Should Dems move to the Right of Biden?

[Logophile]

you stated that social laws were weird attempts to impose religion and backwards. I asked you about a social law that you would approve of. You did not like the point that your categories were wrong.

Hope that helps

Oh I get it. You're speaking a foreign language and relying on some computer program to translate. Well it's not working. I don't understand what you're talking about. I know what I said, and I don't see you referring to any semblance of it. "Impose religion and backwards??" What is that supposed to mean??

 

[NatMorton]

I know the context. The problem is that attempts (by politicians) to legislate science always involve interpretations of science by non-scientists. Hard and fast rules like this never work. What work are flexible laws.

So what? We need a legal definition of gender, and relying on proven (and easily provable) scientific principles is a reasonable thing to do.

Your demand to see a law that incorporates good science is just not going to happen, and your reliance on the laws of Montana, Texas, etc. is misplaced, because the interpretation of the science is just wrong.

Really? So it is "just wrong" to believe someone with XX is a woman and XY a man?

Sorry, that's just silly.

The (scientific) fact is that there are about 30 variations on gender, and attempts to knock that back to two are necessarily going to lead to some discrimination. When you bake faults right into laws, those laws are going to lead to challenges, and they will be far more trouble than they are worth.

No, there are two genders. There are 30 (or more) variations of gender intentity. Anything is possible once delusion becomes a factor.

 

[aociswundumho]

We will have to agree to disagree. A far left candidate would have a hard time getting my vote.

But she will have an easy time getting votes from democrats to win the primary.

 

[911Sparky]

But she will have an easy time getting votes from democrats to win the primary.

Wrong.

 

[The Brad Dad]

We will have to agree to disagree. A far left candidate would have a hard time getting my vote.

Is Jb prizker and Walz too far left for you? Cause that’s the type that running in 2028.

 

[911Sparky]

Is Jb prizker and Walz too far left for you? Cause that’s the type that running in 2028.

I was hoping for Wes Moore/ Pete Buttigeig ticket, but Moore says he's not running, so I'm back to square 1.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

So what? We need a legal definition of gender, and relying on proven (and easily provable) scientific principles is a reasonable thing to do.


Really? So it is "just wrong" to believe someone with XX is a woman and XY a man?

How would you classify an XXY? XXX? XYY?

 

[NatMorton]

At least they are flexible and not based upon a bad interpretation of science. They recognize the large number of non-binary variations and make a sensible compromise to come up with a workable law that doesn't discriminate.

Flexible? Please. I think you mean "arbitrary."

 

[NatMorton]

How would you classify an XXY? XXX? XYY?

Neither male nor female, but those cases are exceptionally rare. We are discussing whether a belief standard is a good legal standard for gender. It's not.

 

[The Brad Dad]

Neither male nor female, but those cases are exceptionally rare. We are discussing whether a belief standard is a good legal standard for gender. It's not.

What does their being rare have to do with anything?

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Neither male nor female, but those cases are exceptionally rare.

About one in 500 are born with these types of genetic anomalies, so let's call it an even one million Americans you want to leave in legal limbo.

We are discussing whether a belief standard is a good legal standard for gender. It's not.

Really? Are you going to perform a chromosome test on every person before you assign them a gender? Are you going to peek down their drawers?

In my system, the person in question decides what gender they are. In your system, somebody else - based on nothing but a first impression, probably - decides for them. I think the odds of making a mistake are far greater in your system.

 

[NatMorton]

What does their being rare have to do with anything?

Because they don't represent the cases we are discussing. We are not talking about people with rare genetic defects. We are discussing people with gender dysphoria.

 

[NatMorton]

About one in 500 are born with these types of genetic anomalies, so let's call it an even one million Americans you want to leave in legal limbo.

Cite, please. I don't believe that statistic is accurate.

Really? Are you going to perform a chromosome test on every person before you assign them a gender? Are you going to peek down their drawers?

No, and no.

In my system, the person in question decides what gender they are. In your system, somebody else - based on nothing but a first impression, probably - decides for them. I think the odds of making a mistake are far greater in your system.

I understand what your definition is, and I think that system is nuts. And in some cases were opportunities are reserved for one gender -- particularly for women -- it creates both a fairness and a health & safety issue.

The "mistake" is believing that gender is no more than a state of mind. Or worse still, a product of delusion.

 

[NatMorton]

Cite, please. I don't believe that statistic is accurate.


No, and no.


I understand what your definition is, and I think that system is nuts. And in some cases were opportunities are reserved for one gender -- particularly for women -- it creates both a fairness and a health & safety issue.

The "mistake" is believing that gender is no more than a state of mind. Or worse still, a product of delusion.

@JohnfrmClevelan, actually, I stand corrected. The stat you cited on the genetic abnormalities does seem to be correct.

It doesn't change matters, though. Someone who suffers from that is neither male nor female. More relevant to this discussion, some who is trans and merely claims to be the "other" gender need not prove they have that abnormality because -- once again-- there is no science in blue state gender laws. It's gender by assertion, and nothing more than that.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Cite, please. I don't believe that statistic is accurate.

X and Y Chromosome Variation Center - The Focus Foundation For X & Y Chromosomal Variations

X & Y Chromosomal Variations are common but frequently undiagnosed. The Focus Foundation has uploaded the latest & accurate information on X and Y chromosomal disorders. Visit our site now!

thefocusfoundation.org

No, and no.

Then you are just guessing.

I understand what your definition is, and I think that system is nuts. And in some cases were opportunities are reserved for one gender -- particularly for women -- it creates both a fairness and a health & safety issue.

Do you see a lot of men claiming to be women just for the benefits?

The "mistake" is believing that gender is no more than a state of mind. Or worse still, a product of delusion.

If somebody feels like they are a man, or a woman, or a bit of both, who are you to tell them differently?

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

@JohnfrmClevelan, actually, I stand corrected. The stat you cited on the genetic abnormalities does seem to be correct.

Thanks for accepting that much.

It doesn't change matters, though. Someone who suffers from that is neither male nor female.

You are completely wrong here. Most of these conditions are never diagnosed, meaning there is not an obvious reason to check. You couldn't tell just by looking at them, or even peeking in their drawers. Most XXX women are capable of bearing children. Some XXY men are not sterile. And that makes your "XX or XY" test completely worthless.

More relevant to this discussion, some who is trans and merely claims to be the "other" gender need not prove they have that abnormality because -- once again-- there is no science in blue state gender laws. It's gender by assertion, and nothing more than that.

There is science in blue state gender laws, and it is more correct than the science in red state gender laws. To that point, genetics are not the be-all-and-end-all answer to the question of gender. If you take estrogen, you'll grow boobs.

 

[Lursa]

Those things overlap considerably.

However, my initial bet would be that he lacks the ideological self awareness to identify his own preferred social policies as such, and believes such things belong only to those with whom he disagrees.

You you have no examples that illustrate the point you presented?

 

[Perotista]

I was hoping for Wes Moore/ Pete Buttigeig ticket, but Moore says he's not running, so I'm back to square 1.

As a swing voter, I would hope for someone like Andy Beshear KY or Laura Kelly KS on the democratic side in 2028. Both won in a deep red state which means independents were attracted to them. But my number one choice would be the spunky senator from Illinois, Tammy Duckworth. But first comes the midterms. This should be the democrat’s number one priority. Right now, it looks like a status quo election where in the house either party could gain or lose 1-5 seats. The senate is the same, either party probably gaining or losing a seat. No more.

 

[NatMorton]

Do you see a lot of men claiming to be women just for the benefits?

How many women (real ones) need to denied those benefits before you care?

 

[aociswundumho]

To that point, genetics are not the be-all-and-end-all answer to the question of gender. If you take estrogen, you'll grow boobs.

But that won't change your chromosomes or your ability to reproduce.

 

[NatMorton]

Thanks for accepting that much.



You are completely wrong here. Most of these conditions are never diagnosed, meaning there is not an obvious reason to check. You couldn't tell just by looking at them, or even peeking in their drawers. Most XXX women are capable of bearing children. Some XXY men are not sterile. And that makes your "XX or XY" test completely worthless.

If it's not diagnosed because it's not noticed than it's because it's likely not impacting their secondary sex characteristics very much.

But when someone like Lia Thomas, a very average men's collegiate swimmer, decides he'd like to take place of a biological woman on the UPenn team and unfairly compete against women to win events, then I have a problem with it. When he then decides to sport his male genitalia while changing in the women's locker rooms -- which he's reported to have done, often -- that adds insult to injury.

Then there's the problem with biological men competing against women in contact sports. That is beyond reckless. Women's sports exist for several reasons, and in a quiet moment you should ask yourself what those reasons might be.

There is science in blue state gender laws, and it is more correct than the science in red state gender laws. To that point, genetics are not the be-all-and-end-all answer to the question of gender. If you take estrogen, you'll grow boobs.

No, there is no science behind blue state gender laws. We've been over this. You cannot cite such a law based on a scientific assessment. No one can. They don't exist because trans orthodoxy demands a belief standard and brooks no dissent.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

How many women (real ones) need to denied those benefits before you care?

What real women are being denied benefits because of these imaginary men? Any?

Right now, my number stands at about one million, because that's the number of Americans who would be neither male nor female under your test.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

But that won't change your chromosomes or your ability to reproduce.

Is one's ability or inability to reproduce the test, then? I'm sure you can see the problems with that test.

Like the chromosome test, testing for gametes just isn't practical, it's expensive, and it's invasive. Isn't it just easier to allow the person in question to answer for him- or herself? I just don't see what's at stake here for anybody except the person in question.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

If it's not diagnosed because it's not noticed than it's because it's likely not impacting their secondary sex characteristics very much.

Yet it is your test.

But when someone like Lia Thomas, a very average men's collegiate swimmer, decides he'd like to take place of a biological woman on the UPenn team and unfairly compete against women to win events, then I have a problem with it. When he then decides to sport his male genitalia while changing in the women's locker rooms -- which he's reported to have done, often -- that adds insult to injury.

That's one (1).

Then there's the problem with biological men competing against women in contact sports. That is beyond reckless. Women's sports exist for several reasons, and in a quiet moment you should ask yourself what those reasons might be.

Any examples?

I'm aware of girls playing HS football, as kickers. Lots of girls wrestle against boys. My own daughter played baseball against boys in little league and did very well. Should I have been worried about her batting ahead of biological boys, or taking their turn in the rotation?

No, there is no science behind blue state gender laws. We've been over this. You cannot cite such a law based on a scientific assessment. No one can. They don't exist because trans orthodoxy demands a belief standard and brooks no dissent.

So what is your particular expertise in this area, such that you feel comfortable making such a declaration? Science degree? Research experience? Peer-reviewed publications? Gut feeling?

 

[aociswundumho]

I just don't see what's at stake here for anybody except the person in question.

It’s not just about private identity, it’s about how that identity interacts with things like sports, prisons, shelters, restrooms, scholarships, healthcare, etc. If identity determines access to these, then it affects other people too.