- Joined
- Mar 15, 2022
- Messages
- 33
- Reaction score
- 9
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
The science crowd speaks:
USA Today Names a Man One of Its ‘Women of the Year'
USA Today Names a Man One of Its ‘Women of the Year'
Nothing speaks more to a cheap attempt to gin up controversy and thus readership and ad revenue.Nothing speaks more to the diseased minds, the anti-science, the degenerate lack of morals and ethics of the Liberal mind than this story
It's only controversial to "conservatives". You guys don't like Time anyways, so who cares?Nothing speaks more to a cheap attempt to gin up controversy and thus readership and ad revenue.
Nothing speaks more to a cheap attempt to gin up controversy and thus readership and ad revenue.
It's only controversial to "conservatives"
I think it's more controversial than you think. There are those among us who believe gender classification ought to be based on scientific fact and not faith.It's only controversial to "conservatives". You guys don't like Time anyways, so who cares?
When a man thinks he is a woman and the filthy degenerates in the Democrat party legitimize and validate such deluded fantasies, THAT is a problem for descent freedom loving people.
I suggest you go get yourself some ethics and morals. You obviously have none.
Yes, "conservatives". The rest of us don't gaf.I think it's more controversial than you think. There are those among us who believe gender classification ought to be based on scientific fact and not faith.
Nothing grammatically wrong with that statement, and as for ignorant, I don't think you know my stance on the topic. For starters, my statement was directed at USA Today, not you.Thank you for your ignorant, ridiculous, and off-topic reply, and also the bad grammar.
The rest of you don't think.Yes, "conservatives". The rest of us don't gaf.
The science crowd speaks:
USA Today Names a Man One of Its ‘Women of the Year'
Yes, I'm sure we're seen as a laughing stock ... by those who no doubt will again call for help when they find themselves once more in trouble.And some here cannot even begin to see-- let alone understand -- why America has become a global laughing stock .
With Hollywood and Disney wrecked and no global scene for Baseball ( English Rounders) and Basketball ( for a vertically challenged minority), there is no American culture .
Unless you include muck -- Cola and Burgers
Nothing speaks more to the diseased minds, the anti-science, the degenerate lack of morals and ethics of the Liberal mind than this story
The rest of you don't think.
Did you read USA Today prior to this?As I said, Nothing speaks more to the diseased minds, the anti-science, the degenerate lack of morals and ethics of the Liberal mind than this story
Um, "Biology" doesn't have a "consensus."Which science are they “anti-“ about? Because the consensus of even Biology is that transpeople exist and are legitimate.
You really are .Yes, I'm sure we're seen as a laughing stock ... by those who no doubt will again call for help when they find themselves once more in trouble.
Um, "Biology" doesn't have a "consensus."
But I said what I said because every last law on the books I've seen that defines a more fluid legal concept of "gender" applies only an assertion standard. Even the APA's own published diagnosis methodology rests entirely on the patient's sense of self and not independently verifiable testing.
In short, the trans-lobby wishes us to adopt a faith-based standard for gender. You're welcome to buy into that. I do not.
The science of Biology most definitely does have a consensus.
And someone asserting someone is not “faith-based”. Why do conservatives continually have to lie and try to make non-religions into religions?
If Dr. Levine feels happy about her life, then I guess that is all that matters.