Your last reply to uke does make what you're trying to say make a bit more sense but there is still no requirement for absolutes. These situations are still going to be defined by societal norms in the vast majority of cases. There may be some sensitive cases that require specific legal rulings as to what restrictions are allowed (these mostly boil down to various types of women-only spaces) but they are still the exception and not the norm. Society is perfectly capable of functioning without needing everything to be rigidly defined and there is no slippery slope involved with this in the real world.


Just consider what that enforcement would entail. People are not naked in front of each other in a bathroom and you're attempting to police what bathroom they use based on their unseen (birth) genitals. What happens when a trans woman who "passes" is forced to use a man's bathroom and you're attempting to enforce this rule? Do you make her prove she has a penis? What if she's had bottom surgery?

Conversely if you allow people to use the bathroom they identify with you have the situation we have today. Occasionally things might be slightly awkward (but certainly less so than the above scenario) and someone who doesn't "pass" might get weird looks but that's about the extent of it.

aka

I don't know that i identify as republican or with republicans stances.

I don't know why we can't differentiate between male female, regardless of gender identity.

How do I say it, some people want their gender identity to determine their sex based rights. But of course we don't have constitutionally based sex based rights....

And so lia thomas wants to say...therefore its discrimination that I as a woman can't compete with women.

We skipped the language of 'you are a woman that is a male'.

I'm sorry, everything to do with your narrative on "legally enforcing social rights" just seems so internally contradictory I'm really struggling to even formulate a reply.

But perhaps the biggest confusion is that you don't seem to understand what the big ask from most trans people and allys like myself is. It isn't inventing some completely new set of rights. It isn't passing a bunch of new laws. It's just to socially, culturally, treat trans people with respect. Sometimes (mostly because republicans pass anti-trans laws) these debates get pushed into legal settings, but mostly it is about having that young trans kid who is struggling and having the people in their life treat them like a ****ing human being.

So do you know that Jordan peterson's stance on this is that its just common courtesy for example to use proun-nouns but to make it legally compelled is something to die fighting against?

He's saying the latter is akin to the pejorative take of Marxism. In other words they are VERY different/distinct.

The point I was making is that when clinicians tell trans people and their families "would you rather have a living son or a dead daughter?", they should probably caveat that will the actual odds of suicide for both trans and non-trans people, in other words around 25 per 100,000 and 7 per 100,000.

What kind of ****ed up doctor do you go to?

It should be illegal for you to use the word "Marxism" without knowing what it means. You should go to language jail.

If you were able to articulate my definition of it and/or especially give your counter claim of its definition you would be more convincing to the impartial observer.

You think calling people by their preferred pronouns is akin to the fall of Western democracy and the takeover by Marxists. I view it more along the lines of my friends preferring to be called Joseph and Elizabeth rather than Joey and Lizzy and me abiding by their wishes.

It certainly has the possibility of being a look-at-me and refer to myself in the third person as Kanye and a bunch of football and basketball players have done. Until it does, maybe refer to people as they wish?

I’m not going to look up the ordinary meaning of words for you. That’s a voyage of discovery you must go on for yourself.

strawman.

Of course not, because you don't actually have a proper critique. We can't share a definition of Marxism? You won't offer anything? How predictable is that.

Yes, it is telling. The fact that I, and so many other posters here, keep expressing to you that your points don't make sense, are indicative of the fact that your invention of new phrases and new definitions for existing words is making your message extremely unclear. I'm sure we have plenty of words to adequately cover the concepts you're trying to express - how about just using those, with their existing definitions, to convey your ideas?

This kind of, almost makes sense, but not quite. Maybe I'll try to rephrase and help this along.

Most sports divide men and women into different categories, because men are perceived to have a physical advantage (and generally do on average in most sports) over women. What we're suggesting is that when sports aren't high stakes, the importance of allowing kids to play with friends to enjoy and reap the benefits of sport outweighs any potential problems caused by said physical advantages.

Now, I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to make; perhaps you could find a way to put it more clearly. But I'll try to respond to what I'm understanding. At younger ages there isn't going to be any "failing to make the team" - these are the ages where I can't see any reason to argue in favour of imposing some kind of overarching "biological boys must only play with biological boys" rule.

Is anyone arguing that it should? For example, I've not seen anyone suggest that existing rules for some international sports around testosterone levels to compete in a women's section be abolished.

Very well said, IMO.

An "Appeal to Authority" is often a weak argument tactic, but it has some merit when the person is recognized as an authority on the subject. Why you keep invoking Peterson is beyond me. Why not just present the argument you want to present?

You argument here is based on a false premise - that any country is making, or suggesting that they make, the use of proper pronouns a legal requirement. The only laws I've ever seen proposed or passed around this issue are including improper pronouns as something that could be recognized as harassment - no one's getting thrown in jail for nothing more than using an incorrect pronoun.

You and the strawmen. That post was, at worst, a bit of hyperbole. You may not have literally said "calling people by their preferred pronouns is akin to the fall of Western democracy and the takeover by Marxists", but you are making some weird ties with Marxism and clearly think that is a bad thing for society.

Why don't you create a new thread about Marxism? Seriously. This is obviously an important issue to you, as the Marxist theme is woven throughout your takes on the different issues you are discussing, but it continually derails things as you seem to be using a definition of your own that not many (if any) are in agreement with. A dedicated thread would then allow you to better illustrate the Marxist links that I believe you see with different issues like education, transgender rights, and others.

look at this photograph

Did that guy switch from Coors to Bud Light?

Kind of feel you need a member of Def Leopard to hold up a photograph

AFK right now, might try to gimp that when I get home

The only member I can think of is the guy with one arm. No disassemble!

Time for a bud Light

With his invention of new terms and claiming everyone is strawmaning him he sounds a lot like a
new, but not improved, it's hot in Vegas account. I think he was a programmer too.

Won't this cut the number of potential nominees by 50 percent?

Imagine a world where people think they should adopt the political platforms of high school graduate Robert Ritchie and the lead singer of Nickelback.

Almost certainly a big step up from Trump or DeSantis.

I've got the idea solidified and I'm working on it now!