The Marjorie Taylor Greene thread.

[Distracted1]

The whole thing is wrong. The entire message. The misrepresentation of science from a person who believes in Jewish Space Lasers starting fires is a part of that whole.

It is not wrong.
It is a true statement that some find uncomfortable.
With snark added- as it was put up in response to snark.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

It is not wrong.
It is a true statement that some find uncomfortable.
With snark added- as it was put up in response to snark.

No, it's false statement that wouldn't be true even if she had said "sex" instead of "gender".

Can you cite the science that says there are only two genders? Since gender is about opinion how could there even be science saying there are only two?

What is the point of repeating this lie?

 

[Norman Alexander]

It is not wrong.
It is a true statement that some find uncomfortable.
With snark added- as it was put up in response to snark.

It IS wrong. Demonstrably so. It is only cultural dogma to restrict the concept of gender to male/female only.

Where to start...

 

[Distracted1]

It IS wrong. Demonstrably so. It is only cultural dogma to restrict the concept of gender to male/female only.

Where to start...

Start by visiting the thread dedicated to the topic.

 

[Distracted1]

No, it's false statement that wouldn't be true even if she had said "sex" instead of "gender".

Can you cite the science that says there are only two genders? Since gender is about opinion how could there even be science saying there are only two?

What is the point of repeating this lie?

There is a thread for that.
Tangentially, if gender is about opinion (as you state), how does one get to a place where expressing what is probably the most commonly held opinion on the topic as "hateful"?

 

[wareyin]

It is not wrong.
It is a true statement that some find uncomfortable.
With snark added- as it was put up in response to snark.

Oh, good, you're back. It's a shame you haven't taken the time to research MTG's actions prior to the "snark" you falsely claim started this off.

And the whole "Distracted1 gets to make his false and bigoted statement here but any response is off topic and should be taken to another thread" is nonsense. Don't want to discuss it here, then stop trying to get the last word in.

 

[catsmate]

My ignore list just grew by another bigot.

It took you this long?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

There is a thread for that.

Then confine your lies about the subject there.

Tangentially, if gender is about opinion (as you state),

Look the damn word up. Gender is about roles and behaviors and only typically associated with sex. Then look sex up in a few dictionaries, some will get in to the details of intersex.

how does one get to a place where expressing what is probably the most commonly held opinion on the topic as "hateful"?

I don't care how common the ignorance or hatred is. And I don't know that most people would deny that intersex exists even if they don't commonly talk that way.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sex

 

[Dr. Keith]

It is not wrong.
It is a true statement that some find uncomfortable.
With snark added- as it was put up in response to snark.

IIRC there is a massive thread with people arguing about this. I haven't ventured there much, but based on the volume of disagreement I would say that it is at the very least not settled.

We don't typically have huge debates among long term members here about simple scientific topics that are well settled.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

IIRC there is a massive thread with people arguing about this. I haven't ventured there much, but based on the volume of disagreement I would say that it is at the very least not settled.

We don't typically have huge debates among long term members here about simple scientific topics that are well settled.

There can be semantic debates but the science is well settled that not all humans fall neatly in to male/female sexes. And that's all the science we need for this thread. And that's even addressing the stricter question of how many sexes there are, where what is at issue here is how many genders there are.

 

[Dr. Keith]

There can be semantic debates but the science is well settled that not all humans fall neatly in to male/female sexes. And that's all the science we need for this thread. And that's even addressing the stricter question of how many sexes there are, where what is at issue here is how many genders there are.

Thank you.

I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I was just pointing out that if the science were settled in the direction the D1 and MTG seemed to agree, then there would be no need for a thread on the topic. I understand it to be a complex topic and the thread seems to bear out that understanding.

 

[Distracted1]

IIRC there is a massive thread with people arguing about this. I haven't ventured there much, but based on the volume of disagreement I would say that it is at the very least not settled.

We don't typically have huge debates among long term members here about simple scientific topics that are well settled.

Indeed, and I agree.
Does that make the %50 or so of the regular participants in that thread "hateful bigots"?

If the science is unsettled, making a declarative claim WRT the veracity of the statement (which I was definitely not the first to do in this thread) is of roughly equal value.

Holding an opinion that falls on one side or another of the issue is neither hateful, nor bigoted. Responding to the statement "trans women are women" with "trans women are not women" does not land in the territory of "bigoted" unless one has chosen to abandon all pretense of rational discussion and gone straight to spittle-spewing tribalism.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

Yes, sorry I didn't make it clear I was attempting to amplify your point.

 

[Distracted1]

Then confine your lies about the subject there.


Look the damn word up. Gender is about roles and behaviors and only typically associated with sex. Then look sex up in a few dictionaries, some will get in to the details of intersex.


I don't care how common the ignorance or hatred is. And I don't know that most people would deny that intersex exists even if they don't commonly talk that way.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sex

The legislation that sparked the debate between the two Reps. Is intended to create a separate gender called "intersex"?

Or is it attempting to legislate what constitutes a "man/boy" or "woman/girl"?

I don't find many people arguing that there do not exist people with their genders mixed up.
Even fewer that would penalize someone for having that condition (although, of course, there are undoubtedly some who do). The pushback is against those who would change the definition of "Woman" in order to satisfy the agenda of some advocates for those so afflicted.
The opinion of the Conservative linked to above by NYG is more typical of the attitude of those of us who would keep the existing understandings of the words where they are. There is no "hatred" or "irrational fear" of persons who choose (or are compelled) to emulate another gender, only an unwillingness to adopt the "solution" proposed which denies reality.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

The legislation that sparked the debate between the two Reps. Is intended to [misleading stuff snipped]....

No, it's none of those things. Look it up for yourself.

 

[dudalb]

This thread has been totally derailed.

 

[smartcooky]

It took you this long?

dubalb is as patient as he is long-suffering.

 

[Shalamar]

This thread has been totally derailed.

It has been sealioned.

 

[smartcooky]

The legislation that sparked the debate between the two Reps. Is intended to create a separate gender called "intersex"?

Or is it attempting to legislate what constitutes a "man/boy" or "woman/girl"?.

Neither, and if you had been paying attention, you would have known that!

Try learning to swim before you jump in at the deep end!

I don't find many people arguing that there do not exist people with their genders mixed up.

They don't have "their genders mixed up". You are still proceeding from a total and complete misunderstanding of the subject material.

Even fewer that would penalize someone for having that condition (although, of course, there are undoubtedly some who do).

Denying them the right to be who they are without being discriminated against IS penalizing, and in exactly the same may that denying black people the right to be citizens of the country of their birth was penalizing, or denying gays and lesbians the right to serve their country in the military is penalizing, or allowing people to be denied employment on the basis of their ethnicity is penalizing.

The pushback is against those who would change the definition of "Woman" in order to satisfy the agenda of some advocates for those so afflicted.
The opinion of the Conservative linked to above by NYG is more typical of the attitude of those of us who would keep the existing understandings of the words where they are. There is no "hatred" or "irrational fear" of persons who choose (or are compelled) to emulate another gender, only an unwillingness to adopt the "solution" proposed which denies reality.

Your use of the term "reality" shows us your true colours.... no different from those of Marjorie Taylor-Bigot.

Try telling a transgender person that their gender is mixed up, tell them what you think "reality" is when it comes to gender. Let us know what their reaction was.

 

[Stacyhs]

Try telling a transgender person that their gender is mixed up, tell them what you think "reality" is when it comes to gender. Let us know what their reaction was.

Don't you just love it when someone tells another person how they feel and what they think? Talk about arrogant.