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?
Not all “beliefs” should be tolerated.
No. Society can not pick and choose which beliefs should and should not be tolerated based on their subjective beliefs.
I tolerate that white supremacists and racism exists, always has and always will. Sorry to burst your bubble but I am a realist.
BUT "acceptance" is different.
I don't accept anyone using those racist beliefs to do harm.
Another example...I tolerate the different beliefs on gender identity.
I don't accept anyone using those beliefs to do harm.
Would you take action to fight against white supremacists showing up at school board meetings explaining their beliefs or trying to impose racist policies? Or would you just “tolerate” them?
I will not tolerate [wrong term, you mean "accept"] anti-trans people trying to use hateful language or impose anti-trans policies.
No, of course not. I would not "accept" that....because in that scenario they are expressing that their belief is the absolute truth, which it is not.
Same thing with other scenario, I will not "accept" anti-trans people trying to use hateful language or impose anti-trans policies....because in that scenario they are expressing that their belief is the absolute truth, which it is not.
However, here's the rub....the same logic should apply in other scenarios such as gender identity beliefs. I
tolerate the different beliefs on gender identity. I do not "accept" any one gender identity belief being taught over another...because in that scenario they are expressing that only one belief is the absolute truth, which it is not.
We should not teach that racism is bad? Or stealing? Because those are just other “beliefs”?
You’re trying to rationalize making hateful comments, but in the end, you choose the words you use for a reason. Knowing that they are disrespectful and hurtful. There is no getting around that.
You obviously don't understand that there is a difference between "tolerate" and "accept".
And that is not what I said at all. You teach to NOT accept racism. Racism should never be "accepted". Understand?
You tolerate it because...it will always exist....albeit wrong and unacceptable.
Scenario....you know an old man who lives down the street...he displays confederate flags on his private property and you've heard him rant and make generic racist comments (but not directed at anyone in particular)...what would you do? If you tell me that it should not be tolerated what would you do? Would you go and bang on his door and tell him to stop displaying the confederate flag? Would you vandalize his yard? No. You would tolerate it....you would, however, teach that it is not acceptable.
BUT assume the old man leaves his home and goes to the grocery store and uses his cane to hit the POC cashier while using a racist slur. This is where it not acceptable.....and you would have the right to intervene because it's not acceptable and in this scenario you should not tolerate it.
Another scenario , there are white supremacist groups living in compounds in many US states and around the world...we tolerate their existence, but we do teach that is not acceptable. What would you do when you say we should not tolerate them? Would you send in the military to obliterate them? Please tell me what exactly you would do. Because no, we don't do that...we tolerate their existence. BUT....if a white supremacist causes harm and violates someone's civil rights....this is where it not acceptable and in this scenario you should not tolerate it.
Tolerate means take no action.
If a neighbor is expressing his beliefs by flying the confederate flag in his yard, as he can legally do, I will also express my beliefs by giving him the middle finger, as I can legally do.
I have never said “beliefs” can’t exist or need to be “obliterated”. But the ones that do harm should be challenged and called out.
Exactly. I guess I'm more of a pacifist...I'd just leave the old man alone unless he actually hurt someone verbally or physically. Mainly because I don't care what people do or say in the privacy or their own home....unless they actually hurt someone verbally or physically.
Yes "tolerate" means take no action. We tolerate and take no "offensive" action against the crazy neo-nazi compounds, the racist neighbors, etc.
But we do not tolerate and we do take "defensive" action when they do crazy stuff and hurt people because that is not acceptable.
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?
Not all “beliefs” should be tolerated.
No. Society can not pick and choose which beliefs should and should not be tolerated based on their subjective beliefs.
I tolerate that white supremacists and racism exists, always has and always will. Sorry to burst your bubble but I am a realist.
BUT "acceptance" is different.
I don't accept anyone using those racist beliefs to do harm.
Another example...I tolerate the different beliefs on gender identity.
I don't accept anyone using those beliefs to do harm.
Would you take action to fight against white supremacists showing up at school board meetings explaining their beliefs or trying to impose racist policies? Or would you just “tolerate” them?
I will not tolerate [wrong term, you mean "accept"] anti-trans people trying to use hateful language or impose anti-trans policies.
No, of course not. I would not "accept" that....because in that scenario they are expressing that their belief is the absolute truth, which it is not.
Same thing with other scenario, I will not "accept" anti-trans people trying to use hateful language or impose anti-trans policies....because in that scenario they are expressing that their belief is the absolute truth, which it is not.
However, here's the rub....the same logic should apply in other scenarios such as gender identity beliefs. I
tolerate the different beliefs on gender identity. I do not "accept" any one gender identity belief being taught over another...because in that scenario they are expressing that only one belief is the absolute truth, which it is not.
We should not teach that racism is bad? Or stealing? Because those are just other “beliefs”?
You’re trying to rationalize making hateful comments, but in the end, you choose the words you use for a reason. Knowing that they are disrespectful and hurtful. There is no getting around that.
You obviously don't understand that there is a difference between "tolerate" and "accept".
And that is not what I said at all. You teach to NOT accept racism. Racism should never be "accepted". Understand?
You tolerate it because...it will always exist....albeit wrong and unacceptable.
Scenario....you know an old man who lives down the street...he displays confederate flags on his private property and you've heard him rant and make generic racist comments (but not directed at anyone in particular)...what would you do? If you tell me that it should not be tolerated what would you do? Would you go and bang on his door and tell him to stop displaying the confederate flag? Would you vandalize his yard? No. You would tolerate it....you would, however, teach that it is not acceptable.
BUT assume the old man leaves his home and goes to the grocery store and uses his cane to hit the POC cashier while using a racist slur. This is where it not acceptable.....and you would have the right to intervene because it's not acceptable and in this scenario you should not tolerate it.
Another scenario , there are white supremacist groups living in compounds in many US states and around the world...we tolerate their existence, but we do teach that is not acceptable. What would you do when you say we should not tolerate them? Would you send in the military to obliterate them? Please tell me what exactly you would do. Because no, we don't do that...we tolerate their existence. BUT....if a white supremacist causes harm and violates someone's civil rights....this is where it not acceptable and in this scenario you should not tolerate it.
Tolerate means take no action.
If a neighbor is expressing his beliefs by flying the confederate flag in his yard, as he can legally do, I will also express my beliefs by giving him the middle finger, as I can legally do.
I have never said “beliefs” can’t exist or need to be “obliterated”. But the ones that do harm should be challenged and called out.
Exactly. I guess I'm more of a pacifist...I'd just leave the old man alone unless he actually hurt someone verbally or physically. Mainly because I don't care what people do or say in the privacy or their own home....unless they actually hurt someone verbally or physically.
Yes "tolerate" means take no action. We tolerate and take no "offensive" action against the crazy neo-nazi compounds, the racist neighbors, etc.
But we do not tolerate and we do take "defensive" action when they do crazy stuff and hurt people because that is not acceptable.
No, we don’t all “tolerate” racist neighbors nor should we. Some of us do take action by calling out their bad behavior.
Also, some of us call out hurtful anti-trans comments.
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?
Not all “beliefs” should be tolerated.
No. Society can not pick and choose which beliefs should and should not be tolerated based on their subjective beliefs.
I tolerate that white supremacists and racism exists, always has and always will. Sorry to burst your bubble but I am a realist.
BUT "acceptance" is different.
I don't accept anyone using those racist beliefs to do harm.
Another example...I tolerate the different beliefs on gender identity.
I don't accept anyone using those beliefs to do harm.
Would you take action to fight against white supremacists showing up at school board meetings explaining their beliefs or trying to impose racist policies? Or would you just “tolerate” them?
I will not tolerate [wrong term, you mean "accept"] anti-trans people trying to use hateful language or impose anti-trans policies.
No, of course not. I would not "accept" that....because in that scenario they are expressing that their belief is the absolute truth, which it is not.
Same thing with other scenario, I will not "accept" anti-trans people trying to use hateful language or impose anti-trans policies....because in that scenario they are expressing that their belief is the absolute truth, which it is not.
However, here's the rub....the same logic should apply in other scenarios such as gender identity beliefs. I
tolerate the different beliefs on gender identity. I do not "accept" any one gender identity belief being taught over another...because in that scenario they are expressing that only one belief is the absolute truth, which it is not.
We should not teach that racism is bad? Or stealing? Because those are just other “beliefs”?
You’re trying to rationalize making hateful comments, but in the end, you choose the words you use for a reason. Knowing that they are disrespectful and hurtful. There is no getting around that.
You obviously don't understand that there is a difference between "tolerate" and "accept".
And that is not what I said at all. You teach to NOT accept racism. Racism should never be "accepted". Understand?
You tolerate it because...it will always exist....albeit wrong and unacceptable.
Scenario....you know an old man who lives down the street...he displays confederate flags on his private property and you've heard him rant and make generic racist comments (but not directed at anyone in particular)...what would you do? If you tell me that it should not be tolerated what would you do? Would you go and bang on his door and tell him to stop displaying the confederate flag? Would you vandalize his yard? No. You would tolerate it....you would, however, teach that it is not acceptable.
BUT assume the old man leaves his home and goes to the grocery store and uses his cane to hit the POC cashier while using a racist slur. This is where it not acceptable.....and you would have the right to intervene because it's not acceptable and in this scenario you should not tolerate it.
Another scenario , there are white supremacist groups living in compounds in many US states and around the world...we tolerate their existence, but we do teach that is not acceptable. What would you do when you say we should not tolerate them? Would you send in the military to obliterate them? Please tell me what exactly you would do. Because no, we don't do that...we tolerate their existence. BUT....if a white supremacist causes harm and violates someone's civil rights....this is where it not acceptable and in this scenario you should not tolerate it.
Tolerate means take no action.
If a neighbor is expressing his beliefs by flying the confederate flag in his yard, as he can legally do, I will also express my beliefs by giving him the middle finger, as I can legally do.
I have never said “beliefs” can’t exist or need to be “obliterated”. But the ones that do harm should be challenged and called out.
Exactly. I guess I'm more of a pacifist...I'd just leave the old man alone unless he actually hurt someone verbally or physically. Mainly because I don't care what people do or say in the privacy or their own home....unless they actually hurt someone verbally or physically.
Yes "tolerate" means take no action. We tolerate and take no "offensive" action against the crazy neo-nazi compounds, the racist neighbors, etc.
But we do not tolerate and we do take "defensive" action when they do crazy stuff and hurt people because that is not acceptable.
No, we don’t all “tolerate” racist neighbors nor should we. Some of us do take action by calling out their bad behavior.
Also, some of us call out hurtful anti-trans comments.
Describing a transwoman as being a biological male is a statement of fact. If you find that “hurtful”, that’s on you.
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.
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?
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.
+1
What's interesting to me is that you didn't care at all about transgender rights until about 8 years ago when you were told to.
And why were you told to?
Well same sex marriage was no longer an issue that could be used to put Americans against each other so something else has to be done and thus transgender rights.
Oh btw it's also why abortion is an issue again.
They're playing us like a fiddle
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?
Yes and no.
You cannot have both. You must make a choice.
LOL. Wrong.
A man telling women that he defines women according to his beliefs and standards.
What about just defining them the way a biologist would: by whether or not they have Y chromosome? That seems like the most rational and logical way.
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?
Yes and no.
You cannot have both. You must make a choice.
LOL. Wrong.
A man telling women that he defines women according to his beliefs and standards.
What about just defining them the way a biologist would: by whether or not they have Y chromosome? That seems like the most rational and logical way.
I trust science.
Gender and sex are not the same thing. That’s been born out by science, including MRI studies.
jsteele Site Admin
Joined: 11/12/2007 23:38
Messages: 50051
Offline
Anonymous 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.
+1
What's interesting to me is that you didn't care at all about transgender rights until about 8 years ago when you were told to.
And why were you told to?
Well same sex marriage was no longer an issue that could be used to put Americans against each other so something else has to be done and thus transgender rights.
Oh btw it's also why abortion is an issue again.
They're playing us like a fiddle
You think that abortion is a concern now because gay marriage is legal rather than because Roe v. Wade was overturned? You are certainly an out of the box thinker, I'll give you that. But, frankly, you would be better off in the box.
Also, I began caring about transgender rights much more than 8 years ago when I met and became acquainted with a transgender person.
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?
Yes and no.
You cannot have both. You must make a choice.
LOL. Wrong.
A man telling women that he defines women according to his beliefs and standards.
What about just defining them the way a biologist would: by whether or not they have Y chromosome? That seems like the most rational and logical way.
I trust science.
Gender and sex are not the same thing. That’s been born out by science, including MRI studies.
Sexuality is seen in the brain. MRI studies show homosexual males have brains that are slightly feminized on average. The problem with most of the transgender studies is they include both androphilic and gynephilic individuals so the results become pointless. They falsely attribute the differences in the brain to gender identity when in fact it is sexuality they are seeing. Researchers have noted a difference in the part of the brain that deals with body perception though.
Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
