I do mumble from time to time, so I can appreciate the confusion. Yes, these people are fuckin’ crazy
1 Like
#youknowwhat
You are making my point for me. What you are saying is that your gender identity is determined by who you are, not by your plumbing. Bingo.
If you wish to define ‘biological sex’ in terms of the presence of testicles vs ovaries, I don’t have a problem with that. The only objection I have is what I perceive as the subtext of your assertion, which is that ‘biological sex’ enjoys a privileged status in determining what someone’s ‘true’ gender identity is/should be. (In fact, the opposite is true, as you acknowledge below.)
Bingo, again. Gender identity trumps biological sex; ie, it (gender identity) is more fundamental, and more essential (in the sense of relating to an individual’s essence). Thus, it makes sense that, when gender identity and phenotypic sex conflict, phenotype is the status that should be altered in order to bring the two into alignment–just as you said you would do if you were visited by that fairy.
Let’s say a police officer happens upon a man cutting off his penis and/or testicles because he believes he is, and identifies as, a woman. Would a police officer who cared one bit about retaining his job take the man into custody for a mental evaluation, because he had all of the PC in the world?
Then our lines got crossed somewhere because we agree then.
That wasn’t what I was trying to say, and if it came out that way, my B.
I was saying the quote I pulled from the article was trying to frame dude as some sort of troglodyte for “believing” basic biological facts. So, while yes, gender expression may very well vary from biological sex in some people, there is no denying that outside of some rare exceptions, biologically speaking people are one of a binary. Whether or not they identify as that is whatever it is.
A smart LEO would take him to a hospital and let other people worry about any details that aren’t “I didn’t want this individual bleeding out on my route”.
It may vary by state but, in this one, the answer is, “Yes.” He would also be stuck in the hospital babysitting for (likely) eight hours.
@Basement_Gainz, apropos our discussion of the organization of early human society: I was catching up on some reading, and came across a New Yorker article I thought you’d find interesting. It’s a review of a book, the thesis of which is that, in contrast to the commonly-held view, our species was better off as hunter-gatherers than in its subsequent agriculturalist, civilization-building phase. What you may find most intriguing is the sociopolitical orientation of the book’s author–he is deeply anti-statist in his outlook. This leads him to some novel, interesting conclusions regarding social organization and wealth. Thankfully, the article is not very long (unlike many New Yorker articles). Would be interested in your reaction.
1 Like
Thank you. Will read it cover to cover this evening after chores and lifting. I read a success/mindset book a few years back where the author defined affluence as leisure time after all your needs had been met. He pointed out that Hunter-gatherer tribes regularly spend more leisure and play time than the rest of us in the “developed” world.
1 Like
Never trust justice in places with ceiling fans.
1 Like
Hunter gathers were smarter, had bigger brains, and were bigger and healthier while working far fewer hours than their farming peers. Farming and civilization lead to a decrease in health, and increase in work, while initially being just as brutal. But it also lead an ability to procreate more and an ability to accumulate wealth and build things like medicine requiring specialization. There is also an argument to be made that it moved people away from be egalatarian and into classes (largely the demotion in society of women).
Not sure if serious…
Caught between a LOL and a painful facepalm
I don’t think the govt should ever have a say in how many kids you should have (a la China), but I’m 1000% on board with people having less kids. The math of our population is eventually going to cause a world war. Idiots out there with 9 kids and they can barely support 1. People should put more thought into having multiple kids. At minimum more thought than they do now.
If they really believe that, murder and suicide are also good for the environment, especially if you are murdering kids. People seriously proposing that should really just stop breathing.
Being born into some sort of social debt is the new religion. This type of philosophy seems to really work on people that need to feel guilty about something but live relatively benign lives- 20 somethings, suburbanites, etc.
I almost miss the good old days when God knew your every thought and was keeping score, so when you die you better be on the right side of the score card.
I guess I just prefer the good ole Judeo Christian god to this new Gaia bullshit.
5 Likes
Wow, she came cheap.
2 Likes
The problem is that the idiots are outbreeding those with the means and capacity to raise productive citizens.
Ehhhh Imo the problem is 2 people having more than 2 kids. Eventually that math gets rough.
Productive citizens subsidize the breeding of idiots.
Guys calm down. I’ve got the solution to all this overpopulation nonsense. Free heroin for anyone who wants it, and no Narcan.
There problem solved. Might want to invest in casket manufacturers and crematories before we impliment it though.
We could air drop it over China and India too. From 1 Billion each down to about 500 million in 5 years.
3 Likes