He has ignorance of Lek mixed with the unfounded overconfidence of Huggy and in all likelihood meet the same fate as the latter.

(November 20, 2024 at 10:58 pm)TheWhiteMarten Wrote:

(November 20, 2024 at 10:32 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Gender isn't a recent construct.  It has existed for at least several hundred years in cognizable form.  When medicine gave a definition is rather beside the point.

I don't see it to be besides the point at all.

Gender was used as a categorical term before the 1950s in an academic sense and the 1970s in a more colloquial manner; that is to say that before 1945, if you see the word "gender" it is going to be used in a context that tells you what exists between someone's legs and bellow their stomach.


Without going into *too* much research, we can take English schoolmaster J. Brinsley's 1612 definition from his, "Posing of Parts" - "What is a Gender? The difference of Nounes according to sex." 

"Gender" as used by the post-modernist is not a statement of biology but of personality, and thus would again find itself utterly incompatible with how the word gender would have been used even 150 years ago. At worst, it's spent the last 20-30 years rewriting medical textbooks on behalf of political interests to redefine "transgender" into multiple smaller categories; the UN/WHO being terrible about this with their recent ICD's published.

Another gender-related word that has changed meaning overtime is "kind" - once used colloquially to differentiate between what we might consider gender today and again intrinsically linked to the biological differences between the individual and other categories.

(Bold mine)

Then you’re an idiot. You’re claiming that conditions don’t exist until they’re formally defined. That’s just plain stupid.

Boru

(November 21, 2024 at 9:45 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(November 21, 2024 at 1:37 am)TheWhiteMarten Wrote: Don't need to; that question fundamentally misses the point. Allowing men - transexual or not - into women's bathrooms poses an inherent risk to women.

You should know by now that bald claims aren't acceptable. You allege that any sort of man, trans or no, is dangerous. My question is exactly to the point: can you show this danger? Do you have any facts to bring to bear?

What's that? You don't have any? Then fucking man up and admit it.

Until then, let me remind you of Hitchens's Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

Sucks to be your argument. Although I do agree that it's important to keep people like Trump and Gaetz away from underage women.

This is where he will cherry-pick isolated instances of assaults in women's bathrooms by Trans People and use that to tar all Trans people, or he will bring up the stupid argument that because CIS men might try and pretend to be Trans to get into women's bathrooms, Trans people should be punished

(November 20, 2024 at 8:47 pm)TheWhiteMarten Wrote:

(November 20, 2024 at 8:42 pm)Silver Wrote: It's a good thing trans women aren't men.

The overwhelming majority of men who identify as transgendered women are men; hermaphroditism, ovotesticular disorder, hyperandrogenism and similar conditions are extremely rare medical conditions that, without proper diagnosis, cannot be recognized.

*All* bathrooms, at least in the West, are historically and within living lifetime designated by sex rather than gender - for a variety of logical reasons, such as the above mentioned risk of allowing men into women's bathrooms as well as "gender" being a modern construct. 

What one identifies as does not change ones' sex, nor does mutilation of one's body.

We have no idea how often the SRY gene migrates to an X chromosome because it's never checked until AFTER a sterility diagnosis. And there are differences between the brains of straight people and trans people.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8955456/

(November 21, 2024 at 8:25 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

TheWhiteMarten Wrote:The best I can find in regards to polio and RFK Jr. are his remarks about batches of polio vaccines having sv40 (a carcinogen); the only reference I can find to him and polio is the Lex Friedman show where he states this as well as that 98 million people of that generation have seen a spike in cancer compared to previous generations.

For example, here’s his web site and organisation claiming that polio is a toxin and not a virus.

The photo you shared contradicts your conclusion; "It's caused by toxins." does not make it a toxin and literally the next 5 words are, "The poliovirus is a commensal virus."

Quote:Kennedy has been against all vaccines for many years now. In some anti-vaccination film in 2015 he equated vaccination to the Holocaust: “They get the shot, that night they have a fever of 103, they go to sleep, and three months later their brain is gone. This is a Holocaust, what this is doing to our country.”

The 2015 remark you quoted was specifically in regards to vaccine manufactures who had used thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative, in the past before it was prohibited in 2001. 

"I'm not going to take away anyone's vaccines. I've never been anti-vaccine. If vaccines work for somebody, I'm not going to take them away. People ought to have choice and be best informed, so I'm going to make sure the studies about safety and efficacy are out there for individuals to make choices if they are right for them." - RFK Jr (Paraphrased a bit at the end for brevity.) 

Quote:is statements sound true to Fascists because they are racist. Like when he said that covid-19 was ‘ethnically targeted’ to spare Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people. - or you haven't heard about that statement either?

Edited to wrap it up; I have, it's a misattribution to say that's he made that claim; rather he said, at a party, that some people believe that it targets and that there is some evidence, though to the best of my knowledge it targets Asians just as much as anyone else.

It does have a bias towards African Americans/Europeans, but that is likely a socio-economic issue rather than a targeted disease.

(November 21, 2024 at 9:45 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(November 21, 2024 at 1:37 am)TheWhiteMarten Wrote: Don't need to; that question fundamentally misses the point. Allowing men - transexual or not - into women's bathrooms poses an inherent risk to women.

You should know by now that bald claims aren't acceptable. You allege that any sort of man, trans or no, is dangerous. My question is exactly to the point: can you show this danger? Do you have any facts to bring to bear?

I've not made this claim, which is something of a common trend.

Strawmen aren't cute, they are a very common logical fallacy and frankly one of the most trite.

(November 21, 2024 at 11:11 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: (Bold mine)

Then you’re an idiot. You’re claiming that conditions don’t exist until they’re formally defined. That’s just plain stupid.

Boru

This is going to get redundant, but to echo my last post - this is not my position, as you would know if you were able to read past the one sentence you put in bold.

Strawmen are, again, one of the most basic and low hanging of logical fallacies.

(November 21, 2024 at 2:39 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: We have no idea how often the SRY gene migrates to an X chromosome because it's never checked until AFTER a sterility diagnosis. And there are differences between the brains of straight people and trans people.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8955456/

There are differences between the brains of depressed individuals and healthy individuals, between those who commit violent crimes and those who don't, even different political views show up on brain studies.

My position is not, and has never been, that trans individuals don't exist; my position in regards to that is that the overwhelming majority of them, those who are not intersex, are exhibiting a form of mental illness which is consistent with all medical texts before the 2000s would have stated and to which the DSM-V would still confirm through the fact that "transgender disorder" was simply broken up into several smaller mental disorders and brain-related conditions.

(November 21, 2024 at 3:33 pm)TheWhiteMarten Wrote:

(November 21, 2024 at 9:45 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: You should know by now that bald claims aren't acceptable. You allege that any sort of man, trans or no, is dangerous. My question is exactly to the point: can you show this danger? Do you have any facts to bring to bear?

I've not made this claim, which is something of a common trend.

Nonsense. Here's what you wrote:

(November 21, 2024 at 1:37 am)TheWhiteMarten Wrote: Allowing men - transexual or not - into women's bathrooms poses an inherent risk to women.

Either you're mighty forgetful, or dishonest. Which is it?

(November 21, 2024 at 3:33 pm)TheWhiteMarten Wrote: Strawmen aren't cute, they are a very common logical fallacy and frankly one of the most trite.

It's a good thing I haven't posited one, then!

Now, support your claim that allowing men, trans or not, is an inherent risk. Evidence, or an admission you have none, before this conversation goes anywhere else.

Isn't it nice we have a real live Absurd GOP-er in the thread? TWM proves the reason for the thread with every post.