Tesla $23,000 Battery

[TheMedicareWizard]

Every person who has bought into gender ideology is. Which is why it all falls down with a simple question like, "What is a woman?" There is no non-circular or concrete answer from that perspective.

Language is fluid but words still have to mean something. And it's not really an ancient concept in its current form. The idea of separating gender from sex is modern (postmodern to be precise). Earlier incarnations were more along the lines of stereotyping, like when unathletic boys were "sissies."

There is a lot of semantic slippage going on, I'll grant you that. I was thinking ancient e.g. some native American tribes embracing two-spiritedness. It's not a universally accepted term or concept but it implies separating gender from sex, and certain tribes have embraced the notion for centuries.

To me, the answer to "Should people be allowed to joke about X?" is always yes, no matter what X is. There is a difference between legitimate attempts at humor and just being mean, which is where the disagreements come, but I strongly feel both MUST be allowed.

I think a lot of folks are against famous comedians using their platform to punch down. Maybe nobody's watching Dave Chapel or Gervais and arriving at the conclusion that they should go out and murder trans people...I mean, I hope not. I recognize that the trans community is tired of it though. Honestly, I thought Chapel's account of his trans friend at the end of his last special was heartfelt and sincere and a decent summation of how he actually feels about the community.

I don't mind feeling a little uncomfortable in the face of comedy. Then again, jokes about cis male white guys will never offend me.

This is where it gets frustrating to me, because what you're saying is 100% inconsistent with biology and ideologically driven (though most people on both sides don't know enough to understand why). The focus on reproductive organs is due to the fact that reproduction is what sexes are about; it's why we have them.

There are 2 sexes, 2 types of gametes, 2 paths of development a human can go down toward gamete production. While almost all intersex people are either male/female, there are a (tiny) % of people who have strayed between both paths during development and can't be said be in either the male or female category, and that's fine. It doesn't mean there's a 3rd sex; that would require the existence of a 3rd gamete that can play a role in reproduction.

Gender ideologists have pointed to this tiny % of people who are "neither" to cloud the issue, with some success because it's something very few people will ever take the time to understand well enough to catch. That's why even intelligent people like Travis will say things like "There are 3 sexes."

Right, no third gamete. There are emergent properties in mutations though. They affect a very small, yet not insignificant part of the population. These people might identify as male or female or neither and hope that others aren't questioning what's in their pants.

gender ideology and Young Earth Creationism are on equal footing intellectually.

Mmm, I disagree. Though it's esoteric, considered fringe by most, there are significant academic works on gender. The arguments go back and forth, but I don't think it's as easy to dismiss as "the planet is only a few thousand years old."

To Marxists, a specific future is also inevitable. It's every bit a religion. A fundamentally more dangerous one because it projects the function of God onto man. There is no "Leave it in God's hands" for Marxists.

No, perhaps not. Ideally, projecting the function of God onto man makes man accountable. I've yet to see it. God isn't accountable either though.

 

[TheMedicareWizard]

How about ridiculing Planned Parenthood? I can't think of anything that's more a mass act of violence than murdering 60 million innocent helpless unborn babies.

Interesting framing. I don't celebrate abortions but abortions will happen. At least PP provides a safer way.

I might be using broad strokes here, but the pro-life crowd is predominantly concerned with unborn fetuses with little to no interest in the context, causes, and circumstances that drive a woman to choose abortion. Nor is there any interest in ensuring an unwanted child has a quality life (or for that matter a life. period.) post-birth.

"But TheMedicareWizard, all life is worth saving!"

Why yes it is. How about we start with those who've experienced a little life outside the womb? Maybe then we can try to save all of it.

 

[goillini52]

Interesting framing. I don't celebrate abortions but abortions will happen. At least PP provides a safer way.

I might be using broad strokes here, but the pro-life crowd is predominantly concerned with unborn fetuses with little to no interest in the context, causes, and circumstances that drive a woman to choose abortion. Nor is there any interest in ensuring an unwanted child has a quality life (or for that matter a life. period.) post-birth.

"But TheMedicareWizard, all life is worth saving!"

Why yes it is. How about we start with those who've experienced a little life outside the womb? Maybe then we can try to save all of it.

95% of abortions are for convenience.

 

[TheMedicareWizard]

95% of abortions are for convenience.

87% of statistics are made up on the spot. 99% are abstract and oversimplified.

 

[vic120]

95% of abortions are for convenience.

Kills me how the argument is always life is in danger and rape and all these other reason yet at the same time they want morning after pills in vending machines at colleges, Tele health is pumping these too and they want to now allow men to have abortions,

Where the only way I can think for a man getting pregnant is by some surgical procedure without being born with the equipment a woman is born with

Guess there doing that now because I have seen a bunch of stuff with defending men's abortions lately

So how in the world would it be by rape or life threating reason for a man to have abortions

 

[goillini52]

87% of statistics are made up on the spot. 99% are abstract and oversimplified.

Why Women Abort

 

[Tahoe Ray]

they want morning after pills in vending machines at colleges

Morning after pill is not an abortion pill. It prevents the release of an egg from the ovary.

 

[vic120]

Morning after pill is not an abortion pill. It prevents the release of an egg from the ovary.

well I misquoted it I am talking about the abortion pills

 

[TheMedicareWizard]

Why Women Abort

24 years worth of survey data, and the best they could do is group the majority into "social and economic reasons." About what I expected from HLI. Better than "convenience," but can you not see how that's still a broad oversimplification? There are hundreds of thousands of social and economic factors driving human behavior.

If you're worrying about why women get abortions, are you also worrying about those social and economic reasons or merely writing them off as "convenience?"

 

[whatyouwantfinally]

There is a lot of semantic slippage going on, I'll grant you that. I was thinking ancient e.g. some native American tribes embracing two-spiritedness. It's not a universally accepted term or concept but it implies separating gender from sex, and certain tribes have embraced the notion for centuries.

It's also not ancient; that term dates back only to 1990. And, if you look into it outside of ideologically-motivated sources, you'll see it's not what you've been told it was.

It goes back to what I said about "sissies"; non gender-stereotypical behavior. "Two-Spirit" was coined to take the place of "berdache," which is a term Europeans used to describe non-stereotypical Natives (sissies, etc.).

As is par for the course, ideologues tell a different tale (because who's gonna check?) to give the impression that "trans" people were a thing with Natives. It's false.

I think a lot of folks are against famous comedians using their platform to punch down.

Strongly disagree. They aren't "punching down." They're punching at the dominant power structures that insist we accept the ludicrous as fact. They're saying the Emperor has no clothes. The opposite of "punching down."

Maybe nobody's watching Dave Chapel or Gervais and arriving at the conclusion that they should go out and murder trans people...I mean, I hope not. I recognize that the trans community is tired of it though.

They aren't "tired" of it. They're furious because they're maximally triggered when others don't play along with their delusion. And, in most instances, I don't place the blame entirely on them.

Honestly, I thought Chapel's account of his trans friend at the end of his last special was heartfelt and sincere and a decent summation of how he actually feels about the community.

Chappelle is one of the more remarkable people we'll ever see. His historic talent aside, he's the only celebrity I can think of who made a life-impacting financial sacrifice to uphold his values. He KEPT his soul.

I've personally seen him throw a huge party in a dirty barn. He made sure young locals could get tickets, and at 3 a.m. was doing stage dives to Nirvana songs into a sea of young hippies (and junkies).

If someone hates that guy, it's 100% on them.

Right, no third gamete. There are emergent properties in mutations though. They affect a very small, yet not insignificant part of the population. These people might identify as male or female or neither and hope that others aren't questioning what's in their pants.

Sure. None of that has anything to do with a 3rd sex or the (ridiculous) claim that sex isn't binary.

Mmm, I disagree. Though it's esoteric, considered fringe by most, there are significant academic works on gender. The arguments go back and forth, but I don't think it's as easy to dismiss as "the planet is only a few thousand years old."

Which works? By who?

There is no work in gender ideology (which is radically different than the classic concept of gender) that is any more rational than YEC. You have to be incredibly ignorant or motivated to believe for either to pass the slightest analysis. "Because God created the world to look older than it is to test our faith," is intellectually on par with any answer you'll find in any piece on gender ideology.

It's a gnostic soul mismatch theory. We possess gendered souls ("gender identity") that are our "real" selves, that our bodies can be "wrong."

No, perhaps not. Ideally, projecting the function of God onto man makes man accountable. I've yet to see it. God isn't accountable either though.

Oh, it makes man accountable alright. "You are standing in the way of man coming into his true self and achieving his destiny of creating utopia! Any action against you is justified! In fact, necessary!"