Anonymous wrote:No but I think many interesting and convincing Democrats have left the forum.
The intellectual rigor has left with them
It’s too Trumpy here now. It’s not worth engaging with the trolls who aren’t posting in good faith.
I don’t mind the trolls, far-left, or far-right, as much as I do the heavily biased moderation particularly on fact based statements. Once I saw this insane tipping the scales, I drastically reduced forum participation.
I disagree with Jeff profoundly on some issues — and I think he is absolutely on the wrong side of history for some of them — but he is really pretty clear about his political leanings and subsequent moderation. Of course you are also free to respond exactly as you did, too.
Completely agree. I understand this is Jeff's website and he is free to moderate as he pleases but there is a heavy left leaning bias on here. One issue I believe he is misguided on is transgender issues. So many posts get deleted and it's difficult to have an honest conversation.
Unfortunately, we can’t discuss certain topics because they draw the bigots out of the woodwork. People who are disrespectful and throw out hateful comments as “a DiFfeReNt oPinIoN”.
The problem is comments like “biological males shouldn’t compete in women’s sports” is not a hateful or bigoted comment, but gets labeled as such.
+100
You would be right to get flagged as hateful and bigoted when you try and call Imane Khelif "tr@ns" and "a man in the boxing ring beating up women" when she was born female, has female on her birth certificate, grew up female, has never ever in her life been identified as anything other than female, including numerous medical exams and tests - UNTIL she beat a Russian boxer, after which the IBA, which is Russian-run and BANNED from the Olympics due to corruption, declared, WITHOUT SHOWING PROOF, that she supposedly "flunked a gender test" and has ever since been sketchy, evasive and generally non-respondent to any followup inquiries.
And then this poor woman got mercilessly cyberbullied and harassed by ranks of deranged right wingers, much like the ones who post here.
I agree that this should be flagged as hateful and bigoted. But that is not the example PP posted - what PP posted is definitely Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment.
However, Freedom of Speech is not protected by the First Amendment when it includes obscenity, child pornography, [b]defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words that incite violence.[/b]
Which is why Imane Khelif actually has a basis for filing a lawsuit for libel, defamation and cyberbullying.
However, expressing general statements on issues based on one's personal beliefs is Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment. As such, even if you don't agree with them, you are obliged to tolerate them so long as they don't cross the line.
No one is obligated to "tolerate" hurtful speech and actions based on certain "beliefs".
But the problem is anything that doesn’t agree with your belief system gets labeled “hateful speech.” You can’t have a rational conversation that way. You just can’t.
False. Not “anything”, just those that denigrate and hurt others.
Should we have a rational conversation about white supremacy?
I don’t think biological men should compete in women’s sports - hateful speech or not?
I want the borders closed and money going to undocumented people used for citizens instead - hateful speech or not?
Why do you say "biological men" instead of transgender women?
They are one and the same. It doesn’t really matter which term you choose to use.
But I asked about your choice. Why did you choose one over the other?
Because when it comes to sports how the person feels is less important than their biology. The reason we separate sports into two categories is because of biology, not gender.
Yes, your first statement about "biological men" is hateful because, by your own explanation, it is aimed at diminishing the reality of transgender people.
And there it is. Science is now hateful speech.
Just your interpretation of science which ignores the science with which you don't agree.
If you can show me the science that states biological males and biological females have no physical differences in muscle mass, bone density, lung capacity, etc, I’d be happy to read it.
That's not what I am disputing. I am disputing your contention that transgender people's identity is only based on "feels".
It doesn’t really matter what it’s based on. If they are biologically male then the they have physical advantages over biological females. That is the only important thing when it comes to sports.
If you are alluding to differences in the brain that make them women, that still doesn’t change the biology. It’s irrelevant what makes them transgender. They still have the physical body of a male, and the advantages that come with that.
Yes, it does matter what it is based on, especially when those like you try to diminish transgender people's reality. If you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge the full reality of trans existence, then I am going to assume that your concern about sports is simply part of a larger anti-trans agenda.
That’s the problem. You assume that I am anti trans. I can assure you I am 100% not anti trans. One of my best friends sons is a trans boy and in support them 1000%.
You won’t acknowledge the physical advantages a transwoman has over a biological woman. You’re more concerned with the trans woman’s feelings. Thats not what’s important here. Biology is the only important thing when it comes to sports. Full stop.
Trans people exist. They have the right to be treated with respect. They do not have the right to compete against the opposite biological sex.
Your last sentence is your opinion and one that does not currently appear to be supported by law:
I will readily admit that transgender women may have physical advantages over cis-women. I am not concerned about "feelings", a word that you seem particularly fixated on, but rather attempts to dehumanize others by diminishing their reality.
How is calling someone a biological male diminishing their reality? It is 100% reality. Are you saying people aren’t really transgender, they are transsexuals? They really feel like they are the opposite sex?
In and of itself it is not. But it is often an indication of deeper anti-trans inclinations. As in your case, when I asked why you chose that term you explained that "feels" are not important. That suggests that you view transgender people as only "feeling" that they are their gender. That diminishes their reality and is dehumanizing.
So rather than responding to the poster’s points, you are dismissing them because you suspect the person holds a belief that you perceive as dehumanizing.
Anonymous wrote:No but I think many interesting and convincing Democrats have left the forum.
The intellectual rigor has left with them
It’s too Trumpy here now. It’s not worth engaging with the trolls who aren’t posting in good faith.
I don’t mind the trolls, far-left, or far-right, as much as I do the heavily biased moderation particularly on fact based statements. Once I saw this insane tipping the scales, I drastically reduced forum participation.
I disagree with Jeff profoundly on some issues — and I think he is absolutely on the wrong side of history for some of them — but he is really pretty clear about his political leanings and subsequent moderation. Of course you are also free to respond exactly as you did, too.
Completely agree. I understand this is Jeff's website and he is free to moderate as he pleases but there is a heavy left leaning bias on here. One issue I believe he is misguided on is transgender issues. So many posts get deleted and it's difficult to have an honest conversation.
Unfortunately, we can’t discuss certain topics because they draw the bigots out of the woodwork. People who are disrespectful and throw out hateful comments as “a DiFfeReNt oPinIoN”.
The problem is comments like “biological males shouldn’t compete in women’s sports” is not a hateful or bigoted comment, but gets labeled as such.
+100
You would be right to get flagged as hateful and bigoted when you try and call Imane Khelif "tr@ns" and "a man in the boxing ring beating up women" when she was born female, has female on her birth certificate, grew up female, has never ever in her life been identified as anything other than female, including numerous medical exams and tests - UNTIL she beat a Russian boxer, after which the IBA, which is Russian-run and BANNED from the Olympics due to corruption, declared, WITHOUT SHOWING PROOF, that she supposedly "flunked a gender test" and has ever since been sketchy, evasive and generally non-respondent to any followup inquiries.
And then this poor woman got mercilessly cyberbullied and harassed by ranks of deranged right wingers, much like the ones who post here.
I agree that this should be flagged as hateful and bigoted. But that is not the example PP posted - what PP posted is definitely Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment.
However, Freedom of Speech is not protected by the First Amendment when it includes obscenity, child pornography, [b]defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words that incite violence.[/b]
Which is why Imane Khelif actually has a basis for filing a lawsuit for libel, defamation and cyberbullying.
However, expressing general statements on issues based on one's personal beliefs is Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment. As such, even if you don't agree with them, you are obliged to tolerate them so long as they don't cross the line.
No one is obligated to "tolerate" hurtful speech and actions based on certain "beliefs".
But the problem is anything that doesn’t agree with your belief system gets labeled “hateful speech.” You can’t have a rational conversation that way. You just can’t.
False. Not “anything”, just those that denigrate and hurt others.
Should we have a rational conversation about white supremacy?
I don’t think biological men should compete in women’s sports - hateful speech or not?
I want the borders closed and money going to undocumented people used for citizens instead - hateful speech or not?
Why do you say "biological men" instead of transgender women?
They are one and the same. It doesn’t really matter which term you choose to use.
But I asked about your choice. Why did you choose one over the other?
Because when it comes to sports how the person feels is less important than their biology. The reason we separate sports into two categories is because of biology, not gender.
Yes, your first statement about "biological men" is hateful because, by your own explanation, it is aimed at diminishing the reality of transgender people.
I’m not the PP but what do you propose people use instead to make the point? Do you disagree that transwomen are biological men?
I find this debate fascinating in part because of how rigidly the far left has controlled all associated language in the topic. One thing I have seen the left be spectacularly skilled at over history is policing language such that debate is impossible. This has been extremely effective in Communist regimes in particular. But I see it here too. If you control the vocabulary, you control the discussion 100%.
If using the term “biological men” with respect to transwomen is hateful, it quashes all debate with respect to the impact of that specific biology. In a weird way, I actually admire the iron grip the trans activists have on the English language. I can’t think of another contemporary contentious issue where the very language used by largely everyone is defined and tightly controlled entirely by one side. It’s masterful propaganda.
+1
I too am intrigued by how certain groups manipulate language to control a debate.
Anonymous wrote:No but I think many interesting and convincing Democrats have left the forum.
The intellectual rigor has left with them
It’s too Trumpy here now. It’s not worth engaging with the trolls who aren’t posting in good faith.
I don’t mind the trolls, far-left, or far-right, as much as I do the heavily biased moderation particularly on fact based statements. Once I saw this insane tipping the scales, I drastically reduced forum participation.
I disagree with Jeff profoundly on some issues — and I think he is absolutely on the wrong side of history for some of them — but he is really pretty clear about his political leanings and subsequent moderation. Of course you are also free to respond exactly as you did, too.
Completely agree. I understand this is Jeff's website and he is free to moderate as he pleases but there is a heavy left leaning bias on here. One issue I believe he is misguided on is transgender issues. So many posts get deleted and it's difficult to have an honest conversation.
That’s really problematic. Especially when the posts are cited and linked to a reputable news report. I can understand deleting outrageous or misleading content, but deleting actual news because it doesn’t fit your narrative is confusing and unnecessary.
“Actual news” like Breitbart?
No, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Politico, etc. Nobody here would post a link to Breitbart. Have you seen lots of Breitbart links?
And yet, liberals link to sites like Salon, Daily Beast, The Intercept - and expect to be taken seriously. Not to mention far-left randoms tweeting LWNJ propaganda. Very much a double standard here.
DP
No, liberals are not reading The Intercept (lol) and I can't remember the last time anyone looked at Salon. Daily Beast? I guess if a story pops up on reddit or a twitter feed.
Your info is dated and wrong.
I see plenty of links to Vox and Daily Beast as “serious” sources by LWNJ.
Where are you seeing those links?
DCUM. This thread is about DCUM changing minds. I’ve seen many LWNJ cite both of those sources as “proof” of whatever point they are arguing.
Examples? I only see them on DCUM occasionally. Less often than Breitbert, etc.
jsteele Site Admin
Joined: 11/12/2007 23:38
Messages: 50023
Offline
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:No but I think many interesting and convincing Democrats have left the forum.
The intellectual rigor has left with them
It’s too Trumpy here now. It’s not worth engaging with the trolls who aren’t posting in good faith.
I don’t mind the trolls, far-left, or far-right, as much as I do the heavily biased moderation particularly on fact based statements. Once I saw this insane tipping the scales, I drastically reduced forum participation.
I disagree with Jeff profoundly on some issues — and I think he is absolutely on the wrong side of history for some of them — but he is really pretty clear about his political leanings and subsequent moderation. Of course you are also free to respond exactly as you did, too.
Completely agree. I understand this is Jeff's website and he is free to moderate as he pleases but there is a heavy left leaning bias on here. One issue I believe he is misguided on is transgender issues. So many posts get deleted and it's difficult to have an honest conversation.
Unfortunately, we can’t discuss certain topics because they draw the bigots out of the woodwork. People who are disrespectful and throw out hateful comments as “a DiFfeReNt oPinIoN”.
The problem is comments like “biological males shouldn’t compete in women’s sports” is not a hateful or bigoted comment, but gets labeled as such.
+100
You would be right to get flagged as hateful and bigoted when you try and call Imane Khelif "tr@ns" and "a man in the boxing ring beating up women" when she was born female, has female on her birth certificate, grew up female, has never ever in her life been identified as anything other than female, including numerous medical exams and tests - UNTIL she beat a Russian boxer, after which the IBA, which is Russian-run and BANNED from the Olympics due to corruption, declared, WITHOUT SHOWING PROOF, that she supposedly "flunked a gender test" and has ever since been sketchy, evasive and generally non-respondent to any followup inquiries.
And then this poor woman got mercilessly cyberbullied and harassed by ranks of deranged right wingers, much like the ones who post here.
I agree that this should be flagged as hateful and bigoted. But that is not the example PP posted - what PP posted is definitely Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment.
However, Freedom of Speech is not protected by the First Amendment when it includes obscenity, child pornography, [b]defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words that incite violence.[/b]
Which is why Imane Khelif actually has a basis for filing a lawsuit for libel, defamation and cyberbullying.
However, expressing general statements on issues based on one's personal beliefs is Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment. As such, even if you don't agree with them, you are obliged to tolerate them so long as they don't cross the line.
No one is obligated to "tolerate" hurtful speech and actions based on certain "beliefs".
But the problem is anything that doesn’t agree with your belief system gets labeled “hateful speech.” You can’t have a rational conversation that way. You just can’t.
False. Not “anything”, just those that denigrate and hurt others.
Should we have a rational conversation about white supremacy?
I don’t think biological men should compete in women’s sports - hateful speech or not?
I want the borders closed and money going to undocumented people used for citizens instead - hateful speech or not?
Why do you say "biological men" instead of transgender women?
They are one and the same. It doesn’t really matter which term you choose to use.
But I asked about your choice. Why did you choose one over the other?
Because when it comes to sports how the person feels is less important than their biology. The reason we separate sports into two categories is because of biology, not gender.
Yes, your first statement about "biological men" is hateful because, by your own explanation, it is aimed at diminishing the reality of transgender people.
And there it is. Science is now hateful speech.
Just your interpretation of science which ignores the science with which you don't agree.
If you can show me the science that states biological males and biological females have no physical differences in muscle mass, bone density, lung capacity, etc, I’d be happy to read it.
That's not what I am disputing. I am disputing your contention that transgender people's identity is only based on "feels".
It doesn’t really matter what it’s based on. If they are biologically male then the they have physical advantages over biological females. That is the only important thing when it comes to sports.
If you are alluding to differences in the brain that make them women, that still doesn’t change the biology. It’s irrelevant what makes them transgender. They still have the physical body of a male, and the advantages that come with that.
Yes, it does matter what it is based on, especially when those like you try to diminish transgender people's reality. If you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge the full reality of trans existence, then I am going to assume that your concern about sports is simply part of a larger anti-trans agenda.
That’s the problem. You assume that I am anti trans. I can assure you I am 100% not anti trans. One of my best friends sons is a trans boy and in support them 1000%.
You won’t acknowledge the physical advantages a transwoman has over a biological woman. You’re more concerned with the trans woman’s feelings. Thats not what’s important here. Biology is the only important thing when it comes to sports. Full stop.
Trans people exist. They have the right to be treated with respect. They do not have the right to compete against the opposite biological sex.
Your last sentence is your opinion and one that does not currently appear to be supported by law:
I will readily admit that transgender women may have physical advantages over cis-women. I am not concerned about "feelings", a word that you seem particularly fixated on, but rather attempts to dehumanize others by diminishing their reality.
How is calling someone a biological male diminishing their reality? It is 100% reality. Are you saying people aren’t really transgender, they are transsexuals? They really feel like they are the opposite sex?
In and of itself it is not. But it is often an indication of deeper anti-trans inclinations. As in your case, when I asked why you chose that term you explained that "feels" are not important. That suggests that you view transgender people as only "feeling" that they are their gender. That diminishes their reality and is dehumanizing.
If they are biological males but are choosing to present as women, what is it other than a feeling?
You are the allegedly pro-trans person whose friends have a trans kid and so on. You should know this already. At any rate, I have to move on to other tasks now. Your original question was whether saying that "biological men should not play women's sports" is hateful. Not always, but you clearly suggest that you have deeper antagonism towards trans people which any discussion of this topic would likely reveal (and, indeed, already has).
Anonymous wrote:No but I think many interesting and convincing Democrats have left the forum.
The intellectual rigor has left with them
It’s too Trumpy here now. It’s not worth engaging with the trolls who aren’t posting in good faith.
I don’t mind the trolls, far-left, or far-right, as much as I do the heavily biased moderation particularly on fact based statements. Once I saw this insane tipping the scales, I drastically reduced forum participation.
I disagree with Jeff profoundly on some issues — and I think he is absolutely on the wrong side of history for some of them — but he is really pretty clear about his political leanings and subsequent moderation. Of course you are also free to respond exactly as you did, too.
Completely agree. I understand this is Jeff's website and he is free to moderate as he pleases but there is a heavy left leaning bias on here. One issue I believe he is misguided on is transgender issues. So many posts get deleted and it's difficult to have an honest conversation.
Unfortunately, we can’t discuss certain topics because they draw the bigots out of the woodwork. People who are disrespectful and throw out hateful comments as “a DiFfeReNt oPinIoN”.
The problem is comments like “biological males shouldn’t compete in women’s sports” is not a hateful or bigoted comment, but gets labeled as such.
+100
You would be right to get flagged as hateful and bigoted when you try and call Imane Khelif "tr@ns" and "a man in the boxing ring beating up women" when she was born female, has female on her birth certificate, grew up female, has never ever in her life been identified as anything other than female, including numerous medical exams and tests - UNTIL she beat a Russian boxer, after which the IBA, which is Russian-run and BANNED from the Olympics due to corruption, declared, WITHOUT SHOWING PROOF, that she supposedly "flunked a gender test" and has ever since been sketchy, evasive and generally non-respondent to any followup inquiries.
And then this poor woman got mercilessly cyberbullied and harassed by ranks of deranged right wingers, much like the ones who post here.
I agree that this should be flagged as hateful and bigoted. But that is not the example PP posted - what PP posted is definitely Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment.
However, Freedom of Speech is not protected by the First Amendment when it includes obscenity, child pornography, [b]defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words that incite violence.[/b]
Which is why Imane Khelif actually has a basis for filing a lawsuit for libel, defamation and cyberbullying.
However, expressing general statements on issues based on one's personal beliefs is Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment. As such, even if you don't agree with them, you are obliged to tolerate them so long as they don't cross the line.
No one is obligated to "tolerate" hurtful speech and actions based on certain "beliefs".
But the problem is anything that doesn’t agree with your belief system gets labeled “hateful speech.” You can’t have a rational conversation that way. You just can’t.
False. Not “anything”, just those that denigrate and hurt others.
Should we have a rational conversation about white supremacy?
I don’t think biological men should compete in women’s sports - hateful speech or not?
I want the borders closed and money going to undocumented people used for citizens instead - hateful speech or not?
No. Not hateful speech. But the problem with the far left is they think EVERYTHING is hate speech if it hurts someone's feelings.
You know the best lesson I learned growing up?
Life isn't always a bowl of cherries!!!
Things don't always go the way we want them. Life isn't fair. Get over it.
Toughen up folks. Life isn't fair. Get over it. Everyone needs to get a grip.
That doesn’t sound very “tolerant and respectful”. Interesting.
jsteele Site Admin
Joined: 11/12/2007 23:38
Messages: 50023
Offline
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:No but I think many interesting and convincing Democrats have left the forum.
The intellectual rigor has left with them
It’s too Trumpy here now. It’s not worth engaging with the trolls who aren’t posting in good faith.
I don’t mind the trolls, far-left, or far-right, as much as I do the heavily biased moderation particularly on fact based statements. Once I saw this insane tipping the scales, I drastically reduced forum participation.
I disagree with Jeff profoundly on some issues — and I think he is absolutely on the wrong side of history for some of them — but he is really pretty clear about his political leanings and subsequent moderation. Of course you are also free to respond exactly as you did, too.
Completely agree. I understand this is Jeff's website and he is free to moderate as he pleases but there is a heavy left leaning bias on here. One issue I believe he is misguided on is transgender issues. So many posts get deleted and it's difficult to have an honest conversation.
Unfortunately, we can’t discuss certain topics because they draw the bigots out of the woodwork. People who are disrespectful and throw out hateful comments as “a DiFfeReNt oPinIoN”.
The problem is comments like “biological males shouldn’t compete in women’s sports” is not a hateful or bigoted comment, but gets labeled as such.
+100
You would be right to get flagged as hateful and bigoted when you try and call Imane Khelif "tr@ns" and "a man in the boxing ring beating up women" when she was born female, has female on her birth certificate, grew up female, has never ever in her life been identified as anything other than female, including numerous medical exams and tests - UNTIL she beat a Russian boxer, after which the IBA, which is Russian-run and BANNED from the Olympics due to corruption, declared, WITHOUT SHOWING PROOF, that she supposedly "flunked a gender test" and has ever since been sketchy, evasive and generally non-respondent to any followup inquiries.
And then this poor woman got mercilessly cyberbullied and harassed by ranks of deranged right wingers, much like the ones who post here.
I agree that this should be flagged as hateful and bigoted. But that is not the example PP posted - what PP posted is definitely Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment.
However, Freedom of Speech is not protected by the First Amendment when it includes obscenity, child pornography, [b]defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words that incite violence.[/b]
Which is why Imane Khelif actually has a basis for filing a lawsuit for libel, defamation and cyberbullying.
However, expressing general statements on issues based on one's personal beliefs is Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment. As such, even if you don't agree with them, you are obliged to tolerate them so long as they don't cross the line.
No one is obligated to "tolerate" hurtful speech and actions based on certain "beliefs".
But the problem is anything that doesn’t agree with your belief system gets labeled “hateful speech.” You can’t have a rational conversation that way. You just can’t.
False. Not “anything”, just those that denigrate and hurt others.
Should we have a rational conversation about white supremacy?
I don’t think biological men should compete in women’s sports - hateful speech or not?
I want the borders closed and money going to undocumented people used for citizens instead - hateful speech or not?
Why do you say "biological men" instead of transgender women?
They are one and the same. It doesn’t really matter which term you choose to use.
But I asked about your choice. Why did you choose one over the other?
Because when it comes to sports how the person feels is less important than their biology. The reason we separate sports into two categories is because of biology, not gender.
Yes, your first statement about "biological men" is hateful because, by your own explanation, it is aimed at diminishing the reality of transgender people.
And there it is. Science is now hateful speech.
Just your interpretation of science which ignores the science with which you don't agree.
If you can show me the science that states biological males and biological females have no physical differences in muscle mass, bone density, lung capacity, etc, I’d be happy to read it.
That's not what I am disputing. I am disputing your contention that transgender people's identity is only based on "feels".
It doesn’t really matter what it’s based on. If they are biologically male then the they have physical advantages over biological females. That is the only important thing when it comes to sports.
If you are alluding to differences in the brain that make them women, that still doesn’t change the biology. It’s irrelevant what makes them transgender. They still have the physical body of a male, and the advantages that come with that.
Yes, it does matter what it is based on, especially when those like you try to diminish transgender people's reality. If you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge the full reality of trans existence, then I am going to assume that your concern about sports is simply part of a larger anti-trans agenda.
That’s the problem. You assume that I am anti trans. I can assure you I am 100% not anti trans. One of my best friends sons is a trans boy and in support them 1000%.
You won’t acknowledge the physical advantages a transwoman has over a biological woman. You’re more concerned with the trans woman’s feelings. Thats not what’s important here. Biology is the only important thing when it comes to sports. Full stop.
Trans people exist. They have the right to be treated with respect. They do not have the right to compete against the opposite biological sex.
Your last sentence is your opinion and one that does not currently appear to be supported by law:
I will readily admit that transgender women may have physical advantages over cis-women. I am not concerned about "feelings", a word that you seem particularly fixated on, but rather attempts to dehumanize others by diminishing their reality.
How is calling someone a biological male diminishing their reality? It is 100% reality. Are you saying people aren’t really transgender, they are transsexuals? They really feel like they are the opposite sex?
In and of itself it is not. But it is often an indication of deeper anti-trans inclinations. As in your case, when I asked why you chose that term you explained that "feels" are not important. That suggests that you view transgender people as only "feeling" that they are their gender. That diminishes their reality and is dehumanizing.
So rather than responding to the poster’s points, you are dismissing them because you suspect the person holds a belief that you perceive as dehumanizing.
The question was whether saying that "I don’t think biological men should compete in women’s sports" is hateful. I responded to that. I am certainly not questioning the poster's existence.
Anonymous wrote:No but I think many interesting and convincing Democrats have left the forum.
The intellectual rigor has left with them
It’s too Trumpy here now. It’s not worth engaging with the trolls who aren’t posting in good faith.
I don’t mind the trolls, far-left, or far-right, as much as I do the heavily biased moderation particularly on fact based statements. Once I saw this insane tipping the scales, I drastically reduced forum participation.
I disagree with Jeff profoundly on some issues — and I think he is absolutely on the wrong side of history for some of them — but he is really pretty clear about his political leanings and subsequent moderation. Of course you are also free to respond exactly as you did, too.
Completely agree. I understand this is Jeff's website and he is free to moderate as he pleases but there is a heavy left leaning bias on here. One issue I believe he is misguided on is transgender issues. So many posts get deleted and it's difficult to have an honest conversation.
Unfortunately, we can’t discuss certain topics because they draw the bigots out of the woodwork. People who are disrespectful and throw out hateful comments as “a DiFfeReNt oPinIoN”.
The problem is comments like “biological males shouldn’t compete in women’s sports” is not a hateful or bigoted comment, but gets labeled as such.
+100
You would be right to get flagged as hateful and bigoted when you try and call Imane Khelif "tr@ns" and "a man in the boxing ring beating up women" when she was born female, has female on her birth certificate, grew up female, has never ever in her life been identified as anything other than female, including numerous medical exams and tests - UNTIL she beat a Russian boxer, after which the IBA, which is Russian-run and BANNED from the Olympics due to corruption, declared, WITHOUT SHOWING PROOF, that she supposedly "flunked a gender test" and has ever since been sketchy, evasive and generally non-respondent to any followup inquiries.
And then this poor woman got mercilessly cyberbullied and harassed by ranks of deranged right wingers, much like the ones who post here.
I agree that this should be flagged as hateful and bigoted. But that is not the example PP posted - what PP posted is definitely Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment.
However, Freedom of Speech is not protected by the First Amendment when it includes obscenity, child pornography, [b]defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words that incite violence.[/b]
Which is why Imane Khelif actually has a basis for filing a lawsuit for libel, defamation and cyberbullying.
However, expressing general statements on issues based on one's personal beliefs is Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment. As such, even if you don't agree with them, you are obliged to tolerate them so long as they don't cross the line.
No one is obligated to "tolerate" hurtful speech and actions based on certain "beliefs".
But the problem is anything that doesn’t agree with your belief system gets labeled “hateful speech.” You can’t have a rational conversation that way. You just can’t.
False. Not “anything”, just those that denigrate and hurt others.
Should we have a rational conversation about white supremacy?
I don’t think biological men should compete in women’s sports - hateful speech or not?
I want the borders closed and money going to undocumented people used for citizens instead - hateful speech or not?
Why do you say "biological men" instead of transgender women?
They are one and the same. It doesn’t really matter which term you choose to use.
But I asked about your choice. Why did you choose one over the other?
Because when it comes to sports how the person feels is less important than their biology. The reason we separate sports into two categories is because of biology, not gender.
Yes, your first statement about "biological men" is hateful because, by your own explanation, it is aimed at diminishing the reality of transgender people.
I’m not the PP but what do you propose people use instead to make the point? Do you disagree that transwomen are biological men?
I find this debate fascinating in part because of how rigidly the far left has controlled all associated language in the topic. One thing I have seen the left be spectacularly skilled at over history is policing language such that debate is impossible. This has been extremely effective in Communist regimes in particular. But I see it here too. If you control the vocabulary, you control the discussion 100%.
If using the term “biological men” with respect to transwomen is hateful, it quashes all debate with respect to the impact of that specific biology. In a weird way, I actually admire the iron grip the trans activists have on the English language. I can’t think of another contemporary contentious issue where the very language used by largely everyone is defined and tightly controlled entirely by one side. It’s masterful propaganda.
+1
I too am intrigued by how certain groups manipulate language to control a debate.
Such as PP’s intentional use of “biological male”.
Anonymous wrote:No but I think many interesting and convincing Democrats have left the forum.
The intellectual rigor has left with them
It’s too Trumpy here now. It’s not worth engaging with the trolls who aren’t posting in good faith.
I don’t mind the trolls, far-left, or far-right, as much as I do the heavily biased moderation particularly on fact based statements. Once I saw this insane tipping the scales, I drastically reduced forum participation.
I disagree with Jeff profoundly on some issues — and I think he is absolutely on the wrong side of history for some of them — but he is really pretty clear about his political leanings and subsequent moderation. Of course you are also free to respond exactly as you did, too.
Completely agree. I understand this is Jeff's website and he is free to moderate as he pleases but there is a heavy left leaning bias on here. One issue I believe he is misguided on is transgender issues. So many posts get deleted and it's difficult to have an honest conversation.
Unfortunately, we can’t discuss certain topics because they draw the bigots out of the woodwork. People who are disrespectful and throw out hateful comments as “a DiFfeReNt oPinIoN”.
The problem is comments like “biological males shouldn’t compete in women’s sports” is not a hateful or bigoted comment, but gets labeled as such.
+100
You would be right to get flagged as hateful and bigoted when you try and call Imane Khelif "tr@ns" and "a man in the boxing ring beating up women" when she was born female, has female on her birth certificate, grew up female, has never ever in her life been identified as anything other than female, including numerous medical exams and tests - UNTIL she beat a Russian boxer, after which the IBA, which is Russian-run and BANNED from the Olympics due to corruption, declared, WITHOUT SHOWING PROOF, that she supposedly "flunked a gender test" and has ever since been sketchy, evasive and generally non-respondent to any followup inquiries.
And then this poor woman got mercilessly cyberbullied and harassed by ranks of deranged right wingers, much like the ones who post here.
I agree that this should be flagged as hateful and bigoted. But that is not the example PP posted - what PP posted is definitely Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment.
However, Freedom of Speech is not protected by the First Amendment when it includes obscenity, child pornography, [b]defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words that incite violence.[/b]
Which is why Imane Khelif actually has a basis for filing a lawsuit for libel, defamation and cyberbullying.
However, expressing general statements on issues based on one's personal beliefs is Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment. As such, even if you don't agree with them, you are obliged to tolerate them so long as they don't cross the line.
No one is obligated to "tolerate" hurtful speech and actions based on certain "beliefs".
But the problem is anything that doesn’t agree with your belief system gets labeled “hateful speech.” You can’t have a rational conversation that way. You just can’t.
False. Not “anything”, just those that denigrate and hurt others.
Should we have a rational conversation about white supremacy?
I don’t think biological men should compete in women’s sports - hateful speech or not?
I want the borders closed and money going to undocumented people used for citizens instead - hateful speech or not?
Why do you say "biological men" instead of transgender women?
They are one and the same. It doesn’t really matter which term you choose to use.
But I asked about your choice. Why did you choose one over the other?
Because when it comes to sports how the person feels is less important than their biology. The reason we separate sports into two categories is because of biology, not gender.
Yes, your first statement about "biological men" is hateful because, by your own explanation, it is aimed at diminishing the reality of transgender people.
And there it is. Science is now hateful speech.
Just your interpretation of science which ignores the science with which you don't agree.
If you can show me the science that states biological males and biological females have no physical differences in muscle mass, bone density, lung capacity, etc, I’d be happy to read it.
That's not what I am disputing. I am disputing your contention that transgender people's identity is only based on "feels".
It doesn’t really matter what it’s based on. If they are biologically male then the they have physical advantages over biological females. That is the only important thing when it comes to sports.
If you are alluding to differences in the brain that make them women, that still doesn’t change the biology. It’s irrelevant what makes them transgender. They still have the physical body of a male, and the advantages that come with that.
Yes, it does matter what it is based on, especially when those like you try to diminish transgender people's reality. If you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge the full reality of trans existence, then I am going to assume that your concern about sports is simply part of a larger anti-trans agenda.
That’s the problem. You assume that I am anti trans. I can assure you I am 100% not anti trans. One of my best friends sons is a trans boy and in support them 1000%.
You won’t acknowledge the physical advantages a transwoman has over a biological woman. You’re more concerned with the trans woman’s feelings. Thats not what’s important here. Biology is the only important thing when it comes to sports. Full stop.
Trans people exist. They have the right to be treated with respect. They do not have the right to compete against the opposite biological sex.
Your last sentence is your opinion and one that does not currently appear to be supported by law:
I will readily admit that transgender women may have physical advantages over cis-women. I am not concerned about "feelings", a word that you seem particularly fixated on, but rather attempts to dehumanize others by diminishing their reality.
How is calling someone a biological male diminishing their reality? It is 100% reality. Are you saying people aren’t really transgender, they are transsexuals? They really feel like they are the opposite sex?
I am so sick and tired of the word games that the far left are so focused on.
While the intolerance on the far right makes me not want to vote for Trump....the equal intolerance of the far left also makes me not want to vote for Harris.
It is not harmful or hurtful to use the term "biological sex at birth" and talk about sex being female, male or intersex...it's freaking science people. XX/XY talk is also 100% science. It is also not harmful or hurtful to talk about different gender identities and the beliefs tied to gender identities.
I believe gender identity is not fluid. If you believe it is that's fine. I will always respect your belief and agree that you should have equal rights based on your belief. But your belief is not absolute truth...just as my belief is not absolute truth.
Those who believe otherwise have lost their minds. It is people like you....and I am speaking to both the far right and far left nuts who believe in "absolutism"...that only their truth is the absolute truth...who are ruining our society.
Our society is doomed either way and I blame both sides. I'm probably going to stay home and let all the intolerant voters continue to vote and divide our nation.
Is white supremacy a “truth”? How about the opposite?
Anonymous wrote:No but I think many interesting and convincing Democrats have left the forum.
The intellectual rigor has left with them
It’s too Trumpy here now. It’s not worth engaging with the trolls who aren’t posting in good faith.
I don’t mind the trolls, far-left, or far-right, as much as I do the heavily biased moderation particularly on fact based statements. Once I saw this insane tipping the scales, I drastically reduced forum participation.
I disagree with Jeff profoundly on some issues — and I think he is absolutely on the wrong side of history for some of them — but he is really pretty clear about his political leanings and subsequent moderation. Of course you are also free to respond exactly as you did, too.
Completely agree. I understand this is Jeff's website and he is free to moderate as he pleases but there is a heavy left leaning bias on here. One issue I believe he is misguided on is transgender issues. So many posts get deleted and it's difficult to have an honest conversation.
Unfortunately, we can’t discuss certain topics because they draw the bigots out of the woodwork. People who are disrespectful and throw out hateful comments as “a DiFfeReNt oPinIoN”.
The problem is comments like “biological males shouldn’t compete in women’s sports” is not a hateful or bigoted comment, but gets labeled as such.
+100
You would be right to get flagged as hateful and bigoted when you try and call Imane Khelif "tr@ns" and "a man in the boxing ring beating up women" when she was born female, has female on her birth certificate, grew up female, has never ever in her life been identified as anything other than female, including numerous medical exams and tests - UNTIL she beat a Russian boxer, after which the IBA, which is Russian-run and BANNED from the Olympics due to corruption, declared, WITHOUT SHOWING PROOF, that she supposedly "flunked a gender test" and has ever since been sketchy, evasive and generally non-respondent to any followup inquiries.
And then this poor woman got mercilessly cyberbullied and harassed by ranks of deranged right wingers, much like the ones who post here.
I agree that this should be flagged as hateful and bigoted. But that is not the example PP posted - what PP posted is definitely Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment.
However, Freedom of Speech is not protected by the First Amendment when it includes obscenity, child pornography, [b]defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words that incite violence.[/b]
Which is why Imane Khelif actually has a basis for filing a lawsuit for libel, defamation and cyberbullying.
However, expressing general statements on issues based on one's personal beliefs is Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment. As such, even if you don't agree with them, you are obliged to tolerate them so long as they don't cross the line.
No one is obligated to "tolerate" hurtful speech and actions based on certain "beliefs".
But the problem is anything that doesn’t agree with your belief system gets labeled “hateful speech.” You can’t have a rational conversation that way. You just can’t.
False. Not “anything”, just those that denigrate and hurt others.
Should we have a rational conversation about white supremacy?
I don’t think biological men should compete in women’s sports - hateful speech or not?
I want the borders closed and money going to undocumented people used for citizens instead - hateful speech or not?
Why do you say "biological men" instead of transgender women?
They are one and the same. It doesn’t really matter which term you choose to use.
But I asked about your choice. Why did you choose one over the other?
Because when it comes to sports how the person feels is less important than their biology. The reason we separate sports into two categories is because of biology, not gender.
Yes, your first statement about "biological men" is hateful because, by your own explanation, it is aimed at diminishing the reality of transgender people.
I’m not the PP but what do you propose people use instead to make the point? Do you disagree that transwomen are biological men?
I find this debate fascinating in part because of how rigidly the far left has controlled all associated language in the topic. One thing I have seen the left be spectacularly skilled at over history is policing language such that debate is impossible. This has been extremely effective in Communist regimes in particular. But I see it here too. If you control the vocabulary, you control the discussion 100%.
If using the term “biological men” with respect to transwomen is hateful, it quashes all debate with respect to the impact of that specific biology. In a weird way, I actually admire the iron grip the trans activists have on the English language. I can’t think of another contemporary contentious issue where the very language used by largely everyone is defined and tightly controlled entirely by one side. It’s masterful propaganda.
+1
I too am intrigued by how certain groups manipulate language to control a debate.
Such as PP’s intentional use of “biological male”.
Pp isn’t fixated on the language being used. You are.
Anonymous wrote:No but I think many interesting and convincing Democrats have left the forum.
The intellectual rigor has left with them
It’s too Trumpy here now. It’s not worth engaging with the trolls who aren’t posting in good faith.
I don’t mind the trolls, far-left, or far-right, as much as I do the heavily biased moderation particularly on fact based statements. Once I saw this insane tipping the scales, I drastically reduced forum participation.
I disagree with Jeff profoundly on some issues — and I think he is absolutely on the wrong side of history for some of them — but he is really pretty clear about his political leanings and subsequent moderation. Of course you are also free to respond exactly as you did, too.
Completely agree. I understand this is Jeff's website and he is free to moderate as he pleases but there is a heavy left leaning bias on here. One issue I believe he is misguided on is transgender issues. So many posts get deleted and it's difficult to have an honest conversation.
Unfortunately, we can’t discuss certain topics because they draw the bigots out of the woodwork. People who are disrespectful and throw out hateful comments as “a DiFfeReNt oPinIoN”.
The problem is comments like “biological males shouldn’t compete in women’s sports” is not a hateful or bigoted comment, but gets labeled as such.
+100
You would be right to get flagged as hateful and bigoted when you try and call Imane Khelif "tr@ns" and "a man in the boxing ring beating up women" when she was born female, has female on her birth certificate, grew up female, has never ever in her life been identified as anything other than female, including numerous medical exams and tests - UNTIL she beat a Russian boxer, after which the IBA, which is Russian-run and BANNED from the Olympics due to corruption, declared, WITHOUT SHOWING PROOF, that she supposedly "flunked a gender test" and has ever since been sketchy, evasive and generally non-respondent to any followup inquiries.
And then this poor woman got mercilessly cyberbullied and harassed by ranks of deranged right wingers, much like the ones who post here.
I agree that this should be flagged as hateful and bigoted. But that is not the example PP posted - what PP posted is definitely Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment.
However, Freedom of Speech is not protected by the First Amendment when it includes obscenity, child pornography, [b]defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words that incite violence.[/b]
Which is why Imane Khelif actually has a basis for filing a lawsuit for libel, defamation and cyberbullying.
However, expressing general statements on issues based on one's personal beliefs is Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment. As such, even if you don't agree with them, you are obliged to tolerate them so long as they don't cross the line.
No one is obligated to "tolerate" hurtful speech and actions based on certain "beliefs".
But the problem is anything that doesn’t agree with your belief system gets labeled “hateful speech.” You can’t have a rational conversation that way. You just can’t.
False. Not “anything”, just those that denigrate and hurt others.
Should we have a rational conversation about white supremacy?
I don’t think biological men should compete in women’s sports - hateful speech or not?
I want the borders closed and money going to undocumented people used for citizens instead - hateful speech or not?
Why do you say "biological men" instead of transgender women?
They are one and the same. It doesn’t really matter which term you choose to use.
But I asked about your choice. Why did you choose one over the other?
Because when it comes to sports how the person feels is less important than their biology. The reason we separate sports into two categories is because of biology, not gender.
Yes, your first statement about "biological men" is hateful because, by your own explanation, it is aimed at diminishing the reality of transgender people.
And there it is. Science is now hateful speech.
Just your interpretation of science which ignores the science with which you don't agree.
If you can show me the science that states biological males and biological females have no physical differences in muscle mass, bone density, lung capacity, etc, I’d be happy to read it.
That's not what I am disputing. I am disputing your contention that transgender people's identity is only based on "feels".
It doesn’t really matter what it’s based on. If they are biologically male then the they have physical advantages over biological females. That is the only important thing when it comes to sports.
If you are alluding to differences in the brain that make them women, that still doesn’t change the biology. It’s irrelevant what makes them transgender. They still have the physical body of a male, and the advantages that come with that.
Yes, it does matter what it is based on, especially when those like you try to diminish transgender people's reality. If you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge the full reality of trans existence, then I am going to assume that your concern about sports is simply part of a larger anti-trans agenda.
That’s the problem. You assume that I am anti trans. I can assure you I am 100% not anti trans. One of my best friends sons is a trans boy and in support them 1000%.
You won’t acknowledge the physical advantages a transwoman has over a biological woman. You’re more concerned with the trans woman’s feelings. Thats not what’s important here. Biology is the only important thing when it comes to sports. Full stop.
Trans people exist. They have the right to be treated with respect. They do not have the right to compete against the opposite biological sex.
Your last sentence is your opinion and one that does not currently appear to be supported by law:
I will readily admit that transgender women may have physical advantages over cis-women. I am not concerned about "feelings", a word that you seem particularly fixated on, but rather attempts to dehumanize others by diminishing their reality.
How is calling someone a biological male diminishing their reality? It is 100% reality. Are you saying people aren’t really transgender, they are transsexuals? They really feel like they are the opposite sex?
In and of itself it is not. But it is often an indication of deeper anti-trans inclinations. As in your case, when I asked why you chose that term you explained that "feels" are not important. That suggests that you view transgender people as only "feeling" that they are their gender. That diminishes their reality and is dehumanizing.
If they are biological males but are choosing to present as women, what is it other than a feeling?
You are the allegedly pro-trans person whose friends have a trans kid and so on. You should know this already. At any rate, I have to move on to other tasks now. Your original question was whether saying that "biological men should not play women's sports" is hateful. Not always, but you clearly suggest that you have deeper antagonism towards trans people which any discussion of this topic would likely reveal (and, indeed, already has).
I have zero antagonism. But you keep claiming I do to. Not sure what else to say about that.
I do care less about a persons feelings than actual science and biology. I don’t hang my hat on feelings. I hang my hat on science. And I always will.
Still love you tho, Jeff. Glad we were able to actually have a decent conversation about this without getting the thread locked. I do thank you for that.
Anonymous wrote:No but I think many interesting and convincing Democrats have left the forum.
The intellectual rigor has left with them
It’s too Trumpy here now. It’s not worth engaging with the trolls who aren’t posting in good faith.
I don’t mind the trolls, far-left, or far-right, as much as I do the heavily biased moderation particularly on fact based statements. Once I saw this insane tipping the scales, I drastically reduced forum participation.
I disagree with Jeff profoundly on some issues — and I think he is absolutely on the wrong side of history for some of them — but he is really pretty clear about his political leanings and subsequent moderation. Of course you are also free to respond exactly as you did, too.
Completely agree. I understand this is Jeff's website and he is free to moderate as he pleases but there is a heavy left leaning bias on here. One issue I believe he is misguided on is transgender issues. So many posts get deleted and it's difficult to have an honest conversation.
Unfortunately, we can’t discuss certain topics because they draw the bigots out of the woodwork. People who are disrespectful and throw out hateful comments as “a DiFfeReNt oPinIoN”.
The problem is comments like “biological males shouldn’t compete in women’s sports” is not a hateful or bigoted comment, but gets labeled as such.
+100
You would be right to get flagged as hateful and bigoted when you try and call Imane Khelif "tr@ns" and "a man in the boxing ring beating up women" when she was born female, has female on her birth certificate, grew up female, has never ever in her life been identified as anything other than female, including numerous medical exams and tests - UNTIL she beat a Russian boxer, after which the IBA, which is Russian-run and BANNED from the Olympics due to corruption, declared, WITHOUT SHOWING PROOF, that she supposedly "flunked a gender test" and has ever since been sketchy, evasive and generally non-respondent to any followup inquiries.
And then this poor woman got mercilessly cyberbullied and harassed by ranks of deranged right wingers, much like the ones who post here.
I agree that this should be flagged as hateful and bigoted. But that is not the example PP posted - what PP posted is definitely Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment.
However, Freedom of Speech is not protected by the First Amendment when it includes obscenity, child pornography, [b]defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words that incite violence.[/b]
Which is why Imane Khelif actually has a basis for filing a lawsuit for libel, defamation and cyberbullying.
However, expressing general statements on issues based on one's personal beliefs is Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment. As such, even if you don't agree with them, you are obliged to tolerate them so long as they don't cross the line.
No one is obligated to "tolerate" hurtful speech and actions based on certain "beliefs".
But the problem is anything that doesn’t agree with your belief system gets labeled “hateful speech.” You can’t have a rational conversation that way. You just can’t.
False. Not “anything”, just those that denigrate and hurt others.
Should we have a rational conversation about white supremacy?
I don’t think biological men should compete in women’s sports - hateful speech or not?
I want the borders closed and money going to undocumented people used for citizens instead - hateful speech or not?
Why do you say "biological men" instead of transgender women?
They are one and the same. It doesn’t really matter which term you choose to use.
But I asked about your choice. Why did you choose one over the other?
Because when it comes to sports how the person feels is less important than their biology. The reason we separate sports into two categories is because of biology, not gender.
Yes, your first statement about "biological men" is hateful because, by your own explanation, it is aimed at diminishing the reality of transgender people.
I’m not the PP but what do you propose people use instead to make the point? Do you disagree that transwomen are biological men?
I find this debate fascinating in part because of how rigidly the far left has controlled all associated language in the topic. One thing I have seen the left be spectacularly skilled at over history is policing language such that debate is impossible. This has been extremely effective in Communist regimes in particular. But I see it here too. If you control the vocabulary, you control the discussion 100%.
If using the term “biological men” with respect to transwomen is hateful, it quashes all debate with respect to the impact of that specific biology. In a weird way, I actually admire the iron grip the trans activists have on the English language. I can’t think of another contemporary contentious issue where the very language used by largely everyone is defined and tightly controlled entirely by one side. It’s masterful propaganda.
+1
I too am intrigued by how certain groups manipulate language to control a debate.
Such as PP’s intentional use of “biological male”.
Pp isn’t fixated on the language being used. You are.
Anonymous wrote:No but I think many interesting and convincing Democrats have left the forum.
The intellectual rigor has left with them
It’s too Trumpy here now. It’s not worth engaging with the trolls who aren’t posting in good faith.
I don’t mind the trolls, far-left, or far-right, as much as I do the heavily biased moderation particularly on fact based statements. Once I saw this insane tipping the scales, I drastically reduced forum participation.
I disagree with Jeff profoundly on some issues — and I think he is absolutely on the wrong side of history for some of them — but he is really pretty clear about his political leanings and subsequent moderation. Of course you are also free to respond exactly as you did, too.
Completely agree. I understand this is Jeff's website and he is free to moderate as he pleases but there is a heavy left leaning bias on here. One issue I believe he is misguided on is transgender issues. So many posts get deleted and it's difficult to have an honest conversation.
Unfortunately, we can’t discuss certain topics because they draw the bigots out of the woodwork. People who are disrespectful and throw out hateful comments as “a DiFfeReNt oPinIoN”.
The problem is comments like “biological males shouldn’t compete in women’s sports” is not a hateful or bigoted comment, but gets labeled as such.
+100
You would be right to get flagged as hateful and bigoted when you try and call Imane Khelif "tr@ns" and "a man in the boxing ring beating up women" when she was born female, has female on her birth certificate, grew up female, has never ever in her life been identified as anything other than female, including numerous medical exams and tests - UNTIL she beat a Russian boxer, after which the IBA, which is Russian-run and BANNED from the Olympics due to corruption, declared, WITHOUT SHOWING PROOF, that she supposedly "flunked a gender test" and has ever since been sketchy, evasive and generally non-respondent to any followup inquiries.
And then this poor woman got mercilessly cyberbullied and harassed by ranks of deranged right wingers, much like the ones who post here.
I agree that this should be flagged as hateful and bigoted. But that is not the example PP posted - what PP posted is definitely Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment.
However, Freedom of Speech is not protected by the First Amendment when it includes obscenity, child pornography, [b]defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words that incite violence.[/b]
Which is why Imane Khelif actually has a basis for filing a lawsuit for libel, defamation and cyberbullying.
However, expressing general statements on issues based on one's personal beliefs is Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment. As such, even if you don't agree with them, you are obliged to tolerate them so long as they don't cross the line.
No one is obligated to "tolerate" hurtful speech and actions based on certain "beliefs".
But the problem is anything that doesn’t agree with your belief system gets labeled “hateful speech.” You can’t have a rational conversation that way. You just can’t.
False. Not “anything”, just those that denigrate and hurt others.
Should we have a rational conversation about white supremacy?
I don’t think biological men should compete in women’s sports - hateful speech or not?
I want the borders closed and money going to undocumented people used for citizens instead - hateful speech or not?
Why do you say "biological men" instead of transgender women?
They are one and the same. It doesn’t really matter which term you choose to use.
But I asked about your choice. Why did you choose one over the other?
Because when it comes to sports how the person feels is less important than their biology. The reason we separate sports into two categories is because of biology, not gender.
Yes, your first statement about "biological men" is hateful because, by your own explanation, it is aimed at diminishing the reality of transgender people.
I’m not the PP but what do you propose people use instead to make the point? Do you disagree that transwomen are biological men?
I find this debate fascinating in part because of how rigidly the far left has controlled all associated language in the topic. One thing I have seen the left be spectacularly skilled at over history is policing language such that debate is impossible. This has been extremely effective in Communist regimes in particular. But I see it here too. If you control the vocabulary, you control the discussion 100%.
If using the term “biological men” with respect to transwomen is hateful, it quashes all debate with respect to the impact of that specific biology. In a weird way, I actually admire the iron grip the trans activists have on the English language. I can’t think of another contemporary contentious issue where the very language used by largely everyone is defined and tightly controlled entirely by one side. It’s masterful propaganda.
Choosing to use "biological men" instead of "trans women" is often in indication of underlying hostility to transpeople. The person with whom I have been having this discussion claimed that the two phrases mean the same. In that case, the poster could have easily switched to using "trans women" with no discernible impact on the points being made. It is entirely possible to discuss physical advantages that trans women may have. But, very often and as in this case, those who use "biological men" will eventually reveal that they have deeper anti-trans inclinations.
BTW, calling anything with which you disagree "communist" is another interesting use of language. All societies attempt to control language use to some extend. Just consider how Americans interpret the word "terrorism". Does "terrorism" have any objective definition in the U.S. that is not connected to the perpetrator of the act?
Can you tell me specifically where I called “anything with which” I disagree “communist”? Please give the exact quote. In my real life, I am precise about when I refer to leftist totalitarianism modes of speech control as a reference point, because it was something I studied many years ago. So, I am wondering where in the quote above I implied that I believe anything I disagree with to be “communist.”
From your other point, it sounds like you want the phrase “trans women” used instead of “biological men.” This is, of course, a neat rhetorical trick as it shifts discourse away from the specific reason that “biological” is critically important to discussions of trans women in women’s sports. It exactly demonstrates how control of vocabulary stifles discussion, so I thank you for that.
Anonymous wrote:No but I think many interesting and convincing Democrats have left the forum.
The intellectual rigor has left with them
It’s too Trumpy here now. It’s not worth engaging with the trolls who aren’t posting in good faith.
I don’t mind the trolls, far-left, or far-right, as much as I do the heavily biased moderation particularly on fact based statements. Once I saw this insane tipping the scales, I drastically reduced forum participation.
I disagree with Jeff profoundly on some issues — and I think he is absolutely on the wrong side of history for some of them — but he is really pretty clear about his political leanings and subsequent moderation. Of course you are also free to respond exactly as you did, too.
Completely agree. I understand this is Jeff's website and he is free to moderate as he pleases but there is a heavy left leaning bias on here. One issue I believe he is misguided on is transgender issues. So many posts get deleted and it's difficult to have an honest conversation.
Unfortunately, we can’t discuss certain topics because they draw the bigots out of the woodwork. People who are disrespectful and throw out hateful comments as “a DiFfeReNt oPinIoN”.
The problem is comments like “biological males shouldn’t compete in women’s sports” is not a hateful or bigoted comment, but gets labeled as such.
+100
You would be right to get flagged as hateful and bigoted when you try and call Imane Khelif "tr@ns" and "a man in the boxing ring beating up women" when she was born female, has female on her birth certificate, grew up female, has never ever in her life been identified as anything other than female, including numerous medical exams and tests - UNTIL she beat a Russian boxer, after which the IBA, which is Russian-run and BANNED from the Olympics due to corruption, declared, WITHOUT SHOWING PROOF, that she supposedly "flunked a gender test" and has ever since been sketchy, evasive and generally non-respondent to any followup inquiries.
And then this poor woman got mercilessly cyberbullied and harassed by ranks of deranged right wingers, much like the ones who post here.
I agree that this should be flagged as hateful and bigoted. But that is not the example PP posted - what PP posted is definitely Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment.
However, Freedom of Speech is not protected by the First Amendment when it includes obscenity, child pornography, [b]defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words that incite violence.[/b]
Which is why Imane Khelif actually has a basis for filing a lawsuit for libel, defamation and cyberbullying.
However, expressing general statements on issues based on one's personal beliefs is Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment. As such, even if you don't agree with them, you are obliged to tolerate them so long as they don't cross the line.
No one is obligated to "tolerate" hurtful speech and actions based on certain "beliefs".
But the problem is anything that doesn’t agree with your belief system gets labeled “hateful speech.” You can’t have a rational conversation that way. You just can’t.
False. Not “anything”, just those that denigrate and hurt others.
Should we have a rational conversation about white supremacy?
I don’t think biological men should compete in women’s sports - hateful speech or not?
I want the borders closed and money going to undocumented people used for citizens instead - hateful speech or not?
Why do you say "biological men" instead of transgender women?
They are one and the same. It doesn’t really matter which term you choose to use.
But I asked about your choice. Why did you choose one over the other?
Because when it comes to sports how the person feels is less important than their biology. The reason we separate sports into two categories is because of biology, not gender.
Yes, your first statement about "biological men" is hateful because, by your own explanation, it is aimed at diminishing the reality of transgender people.
And there it is. Science is now hateful speech.
Just your interpretation of science which ignores the science with which you don't agree.
If you can show me the science that states biological males and biological females have no physical differences in muscle mass, bone density, lung capacity, etc, I’d be happy to read it.
That's not what I am disputing. I am disputing your contention that transgender people's identity is only based on "feels".
It doesn’t really matter what it’s based on. If they are biologically male then the they have physical advantages over biological females. That is the only important thing when it comes to sports.
If you are alluding to differences in the brain that make them women, that still doesn’t change the biology. It’s irrelevant what makes them transgender. They still have the physical body of a male, and the advantages that come with that.
Yes, it does matter what it is based on, especially when those like you try to diminish transgender people's reality. If you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge the full reality of trans existence, then I am going to assume that your concern about sports is simply part of a larger anti-trans agenda.
That’s the problem. You assume that I am anti trans. I can assure you I am 100% not anti trans. One of my best friends sons is a trans boy and in support them 1000%.
You won’t acknowledge the physical advantages a transwoman has over a biological woman. You’re more concerned with the trans woman’s feelings. Thats not what’s important here. Biology is the only important thing when it comes to sports. Full stop.
Trans people exist. They have the right to be treated with respect. They do not have the right to compete against the opposite biological sex.
Your last sentence is your opinion and one that does not currently appear to be supported by law:
I will readily admit that transgender women may have physical advantages over cis-women. I am not concerned about "feelings", a word that you seem particularly fixated on, but rather attempts to dehumanize others by diminishing their reality.
Does it dehumanize women to diminish their reality? Or are you only concerned with the reality of transgender women?
jsteele Site Admin
Joined: 11/12/2007 23:38
Messages: 50023
Offline
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:No but I think many interesting and convincing Democrats have left the forum.
The intellectual rigor has left with them
It’s too Trumpy here now. It’s not worth engaging with the trolls who aren’t posting in good faith.
I don’t mind the trolls, far-left, or far-right, as much as I do the heavily biased moderation particularly on fact based statements. Once I saw this insane tipping the scales, I drastically reduced forum participation.
I disagree with Jeff profoundly on some issues — and I think he is absolutely on the wrong side of history for some of them — but he is really pretty clear about his political leanings and subsequent moderation. Of course you are also free to respond exactly as you did, too.
Completely agree. I understand this is Jeff's website and he is free to moderate as he pleases but there is a heavy left leaning bias on here. One issue I believe he is misguided on is transgender issues. So many posts get deleted and it's difficult to have an honest conversation.
Unfortunately, we can’t discuss certain topics because they draw the bigots out of the woodwork. People who are disrespectful and throw out hateful comments as “a DiFfeReNt oPinIoN”.
The problem is comments like “biological males shouldn’t compete in women’s sports” is not a hateful or bigoted comment, but gets labeled as such.
+100
You would be right to get flagged as hateful and bigoted when you try and call Imane Khelif "tr@ns" and "a man in the boxing ring beating up women" when she was born female, has female on her birth certificate, grew up female, has never ever in her life been identified as anything other than female, including numerous medical exams and tests - UNTIL she beat a Russian boxer, after which the IBA, which is Russian-run and BANNED from the Olympics due to corruption, declared, WITHOUT SHOWING PROOF, that she supposedly "flunked a gender test" and has ever since been sketchy, evasive and generally non-respondent to any followup inquiries.
And then this poor woman got mercilessly cyberbullied and harassed by ranks of deranged right wingers, much like the ones who post here.
I agree that this should be flagged as hateful and bigoted. But that is not the example PP posted - what PP posted is definitely Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment.
However, Freedom of Speech is not protected by the First Amendment when it includes obscenity, child pornography, [b]defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words that incite violence.[/b]
Which is why Imane Khelif actually has a basis for filing a lawsuit for libel, defamation and cyberbullying.
However, expressing general statements on issues based on one's personal beliefs is Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment. As such, even if you don't agree with them, you are obliged to tolerate them so long as they don't cross the line.
No one is obligated to "tolerate" hurtful speech and actions based on certain "beliefs".
But the problem is anything that doesn’t agree with your belief system gets labeled “hateful speech.” You can’t have a rational conversation that way. You just can’t.
False. Not “anything”, just those that denigrate and hurt others.
Should we have a rational conversation about white supremacy?
I don’t think biological men should compete in women’s sports - hateful speech or not?
I want the borders closed and money going to undocumented people used for citizens instead - hateful speech or not?
Why do you say "biological men" instead of transgender women?
They are one and the same. It doesn’t really matter which term you choose to use.
But I asked about your choice. Why did you choose one over the other?
Because when it comes to sports how the person feels is less important than their biology. The reason we separate sports into two categories is because of biology, not gender.
Yes, your first statement about "biological men" is hateful because, by your own explanation, it is aimed at diminishing the reality of transgender people.
I’m not the PP but what do you propose people use instead to make the point? Do you disagree that transwomen are biological men?
I find this debate fascinating in part because of how rigidly the far left has controlled all associated language in the topic. One thing I have seen the left be spectacularly skilled at over history is policing language such that debate is impossible. This has been extremely effective in Communist regimes in particular. But I see it here too. If you control the vocabulary, you control the discussion 100%.
If using the term “biological men” with respect to transwomen is hateful, it quashes all debate with respect to the impact of that specific biology. In a weird way, I actually admire the iron grip the trans activists have on the English language. I can’t think of another contemporary contentious issue where the very language used by largely everyone is defined and tightly controlled entirely by one side. It’s masterful propaganda.
Choosing to use "biological men" instead of "trans women" is often in indication of underlying hostility to transpeople. The person with whom I have been having this discussion claimed that the two phrases mean the same. In that case, the poster could have easily switched to using "trans women" with no discernible impact on the points being made. It is entirely possible to discuss physical advantages that trans women may have. But, very often and as in this case, those who use "biological men" will eventually reveal that they have deeper anti-trans inclinations.
BTW, calling anything with which you disagree "communist" is another interesting use of language. All societies attempt to control language use to some extend. Just consider how Americans interpret the word "terrorism". Does "terrorism" have any objective definition in the U.S. that is not connected to the perpetrator of the act?
Can you tell me specifically where I called “anything with which” I disagree “communist”? Please give the exact quote. In my real life, I am precise about when I refer to leftist totalitarianism modes of speech control as a reference point, because it was something I studied many years ago. So, I am wondering where in the quote above I implied that I believe anything I disagree with to be “communist.”
From your other point, it sounds like you want the phrase “trans women” used instead of “biological men.” This is, of course, a neat rhetorical trick as it shifts discourse away from the specific reason that “biological” is critically important to discussions of trans women in women’s sports. It exactly demonstrates how control of vocabulary stifles discussion, so I thank you for that.
Your exact quote was:
One thing I have seen the left be spectacularly skilled at over history is policing language such that debate is impossible. This has been extremely effective in Communist regimes in particular.
I assume that the first sentence describes things with which you disagree. As I pointed out, communist regimes are not the only systems of government that attempt to control language. But choosing that example is certainly, as you say, "a neat rhetorical trick ".
I've explained twice why I distinguished between "biological men" and "transgender women". I am confident that a third explanation will be no more effective so I won't bother.
Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}