I think this lacks a lot of nuance. Girls can be born without a penis or vagina for example.
My point about this whole thing, and I agree with you and @Andrewgen_Receptors for the most part, is that the question was a set up. She didn’t fall for it.
A simple answer that fits 99% of people would have technically been wrong, and likely seen as insensitive (by some). A nuanced answer would have to be spot on with no error, or it would be ridiculed (and likely seen as insensitive by some).
So instead we should make the entire “social construct” of gender be based on biological factors? You know, she couldn’t answer “because she’s not a biologist”.
Sex should be based off of biological factors IMO.
Gender, I guess I don’t really care. People should be able to identify as what they want I guess.
Sports should be based off of sex, not gender. Unless it is open competition, where it doesn’t matter what sex or gender you are (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL). I don’t think we need to have rules forbidding female or women from competing in open leagues (and we currently don’t have these rules).
If we base sports off of sex, then Lia Thomas would not be allowed, but someone like Caster Semenya would be more complicated.
I think the problem with compromise in the US congress is that almost every bill is a massive, indecipherable omnibus covering hundreds of issues and funding for pet projects.
Compromise should be about legislators from both sides of the aisle acknowledging that there is a lot in common among goals that we are trying to achieve. And then just passing those pieces of legislation that are specifically widely supported (and not the narrow pet projects that get tacked on). And this would even be possible around issues that are generally considered pretty controversial where there is quite a bit of agreement on baselines, but then the disagreement on exactly how far it should go derails the whole thing.
The most recent example of this was how the infrastructure bill was held hostage in an attempt to get the larger build back better plan to pass, too. Many of the people holding the infrastructure bill hostage didn’t disagree with anything in the bill, but just wanted to try to tack on more of their priorities and pet projects. This isn’t an issue that only affects one party. But it does generally apply mostly to the party in power and so recent examples are more likely to involve democrats.
And that is why compromise is usually a dirty word in Congress. Compromise in the US Congress isn’t actually about finding common ground. It’s just naming your price in terms of pork and pet priorities that you need to be given before you’ll hold your nose and vote for someone else’s pork and pet priorities.
Indeed.
I think that’s actually males born with an extra X chromosome.
Do you extend that belief to ethnicity?
I want someone to explain why I am now considered “white adjacent”.
I think it’s because “they” want to cheat me out of a piece of the minority privilege pie (that’s my nod to the topic at hand…). Am I wrong?
I don’t think you’re wrong at all.
People of all skin colors, backgrounds, religions and other characteristics are now and always have been easily discarded for political convenience by Democrats in the United States for the entire history of the Democratic party. Your Oriental Dark Arts, Cultural Privilege and collusion with Gods of Lightning have ended up producing a population of Americans largely immune to the allure of victimhood politics and race-based policies.
I’m 60 percent Polish heritage and there are people in my extended family alive today who know what it meant to be considered Untermensch by the Nazi’s and were lucky enough to survive. Poles weren’t considered white then, is there any wonder why they’re so guarded now?
We’re both de-facto white in the modern USA, which just means we aren’t useful to modern Democrats.
If I had been Eddie Hall’s coach, The Beast would’ve kicked the living snot out of Thor.
…wait, were kicks allowed?..
Upon further reflection, I find it philosophically delightful that I can no longer choose to be what I actually am; BUT, if one chooses to be what they are not, that choice is being defended, all the way up to Supreme Court level, apparently.
Python would never choose such low hanging fruit !
I would argue that there should be no delineation between sex and gender. You are what you are, no matter what you’ve done to your body.
There was a quote going around at one point “There’s only two types of people in the world… People who have dicks, and people who don’t” and I think that should about cover it. Making the other 99.95% of the population pander to the few that need mental health treatment doesn’t make sense whatsoever. Not saying people shouldn’t be allowed to do whatever to their bodies, just that it doesn’t need to be presented to our children.
Edit:
I made a very distasteful joke about the intersecting concerns of modern gender theorists weighed against cannibalistic hunger impulses experienced during famine conditions.
I’d like to retract that post, which has no place in a thread about food shortages.
Agree here. I don’t care.
I’m a straight guy, so I don’t have much skin in the game. I have worked with a trans woman in the past. TBH, I wouldn’t even consider addressing her as a male. Seems like a dick move (no pun intended). I’m guessing most people would act similarly.
I’m against doing any medical procedures to minors. Doesn’t seem consistent to think they can’t consent to sex, but are able to consent to something like that.
I’m unsure about how schools should handle it. I don’t think it needs / should be early on if at all. I am for sex Ed, but I’m not really sure anything would need to change to be accommodating.
How do you know this? Maybe you were just brainwashed into believing so, having come along before the majority of genders and sexualities were discovered.
How do you know though? Are you a biologist?
/s/
We have an adversarial system precisely for the reason of making bills inherently difficult to pass. That was supposed to be the point. Comprise obviously has to exist, but compromise today is give the left everything it wants or go fuck yourself. That’s not the compromise I am looking for.
And thanks, I wasn’t up to digging up examples.
That’s not what I was suggesting at all, but if you don’t recognize the sheer insanity of our political environment right now, I am forced to believe you don’t know about it.
You don’t see our infrastructure is falling apart, while our transportation secretary just tells you to by an electric car and labels roads and bridges racist? You don’t see we are on the verge of losing the petro-dollar, which is what sustains our currency? If we lose that, we all get a lot poorer, very fast. You don’t see our president is sleepwalking us in to war with Russia? Common.
no you’re not ‘forced’ to do that. I disagreed with one of your beliefs, an opinion, and your response was that I’m not paying attention. All that does is shut down otherwise intelligent discourse.
Yo called McConnell a democrat pretending to be a Republican. That is an extreme, far-right belief, and you will find few people who actually agree with that. The same can be said about your views on Abbott. So the fact that I, too, disagree does not mean I’m not paying attention. It means I disagree with your perspective.
Has nothing to do with what we were talking about. You’re introducing a completely new idea here, which may indeed have merit. It’s just a new discussion.
as is this.
AGAIN. What in the world does this have to do with McConnell or Abbott? You said I’m not paying attention because I shared two opinions on these two politicians that you disagreed with. Now you’re bringing in a handful of completely different topics and asking why I don’t ‘see these things happening’, when they’re not even connected to the topic that we were talking about in the first place.