LGBTQ Fascists, again...

[Diogenes]

Right and I'll do the same






Glad you admit that human rights are a fiction.



Then show me human rights? How are they MORE than a useful fiction? Please explain.





That should tell you why you have such a great country...



Where does it refer to left wing riots from 1968 to preset day? They don't even include leftist riots.



So I have your permission? And I'm not speaking of going into homes. Just making it illegal.




Yes we have a sister church in Uganda, at least they are on the right track. And it is only the death penalty in certain cases: The law in question defines “aggravated homosexuality” as cases of homosexual relations involving a minor and other categories of vulnerable people, or when the perpetrator is infected with HIV. A suspect convicted of “attempted aggravated homosexuality” can be imprisoned for up to 14 years, and the offense of “attempted homosexuality” is punishable by up to 10 years.https://apnews.com/article/uganda-an...5080c7bda40a8b



From the poll I linked: https://www.newsweek.com/americans-l...-shows-1807422

Here is another one: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/u-...port-heres-why

One thing that people forget is that HIV isn't as treatable there as it is here. If someone is intentionally spreading effectively a death sentence, then it's different, The US has similar laws against intentionally spreading diseases though less harsh due to the state of medicine.

[carpedm9587]

"Hermaphrodite" is also incorrect regarding humans. At best it would be pseudohermaphrodite.

HRT would also be used to align the interior sex identity with the genetic identity. Mastectomy would actually be appropriate for gynecomastia. Your phrasing was more in line for what's considered "transgendered". I have no issue with HRT and surgery that complements the genetics. If a male needs testosterone, fine. If a female needs estrogen, fine.

It is fair to call the work of an activist "activism".

If the question was not rhetorical, then you don't understand critical pedagogy or you simply agree with it. One can ignorantly agree with something.

You certainly seem quite ignorant of the breadth of it. Of course, you decry opposition and exposure as "polarized".

I'll add "anti-racism" to list of things of which you're ignorant. Lincoln didn't care about the issue of slavery until after Antietam and other European developments. The North had slaves up until the 13 Amendment. Few know the Emancipation Proclamation didn't apply to slaves in the North. Slavery was part of the broader North/South economic and federalism disputes. Calhoun almost set off the Civil War under Jackson with the Nullification Crisis. The Civil War was inevitable since the Northwest Ordinance.

It's certainly interesting when people claim to know things and then profess ignorance about said topics.

I think I’ll give you the last word on this. Thanks for the exchange.

[carpedm9587]

Right and I'll do the same

The difference, of course, is that one of us is ACTUALLY fighting for freedoms for all, and the other is fighting to have freedoms for just his own select group, and constraints for others.

Glad you admit that human rights are a fiction.

Then show me human rights? How are they MORE than a useful fiction? Please explain.

I just did, and acknowledged that you will never see them as such because of your arbitrary definitions. There is not much I can do about that.

That should tell you why you have such a great country...

No, but I can see why you think so. It’s just see another abridging of basic liberties.

Where does it refer to left wing riots from 1968 to preset day? They don't even include leftist riots.

So I have your permission? And I'm not speaking of going into homes. Just making it illegal.

Wow…just wow…

Yes we have a sister church in Uganda, at least they are on the right track. And it is only the death penalty in certain cases: The law in question defines “aggravated homosexuality” as cases of homosexual relations involving a minor and other categories of vulnerable people, or when the perpetrator is infected with HIV. A suspect convicted of “attempted aggravated homosexuality” can be imprisoned for up to 14 years, and the offense of “attempted homosexuality” is punishable by up to 10 years.https://apnews.com/article/uganda-an...5080c7bda40a8b

That any American professing to love freedom and honor liberty would even begin to post such things, Seer, is profoundly sad to me. You once asked me if I thought you were a good person. I have to admit to having serious doubts.

From the poll I linked: https://www.newsweek.com/americans-l...-shows-1807422

Here is another one: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/u-...port-heres-why

If will review. These did not come up in my search. I’m not going very concerned, however, especially in light of the nonstop culture war from the right. It is bound to get at least a little traction. But Americans tend to be hesitant to let go of freedoms once they have them. Even if there is a temporary reversal, I think the snap back is going to surprise folks.

Indeed, I still have hopes that most Americans will reject the extremism of the right this fall.

[seer]

As close as is possible, to the point of being their chosen sex by all outwards appearances and able to have and enjoy sex as their chosen sex. Percentages are meaningless.

So should these men be allowed to compete in women's sports?

[seer]

Indeed, I still have hopes that most Americans will reject the extremism of the right this fall.

I hope that most Americans will reject the extremism of the left...

[carpedm9587]

So should these men be allowed to compete in women's sports?

These women should be allowed to compete wherever women compete.

But I also think it’s time to rethink sports, and stop segmenting them by gender. Most sports could easily be segmented by skill or class. It is already done for boxing and other sports, and would completely eliminate the issue. It would take some effort, but would ultimately resolve the disagreements, and it would align to skills/merit-based approaches so lauded by conservatives.

[Diogenes]

These women should be allowed to compete wherever women compete.

But I also think it’s time to rethink sports, and stop segmenting them by gender. Most sports could easily be segmented by skill or class. It is already done for boxing and other sports, and would completely eliminate the issue. It would take some effort, but would ultimately resolve the disagreements, and it would align to skills/merit-based approaches so lauded by conservatives.

True. It's quite meritorious that William Thomas, the 462nd ranked male, trounced his female competitors.

Men are so good, they are better women.

[seer]

These women should be allowed to compete wherever women compete.

But I also think it’s time to rethink sports, and stop segmenting them by gender. Most sports could easily be segmented by skill or class. It is already done for boxing and other sports, and would completely eliminate the issue. It would take some effort, but would ultimately resolve the disagreements, and it would align to skills/merit-based approaches so lauded by conservatives.

So basically you don't care about fairness? Tell me Carp, what biological woman could make it in the NBA or NFL? That's right, none - no matter what you do...

[Diogenes]

So basically you don't care about fairness? Tell me Carp, what biological woman could make it in the NBA or NFL? That's right, none - no matter what you do...

Carp cares about maintaining the ideological line that males can be women if they call themselves so and proceed to dominate women's sports.

[carpedm9587]

I hope that most Americans will reject the extremism of the left...

I'm sure you do, as do I. I hope EVERY form of extremism is soundly rejected. I don't consider "freedom" to be an extremist position.

[carpedm9587]

True. It's quite meritorious that William Thomas, the 462nd ranked male, trounced his female competitors.

Men are so good, they are better women.

You are missing the point.

[carpedm9587]

So basically you don't care about fairness? Tell me Carp, what biological woman could make it in the NBA or NFL? That's right, none - no matter what you do...

I don't care about arbitrary boundaries that could be shifted and create a more equitable sports system.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter is a woman could or could not make it in the NFL/NBA. However, a sports system in which entry was based on merit - not gender or sex - would be more equitable. A tiers system, similar to what we see in boxing, would be equitable. There is no reason for the male/female distinction in boxing. You already have weight classes that could be tweaked to accommodate a unified system. It is likely few women would qualify for the heavyweight class, but as you move down the class hierarchy, female participation would increase. A similar approach could be used for pretty much any sport, though the criteria for establishing the tiers would have to be considered.

It is similar to women in the military. If a woman can fight, why should she be prevented from doing so if she wants to? The same is true of sports, IMO.

[carpedm9587]

From the poll I linked: https://www.newsweek.com/americans-l...-shows-1807422

Here is another one: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/u-...port-heres-why

I've now reviewed these. If you dig into the data, Democratic support is essentially flat, and the drop is entirely on the Republican side, which is no big surprise given the current political climate. If you dig even further, the drop is almost entirely in religiously driven Republicans. So the lesson is, religiously driven Republicans are returning to their previously held views in some numbers, everyone else is holding steady.

I don't see a cause for concern here - at least not yet. When/if the non-religious or Democrat numbers shift, I'll be more concerned.

[seer]

It is similar to women in the military. If a woman can fight, why should she be prevented from doing so if she wants to? The same is true of sports, IMO.

First, no trained woman is going to beat a trained man in the same weight class. Right now women can fight men in the same weight class - they don't have a chance. Everyone knows that except you Carp. And women can't pass the general physical requirements for basic infantry training. You are living in la la land...

[Diogenes]

You are missing the point.

I get the point. If we eliminated sex divisions and simply ranked all participants on ability, comparatively low ranking men would dominate the women. It's not just William Thomas, being 492nd beating the best women but Karsten Braasch in 1998 was the 203rd ranked male tennis player while age 30 and he beat the Williams sisters back to back when they were 16 and 17. The US National Soccer team lost to an Under-15 boys team in Dallas in 2017. Women can't outcompete men, Sure women can beat men of lower ability but eventually there will be a point where women cannot compete.

Your idea of creating tiers of ability will naturally have men in the highest tiers.