least they can be. It's the explanation for them that is subjective. Religious people are generally claiming that their experience is caused by something external to themselves that they cannot actually demonstrate. Transgender people are not making any claims about anything beyond themselves. I think that you and I both believe that the experiences that religious people claim are generated by a god are actually generated within their own mind. When it comes to trans people, they and we are literally saying that their experience is generated by their own mind. Religious people also have obvious potential motivations to misinterpret or even lie about their experiences that simply do not exist for trans people. These are points that I have brought up before and you have never addressed them but just continue to equate transgender and religious experiences when they are not the same. But you sure do listen to everything my side has to say.

[jmcilhinney]

I don't think leftists are aware of these things. They think the worst thing that can happen to a person is that they get "misgendered" or cat called in the street and if both happens then I guess it's time to declare a state of emergency and call in the army...I guess when you live a life of privilege in a first world country, you have the luxury of pretending these are actual problems.

Says the person who recently complained about using "they" as a singular pronoun. Why are you here arguing with us about pronouns when you could be spending your time solving actual problems?

[wes4dbt]

Well when you leftists stop beating us over the head with it every chance you get, then you wouldn't have to hear what we think about it.

Ah, you poor little victim. lol

You never shut up about these subjects, then play stupid (I hope your playing) and wonder why you keep having to hear our responses. You search out confrontation and then whine about being confronted. Your no victim.

[Niya]

You never shut up about these subjects

Well if leftists would shut up about oppressed they are every chance they get, then I will stop talking about it. You can't even watch a simple movie nowadays without being preached to about some ridiculous leftist cause.

[Niya]

Why are you here arguing with us about pronouns when you could be spending your time solving actual problems?

Curiosity to some degree. The truth is in the real world, these things wouldn't even be a conversation. I could "misgender" Elliot Page all day long and nobody would even notice. No one would care. I actually find it a bit fascinating that privileged first world leftists like yourself actually think these things are a big deal.

The other thing I'm curious about is why no one besides dilettante is able to see just how sinister leftist ideologues really are. I guess you could say all of this is my attempt at understanding the first world liberal mindset. I find it fascinating but also very disturbing and dangerous as well. I also find their dominance in Hollywood, social media and traditional media quite concerning as they seem to be so effective at selling lies to the world. Even if in the end we never agree or come to any kind of common ground, I did learn a lot about how leftist brainwashing works from having these discussions.

Don't worry though. My curiosity is almost satisfied so I won't be here for much longer and you guys can go in peace without me being a misogynistic racist homophobe misgendering transphobic right wing bigot.

[wes4dbt]

Well if leftists would shut up about oppressed they are every chance they get, then I will stop talking about it. You can't even watch a simple movie nowadays without being preached to about some ridiculous leftist cause.

No you wouldn't, your not capable of not complaining. If we all agreed with you, then you'd find something else that imposes on you. The shear amount of time and energy you spend just on this forum should make that clear. But it's an open forum so keep preaching to use about how you don't like being preached to. You poor thing.

[Niya]

No you wouldn't, your not capable of not complaining. If we all agreed with you, then you'd find something else that imposes on you. The shear amount of time and energy you spend just on this forum should make that clear. But it's an open forum so keep preaching to use about how you don't like being preached to. You poor thing.

If you say so.

[jmcilhinney]

I am looking for something objective to ground these gender theories for me. Because if it's all in your head, then it remains in the domain of religion and not science.

Contemplating this further, I think this demonstrates your continued inability/unwillingness to understand what we're talking about. We keep saying that sex and gender are not the same thing and you keep insisting that they are and insisting that they're not at the same time. Gender is in people's minds, but a person's mind is part of that person. If I have the concept of a unicorn in my mind then that concept doesn't map to anything outside of myself but that doesn't mean that the concept itself isn't real, i.e. that concept of a unicorn is part of me. Similarly, a person's gender identity is part of them. It also seems to be an absolutely inherent part of them.

Some people claim that being transgender means being mentally ill but that is an acknowledgement that it is real without there being some biological test for it. There are plenty of mental illnesses that no one expects to be able to cut someone open and see, but no one denies do not exist. They are only evidence through behaviour and communication. I'm willing to accept that being transgender could be considered a mental illness under certain definitions, but I'm not sure that those definitions are more legitimate than the alternatives. Those specifically responsible for these things don't generally seem to think so. Even if that were the case though, I still don't see that that means that the anti-trans side of the argument wins. It doesn't seem like a "treatment" telling trans people to deny their gender identity and "just be normal" is going to help any trans people. It doesn't seem like indulging a trans person and treating them according to their gender identity has any ill effects on anyone. I've done it with people in my life and people online and it has had exactly zero effect on me either way.

There's obviously a reason that trans people are trans but I don't know what it is. Maybe we'll be able to identify it some day but maybe we won't. Not knowing the reason doesn't change the fact that trans people exist now and interacting with them based on their gender rather than their sex helps them and hurts no one, so I'm happy to do that. You might point to women's sport and say that that is an example of someone being hurt, possibly literally in some sports, but that's only if you have a blanket "yes" policy, which I do not. The fact that you have lied about the state of trans women in women's sport in this very thread and we know that at least one cis woman who has competed against a trans woman is lying in a political ad to make a point that she can't by sticking just to facts, it's hard to have an honest conversation on the subject. The fact that people complain about male puberty being an unfair advantage in women's sport while also trying to force every trans girl to undergo male puberty, claiming that they're protecting children while also trying to deny gender-affirming care to adults and also ignoring the trans children who take their own lives without such care makes it very hard to take such people seriously.

[Niya]

@jmcilhinney

To add to what I said in my previous post about curiosity. There is another dimension to this outside of curiosity. You asked why I spend all this time arguing with you all about pronouns and stuff. Normally, I don't. I've tangled with leftists online before and my default attitude is just casual dismissal. For example, when I get hit with some idea I consider outrageous, I might say something like "you're insane and you need to have your head examined." and that will be the end of that. It certainly won't be a back and forth for like 7 or 8 pages like I did here.

The truth is that I've grown somewhat attached to you guys. I spent the last 10+ years posting here. We exchanged a lot of ideas and knowledge. It was thanks to you that I learned functional LINQ. Despite my many arguments with Olaf over the years, he has also taught me a lot. I felt you guys deserved more than casual dismissal considering the immense value you guys have provided to me over the years participating on these boards. I was just trying to understand you all. But to be honest, I still don't get it and I never will. You all are so absorbed in this poisonous divisive ideology and I don't get why none of you except dilettante can see it. I guess our backgrounds are just too different.

[Peter Porter]

So what did you guys think about the World Cup game today, the US vs England?

I didn't expect a draw.

[Niya]

So what did you guys think about the World Cup game today, the US vs England?

I didn't expect a draw.

I didn't see the game but yea I heard about it. I heard it was intense. I'm not really that much into the World Cup this year but I think I will want to watch when Germany or Brazil plays. I tend to enjoy their matches. Those teams play some top-notch football.

[jmcilhinney]

You asked why I spend all this time arguing with you all about pronouns and stuff.

It was a rhetorical question. I don't really care why. I'm fine with you being here arguing or not. The point was that you were criticising us for fussing over (what you perceive to be) nothing instead of concerning ourselves with real problems while doing the very same.

But to be honest, I still don't get it and I never will.

That I believe. My problem is that you are basically saying "I don't get it, therefore it's wrong". I don't claim to understand gender fully either but what I do understand is that transgender people (whatever that is) exist and their lives can be made better by my doing something that doesn't have any negative impact on me whatsoever.

You all are so absorbed in this poisonous divisive ideology

If you're concerned about being divided then why don't you just give up your side of the argument and we can all get on? Is it maybe because you think you're right? Do you really think that we're just going to give up the argument because people disagree with us? If we're divided on this issue and it can be shown that you are lying about it, people like Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson are lying about it, that female swimmer (can't recall her name) is lying about it, I'm not about to give up the argument for the sake of unity. It's really the American right who has made it such a divisive issue, because they love to stir their voters up with emotion to obscure the fact that they have no actual political platform to help people. It's also largely driven by religion - god doesn't make mistakes, you know - so it's ironic that you would help promote that cause. JK Rowling is a perfect example of someone who appears to have been hoodwinked by religion because she purports to be supporting women, including the right to abortion and the right for gay women to marry each other, while explicitly aligning herself with people and organisations that openly push to remove those rights in order to fight trans people. Clearly, being anti-trans is more important to her than being pro-women. i can agree with someone on a particular point but that doesn't mean that I'll fight alongside them when I know that it's my face they want to eat next.

[jmcilhinney]

So what did you guys think about the World Cup game today, the US vs England?

I didn't expect a draw.

You obviously don't realise how bad England are at WCs. They always seem to underperform.

For the record, I'm not really a football fan but, while I live in Australia, I was born in the UK and do support England in cricket. It's not always an easy life . As a result, I tend to have a soft spot for England in other sports too. When it's football WC time, I'm glad I'm not an avid England supporter.

[Niya]

If you're concerned about being divided then why don't you just give up your side of the argument and we can all get on?

I would absolutely love to but as soon as one of us slips up and "misgenders" someone, or we say that we want a traditional stay at home wife, or we want our boys to not play with dolls and wear skirts or we don't find 300lb women attractive or we dare to make make a sexual, race or gender based joke etc.....all hell breaks loose and people start getting flamed, banned from social media, fired from their jobs, their names destroyed and dragged through the mud. Just all kinds of madness. You leftists absolutely lose your minds over the most asinine nonsense. It's like you think it's your God-given right to correct the rest of us. You complain about Jordan Peterson and Matt Walsh but the truth is, you created them. The overzealousness of your attempts to indoctrinate everyone had led to their rise in prominence. People are starving for some sanity and balance to return to the world so when thought leaders like Jordan Peterson rise up, they gain massive popularity very quickly. You think Elon Musk spent 40+ billion dollars on Twitter just for his personal amusment? No. He did so because it's getting way out of hand and he decided to try and do something about it. He may fail in the end but he has to try. Leftists need to learn to chill and stop being so triggered by every little thing that doesn't line up with their world view.

[Niya]

Well anyways. I think I've had enough of this. It's been interesting. No hard feelings.

[jmcilhinney]

Needless to say that there's more lying and playing the victim in there. Let's take it point by point.

as soon as one of us slips up and "misgenders" someone

Generally speaking, no one suffers any consequences for accidentally misgendering someone. It is deliberately and, more significantly, repeatedly misgendering someone that is the problem. You know, like Jordan Peterson did when he got banned from Twitter.

we say that we want a traditional stay at home wife

I can't speak for everyone but I have no particular issue if people want their partner or themselves to fulfil a traditional gender role. My problem - the problem I think that most people have - is when it is assumed that people SHOULD fulfil those gender roles and there's something wrong with people if they don't want to. There are still a lot of men - some women too - that there's something wrong with a woman who won't fulfil a traditional gender role and those women who don't want to should just put on a smile and do it anyway. It's kinda funny that we are having this whole gender debate and yet there are people who insist that biological sex is the be all and end all but also that having particular chromosomes somehow means that you should want to be a stay-at-home wife and be protected by a man who provides for you. Can you show me something objective where I can see that men are supposed to fulfil one gender role and women another? It was practical when we were scratching around to survive but, in a modern society, there's really no practical purpose to those gender roles.

we want our boys to not play with dolls and wear skirts

I'm happy to say that that's wrong. Why should any child not be able to play with and wear whatever they want to? What exactly do you think playing with a doll or wearing a skirt is going to do to a boy that would be bad? I've had discussions with people about the gender-based disparity in earnings and, pretty much every time, the other person will say something the effect that women choose lower-paid jobs than men and that accounts for much or even all of the difference. I don't dispute that that's true but my question is why is that the case? Usually, they've given it very little thought because they only look one layer deep. You're really just reinforcing the idea that boys and girls are trained from a young age how boys and girls are supposed to behave. Part of that training is what constitutes appropriate career paths for men and women. I can't prove it but I suspect that, without that gender-based training, women would not choose lower-paid jobs nearly as much as they do. I'm not sure that there wouldn't still be a difference but I suspect that it would be far less than we see now.

we don't find 300lb women attractive

I don't care who you find attractive but I do have an issue with the idea that some people should hide themselves in shame because you don't find them attractive. As an example I'm sure you're familiar with, when Jordan Peterson commented on that SI model, he didn't say that he didn't find her attractive. He said that she wasn't beautiful. No one was telling him that he had to find her beautiful but he was telling us that we shouldn't. He didn't have to say a thing about her but he chose to wade in and then all his fanbois are upset that he's getting criticised for it. You can find someone attractive or not but you can respect them as a human being either way. The faux concern about their health doesn't cut it either.

we dare to make make a sexual, race or gender based joke

I make and laugh at such jokes myself at times. I'm conscious of the setting though. No one's cancelling me.

You complain about Jordan Peterson and Matt Walsh but the truth is, you created them.

Jordan Peterson got famous by blatantly and demonstrably lying about Canadian law. You even tried to justify it yourself and failed on all three attempts. Matt Walsh is a religious zealot. Jordan Peterson is a religious zealot too, but he has his own fake brand of Christianity. Those people needed no making. People like that made the likes of you by whipping you into a frenzy based on lies and propaganda. The fact that you keep repeating the same talking points they do is evidence of that. I keep coming back to "cats and dogs" thing which is blatantly parroting their propaganda and utterly false.

You think Elon Musk spent 40+ billion dollars on Twitter just for his personal amusment?

I think he did it because a court forced him to. He suggested doing it in the first place out of hubris and ended up biting off more than he could chew. I don't doubt that he cares about free speech but I just don't think that he's the hero you think he is. I think that you and many others are overlooking a lot because you're so desperate to OwN tHe LiBs. I recall dilbert making a comment some time back implying that he was pro-labour but supporting Elon Musk is anathema to that.

Leftists need to learn to chill and stop being so triggered by every little thing that doesn't line up with their world view.

This one really grates. I don't much care about the accusation but I really get steamed the way people throw around the term "triggered". Again, you claim to be against words being redefined but "triggered" means something very specific and to use it casually when someone gets annoyed or angry is extremely disrespectful to those people who have suffered actual trauma and genuinely do get triggered. It's almost like you don't really care if words get redefined or not, as long as the only definitions used are the ones you approve of. I'm not expecting any kind of consistency though.

[Niya]

Needless to say that there's more lying and playing the victim in there. Let's take it point by point.

Generally speaking, no one suffers any consequences for accidentally misgendering someone. It is deliberately and, more significantly, repeatedly misgendering someone that is the problem. You know, like Jordan Peterson did when he got banned from Twitter.

I can't speak for everyone but I have no particular issue if people want their partner or themselves to fulfil a traditional gender role. My problem - the problem I think that most people have - is when it is assumed that people SHOULD fulfil those gender roles and there's something wrong with people if they don't want to. There are still a lot of men - some women too - that there's something wrong with a woman who won't fulfil a traditional gender role and those women who don't want to should just put on a smile and do it anyway. It's kinda funny that we are having this whole gender debate and yet there are people who insist that biological sex is the be all and end all but also that having particular chromosomes somehow means that you should want to be a stay-at-home wife and be protected by a man who provides for you. Can you show me something objective where I can see that men are supposed to fulfil one gender role and women another? It was practical when we were scratching around to survive but, in a modern society, there's really no practical purpose to those gender roles.

I'm happy to say that that's wrong. Why should any child not be able to play with and wear whatever they want to? What exactly do you think playing with a doll or wearing a skirt is going to do to a boy that would be bad? I've had discussions with people about the gender-based disparity in earnings and, pretty much every time, the other person will say something the effect that women choose lower-paid jobs than men and that accounts for much or even all of the difference. I don't dispute that that's true but my question is why is that the case? Usually, they've given it very little thought because they only look one layer deep. You're really just reinforcing the idea that boys and girls are trained from a young age how boys and girls are supposed to behave. Part of that training is what constitutes appropriate career paths for men and women. I can't prove it but I suspect that, without that gender-based training, women would not choose lower-paid jobs nearly as much as they do. I'm not sure that there wouldn't still be a difference but I suspect that it would be far less than we see now.

I don't care who you find attractive but I do have an issue with the idea that some people should hide themselves in shame because you don't find them attractive. As an example I'm sure you're familiar with, when Jordan Peterson commented on that SI model, he didn't say that he didn't find her attractive. He said that she wasn't beautiful. No one was telling him that he had to find her beautiful but he was telling us that we shouldn't. He didn't have to say a thing about her but he chose to wade in and then all his fanbois are upset that he's getting criticised for it. You can find someone attractive or not but you can respect them as a human being either way. The faux concern about their health doesn't cut it either.

I make and laugh at such jokes myself at times. I'm conscious of the setting though. No one's cancelling me.

Jordan Peterson got famous by blatantly and demonstrably lying about Canadian law. You even tried to justify it yourself and failed on all three attempts. Matt Walsh is a religious zealot. Jordan Peterson is a religious zealot too, but he has his own fake brand of Christianity. Those people needed no making. People like that made the likes of you by whipping you into a frenzy based on lies and propaganda. The fact that you keep repeating the same talking points they do is evidence of that. I keep coming back to "cats and dogs" thing which is blatantly parroting their propaganda and utterly false.

I think he did it because a court forced him to. He suggested doing it in the first place out of hubris and ended up biting off more than he could chew. I don't doubt that he cares about free speech but I just don't think that he's the hero you think he is. I think that you and many others are overlooking a lot because you're so desperate to OwN tHe LiBs. I recall dilbert making a comment some time back implying that he was pro-labour but supporting Elon Musk is anathema to that.

This one really grates. I don't much care about the accusation but I really get steamed the way people throw around the term "triggered". Again, you claim to be against words being redefined but "triggered" means something very specific and to use it casually when someone gets annoyed or angry is extremely disrespectful to those people who have suffered actual trauma and genuinely do get triggered. It's almost like you don't really care if words get redefined or not, as long as the only definitions used are the ones you approve of. I'm not expecting any kind of consistency though.

There's so much nuance missing in all this but we're just going to end up going in circles again and I'm exhausted. Maybe one day you'll get it, or maybe you never will. Either way let's just agree to disagree and call it a day. Maybe we could revisit this discussion 10 years from now when we're both older and wiser.

[Niya]

I'll just touch on this point though.

Again, you claim to be against words being redefined but "triggered" means something very specific and to use it casually when someone gets annoyed or angry is extremely disrespectful to those people who have suffered actual trauma and genuinely do get triggered.

They way leftists act out when someone pisses in their cornflakes, you might as well assume they have suffered actual trauma.

More to the point, there is a difference between forcing a word to take on a different meaning through shaming and threat of punishment and allowing it to evolve naturally in the language. I didn't think this nuance needed to actually be explained.

[Niya]

I'll also touch on this one as it's pretty straightforward and I have some actual personal experience to bear on this.

I don't care who you find attractive but I do have an issue with the idea that some people should hide themselves in shame because you don't find them attractive.

No one is saying they should hide in shame. But they shouldn't be crying and moaning that people don't find them attractive while demanding that the world accept them as they are. I was extremely bony as a teenager and needless to say I got some flak for it. Teenagers can be really mean. I didn't demand that the world just accept me the way that I am. I got two buckets, filled them with cement and put a metal pipe through them to make a barbell which I then used to intensely work out for almost 2 years. By the time I was around 15-16 I had the body that I wanted and everything changed. I will never ever respect a grown man or woman complaining to the world that people are fat-shaming them or whatever when they have the power to change it themselves. If you're too lazy to do that then you deserve what you get. Take it and be quiet. I understood this as a teenager. In this life you get out of it what you put in. If you want an attractive body that others would admire then put the work in! You have zero excuses! I did it as teenager by myself with no money to buy gym equipment, gym membership or or a personal trainer! Leftists can miss me with this body positivity nonsense. They just want to be excused for their laziness.

Right now I'm very out of shape with a big ol' beer gut and I get ribbed on it by friends from time to time. You think I get mad? You think I accuse them of body shaming? No, because I know that at any time I could choose to start doing something about it just as I did way back when I was a teenager. It is my fault that I let myself go and I take full responsibility for it.

[EDIT]

Forgot to comment on the issue of that SI model. I think that woman is beautiful. I find her attractive(I love thick curvy women) but she had no business whatsoever being in that magazine. It is an insult to the people that have worked hard and sacrificed to sculpt their bodies to get that recognition. She was held to a different standard. She just gets to come along and reap the same rewards for none of the work her contemporaries and predecessors had put in. I don't know if this was also Jordan Peterson's position but it certainly is mine.

[dilettante]

It's just a weird time in history that people will look back and psychoanalyze for a hundred years. Very much like the antebellum South in the US, the McCarthy era, etc.

Everyone involved will pretend they were just misunderstood victims, the Devil made them do it, etc.

[Niya]

It's just a weird time in history that people will look back and psychoanalyze for a hundred years. Very much like the antebellum South in the US, the McCarthy era, etc.

Everyone involved will pretend they were just misunderstood victims, the Devil made them do it, etc.

If ever there was a solid argument for immortality it would be this. I'd pay anything to see what our descendants would think of our current times lol....

[Niya]

More on the topic of Twitter. I been browsing the thread where Elon raised a poll on whether to offer amnesty to suspended accounts:-
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1595473875847942146

I was just soaking up the back and forth between leftist ideologues and normal people and found some truly hilarious exchanges. This one almost had me in stitches:-

42 billion and your grand vision is to outsource all decisions affecting user safety to all your little right wing fanboys

I’m confused. Are you not allowed to vote?

Tell us, how exactly can anyone be comfortable that these polls aren’t mostly being responded to by right wing fanboys?

Sounds like there is less of you then thought huh

Note: I used different colours to represent different people.

Even if Twitter goes under tomorrow, it was well worth it for this comedy.

[Niya]

Here's another hilarious exchange from the same thread:-

When you say "men cant get pregnant" you are grammatically wrong. And scientically but we won't even get to that.
A man is described as an adult human male, and a male is described as someone who has the gender identity that is the opposite of female. So yes, men can get pregnant

O, the biology be damned brigade. I would much rather be grammatically incorrect, thank you.

I'm purely talking about grammar here, not biology, so far I haven't mentioned biology once here. You are grammatically wrong.
And also biologically wrong, but that's too hard for you to understand, you need to be at least 16 years old to understand these concepts.

It is not biologically wrong to say a man can't get pregnant. Feel free to try it though, just not my thing.

This portion made me laugh but it was actually part of a much larger discussion which is basically just a rehash of the very same discussion I had with jmc earlier in this very thread. The only difference is that this leftist is not as eloquent as jmc. Poor fella tied himself into so many knots trying to explain why men could get pregnant that I wasn't even sure he was talking English anymore by the end of it. One minute he is talking about grammar then the next it's biology. I think the poor guy even confused himself. Fascinating thread though.

You guys could probably school these poor Tweeters on how to argue their positions. Though I disagree with a lot of the stuff you guys said here, you actually explained your beliefs quite well, just not well enough to convince me.

[Niya]

Another hilarious meme floating around:-
https://twitter.com/iamraisini/statu...15069046382592

[FunkyDexter]

I don't even need science to tell me this. I have half a lifetime of real life experience that tells me this is true. I won't deny my own eyes and my own experiences. It's common sense.

We like to think because we put a man on the moon, invented anti-biotics and have nuclear power that we are somehow so advanced. As a species we don't know anything about anything.

I go away to a conference for 3 days and you descend into literal science denial. You get that these are the arguments deployed by flat earthers, right? Science doesn't claim to know everything. That's fundamental to the scientific process. It does claim, however, to produce the best currently available model for existence based on observed evidence. By rejecting that model you are not demonstrating increased enlightenment but rather the opposite; you are demonstrating a "religious" fervour.

And that's kinda the point, isn't it? You keep saying we haven't made the effort to understand your position but we do understand your position. You think that biological sex is binary, which is true (well, not strictly, but I think the rare edge cases that exist aren't particularly useful to this discussion) and that Gender as a concept separate from biological sex doesn't exist. We fully understand your position but we disagree with the second part of it.

We have observed testimonial evidence that there are people who see themselves as a gender other than their biological sex and, further, that there is observable data evidence of different outcomes for these people, including an increased rate of suicide. On that basis we choose to acknowledge their experience, name it, and, in doing so, try to improve those outcomes. However, you have made zero effort to understand that position. When confronted with it, your repeated response has been to feign a lack of understanding in the face of evidence. I assume it's feigned because you're plenty smart enough to be able to understand it.

All that is required for trans sexualism to exist is for a significant number of people to identify the phenomenon in themselves.




By the way, you've been steadily drifting back into danger territory with the tone of you posts, e.g. "between leftist ideologues and normal people" and the last few posts are clearly an attempt to troll. Reign it back. You won't get another warning.

[wes4dbt]

Well anyways. I think I've had enough of this. It's been interesting. No hard feelings.

This was the last post I saw last night before I went to bed. I thought that's good. Then I remembered all the other times in this thread Niya made similar statements. It's like a fish saying their giving up water.

[FunkyDexter]

I agree, but if I'm going to ask Niya not to provoke in this thread I want to be even handed. This is an emotive topic and I'd ask everyone to avoid provocation.

(Or to put it another way, Niya is allowed to say he'll move on as often as wants to)

[wes4dbt]

I agree, but if I'm going to ask Niya not to provoke in this thread I want to be even handed. This is an emotive topic and I'd ask everyone to avoid provocation.

(Or to put it another way, Niya is allowed to say he'll move on as often as wants to)

Ok

I was going to say no problem but I don't want to lie. But I will try. lol

[FunkyDexter]

You complain about Jordan Peterson and Matt Walsh but the truth is, you created them.

Nope, you did that. They exist because there's a market for what they're peddling. What you seem to miss is that, for them, this is a career.

But I will try

All any of us can do. I wasn't pointing at you in particular but I did use your post as a jump off.

[wes4dbt]

I wasn't pointing at you in particular but I did use your post as a jump off.

You can't fool me. This is actually all about the US/England soccer match!!!!!

[Niya]

I go away to a conference for 3 days and you descend into literal science denial. You get that these are the arguments deployed by flat earthers, right? Science doesn't claim to know everything.

What we don't know dwarfs what we know significantly. As a species we have more questions than answers by far in all realms of science including biology. I'm not convinced our species has nearly enough knowledge about human physiology and psychology to be talking about gender and sex with such finality.

By the way, you've been steadily drifting back into danger territory with the tone of you posts, e.g. "between leftist ideologues and normal people" and the last few posts are clearly an attempt to troll. Reign it back. You won't get another warning.

To be honest, I have zero idea why you find this offensive. This is the least offensive way I could express this idea.

[Niya]

This was the last post I saw last night before I went to bed. I thought that's good. Then I remembered all the other times in this thread Niya made similar statements. It's like a fish saying their giving up water.

Sue me.

[Niya]

Anyways. I'm out.

[wes4dbt]

Sue me.

I'll contact my lawyers Dewey, Cheatem and Howe.

[jmcilhinney]

Nope, you did that. They exist because there's a market for what they're peddling. What you seem to miss is that, for them, this is a career.

Yep. Remember when Jordan Peterson said "I've found a way to monetise SJWs"? His fanbois laughed along thinking "yeah, stupid SJWs, he's monetising you". It never occurred to them it was they themselves who were paying him many thousands of dollars a month, not the SJWs. Now Ben Shapiro is paying him to make content that is pro-religion and anti-trans. He was psychology professor who wrote self-help books that provided fairly generic advice for the most part. He'd still be doing that if people weren't paying him to go off against SJWs and trans people and go on about religion. It's hard to say exactly how much he'd be crying but I'm guessing probably not as much. For the record, I have no issue with anyone crying in general but the frequency with which Peterson cries in public and the things he cries over are a bit ridiculous. The fact that it seems to be so much more frequent since his "treatment" overseas also seems telling.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Well of course people vary along various spectra.

Some guy might be left-handed, need corrective lenses to see well, be shorter than average, missing toes due to an accident, grown up with one parent who died and left him orphaned at 9 years old, had to leave school to work at age 14, etc, etc.

All of those can be obstacles to one degree or another in most human societies. Combined, things only get rougher for him.

But which of these can be singled out as positives? Which get him any special considerations from society?

I guess I just don't understand this discussion.

You aren't the only one. Go driving for a day...and over a full page of stuff gets written. Yeesh.

None of those are singled out as positives, but several of them do end up getting special considerations from society. Maybe not EFFECTIVE considerations, but they do get some in societies that have the technical capacity. For example, there are corrective lenses in societies that have the technology, so long as those lenses can be afforded. Another example would be Lionel Messi, who was going to be quite a bit shorter than average, but was given hormones, and is now somewhat shorter than average and somewhat richer than average, too, and partly because of those hormones.

Society reacts in various ways to various spectra. Lefties have long been stigmatized, shortsighted people have often been teased, though I can't say I've heard of any stigmatization, and the poor always take it in the shorts. Of course, that's all just a part of what I was saying. Society makes choices. They can be pretty brutal and quite unfair, but there are some situations where society will HAVE to make choices as to what it will tolerate and what it won't, because the spectra is sufficiently broad that it includes positions that are mutually incompatible.

[Shaggy Hiker]

What we don't know dwarfs what we know significantly. As a species we have more questions than answers by far in all realms of science including biology. I'm not convinced our species has nearly enough knowledge about human physiology and psychology to be talking about gender and sex with such finality.

I'm not sure that this statement is true. Of course, it isn't possible to prove the size of the unknown, but there are some fields where there may not be that much left. Physicists thought they were getting close, though recent experimental results have suggested that there are flaws in the model, so there could well remain a much greater level.

Still, if we were to take that statement as given, then which position is more likely to derive from that: That there are only two genders assigned at birth and definitively identifiable, or that there is such a thing as gender fluidity?

Of course, gender fluidity exists to the extreme in some animals in the world. There are fish that can switch back and forth from male to female as the population requires, and if you go a bit further down in complexity, there are species that are both. We also know that there are options beyond simply XY and XX chromosomes, and that hermaphrodites exist (both sets of physical equipment) and in a wide range of capacities. More like a curve with two large peaks, but which never quite reaches the X-axis between the peaks.

So, why would it be surprising if there are psychological variations as well? It shouldn't surprise anybody, but it's far more consistent with us not knowing all there is to know than the rigid binary position.

[wes4dbt]

I'm not sure that this statement is true. Of course, it isn't possible to prove the size of the unknown, but there are some fields where there may not be that much left. Physicists thought they were getting close, though recent experimental results have suggested that there are flaws in the model, so there could well remain a much greater level.

Still, if we were to take that statement as given, then which position is more likely to derive from that: That there are only two genders assigned at birth and definitively identifiable, or that there is such a thing as gender fluidity?

Of course, gender fluidity exists to the extreme in some animals in the world. There are fish that can switch back and forth from male to female as the population requires, and if you go a bit further down in complexity, there are species that are both. We also know that there are options beyond simply XY and XX chromosomes, and that hermaphrodites exist (both sets of physical equipment) and in a wide range of capacities. More like a curve with two large peaks, but which never quite reaches the X-axis between the peaks.

So, why would it be surprising if there are psychological variations as well? It shouldn't surprise anybody, but it's far more consistent with us not knowing all there is to know than the rigid binary position.

The whole, there's so must we don't know, argument seems like an excuse for when you can't justify your view. We make decisions without 100% knowledge constantly.

Unless you believe that everyones minds works the same and we all have the same body chemistry/biology (i know these aren't the best words to describe what I'm trying to say) then you have to except a person that's a male can identify as a women and a woman can identify as a male. It's not a choice, it's what they feel, what their mind tells them. you'd have to deny that some peoples minds don't fall into the norm. I think we all know that not all peoples minds fall into the norm. I'm not sure that people that are extremely talented coders have minds that fall into the norm,

I don't believe people with anorexia choose to not eat till they die by choice. No, it's because no matter how thin they are they are compelled to be thinner. If you think all people that are obese is because their lazy, your wrong. Some have a mind that constantly tells them to eat. Being active is great but not the solution to controlling your weight. They simple can't control their eating. No kid says I want to grow up to be obese or a drug addict or an alcoholic. I'm always happy when people seek out help and are able to overcome these issues. Most can't, it's just not a choice they are capable of making.

We're all born with our biology/genes and we work with what we got. I've always been good at logic and problem solving. I didn't do anything to make myself that way, it wasn't a choice I made, it came naturally to me. But there are many things that I suck at.
I think trying to explain how complex the human body is might be one one them. lol