New Leaked Russian Documents

[CJD]

(07-21-2021, 08:44 PM)Cicero Wrote: Not really a debate, just pointing out the fake outrage and self appointed moral superiority. 

Whatever helps you sleep at night. 

[Wes Mantooth]

(07-21-2021, 03:51 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: It sounds like Rowling doesn't understand the difference between sex and gender. That's probably what a lot of the criticism towards her was.

To me it sounds like she understands exactly what the difference is.   She's drawing a clear line in the sand between the two, which I thought was the point that many people made to explain it.  Gender is seperate from sex, and it is how you identify.  Whereas sex is the biological definition, which it seems to be what she's referring to.

She says she completely respects people who identify in any way in which they feel most comfortable, and that she'll support them.  But she also says that biological females have different lived experiences than trans-women.  This seems completely fair to me. 

What am I missing here?  How do you define gender and sex?

[hollodero]

(07-21-2021, 08:16 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Those two items are separate and apart, not sure what are are alluding to by attempting to make a connection between the two.

Simple. I am alluding to Trump sympathisers being quite flexible in their views on election integrity. Both items have to do with that.

And so is the GOP that wants more election integrity while at the same time not condemning Trump calling (and vaguely threatening) a State Secretary to find the necessary votes to turn the outcome. Rather censuring the guy that objected to said request. So I do not buy their motives. And since you have nothing negative to say about that particularly Trump move either, I would also question your earnesty on that topic. It's apparently an issue for you because your guy lost, which is why you also call the election murky and questionable while not having a single hard fact to back this impression up.

[Wes Mantooth]

(07-21-2021, 08:23 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Gender is sociological, not biological.  You're doing the same thing Rowling did. 

She literally uses the word sex and not gender.  She's clearly talking about the biological differences.  One would assume when she's speaking of "lived experiences" she's referring to things like puberty, menstration, hormonal changes, child birth, nursing, menopause, etc.

[Cicero]

(07-21-2021, 08:44 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Whatever helps you sleep at night. 

In all seriousness I don't mean to come across in such a blunt way. The issue is something that hits close to home for my family. People mean well I suppose but when you've seen up close what people go through it all just rings hollow. 

[CJD]

(07-21-2021, 08:48 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: To me it sounds like she understands exactly what the difference is.   She's drawing a clear line in the sand between the two, which I thought was the point that many people people made to explain it.  Gender is seperate from sex, and it is how you identify.  Whereas sex is the biological definition, which it seems to be what she's referring to.

She says she completely respects people to identify in any way in which they want, and that she'll support them.  But she also says that biological females have different lived experiences than trans-women.  This seems completely fair to me. 

What am I missing here?  How do you define gender and sex?

Her first sentence is "if there is no such thing as sex, etc..." because she thinks that's what trans people want us to believe. That alone is proof that she is conflating gender and sex. Trans people are saying they identify with a different gender than they were assigned at birth based on their sex. That, in no way, implies that sex doesn't exist. Quite the opposite, in fact. Trans people want others to understand the difference between sex and gender and are not trying to disqualify or lessen a cis person's life experience. 

If trans women thought that sex didn't exist, they would claim that cis and trans women were identical in every way, which they obviously are not claiming.

[CJD]

(07-21-2021, 08:53 PM)Cicero Wrote: In all seriousness I don't mean to come across in such a blunt way. The issue is something that hits close to home for my family. People mean well I suppose but when you've seen up close what people go through it all just rings hollow. 

It's cool. We all have our things. I cannot speak to your personal experiences but my trans friends have all seen a marked increase in happiness since transitioning and I just don't want them to be discriminated against.

[hollodero]

(07-21-2021, 04:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Neither party introduces legislation like this that won't benefit them.

Yeah, quite naturally not.
I saw you making the point to refute Democrat's ideas (like PR statehood) though, so it's not that outlandish that Republicans are faced with this very complaint as well.

(07-21-2021, 04:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Absolutely, and I think my position on all of this has been very consistent.  You're 100% correct, intellectual consistency is a rare commodity.  Most people are completely comfortable with inconsistent opinions as long as the inconsistency benefits their preferred worldview/politics.  One need look no further than this board to find examples.

I would be very interested in seeing a direct comparison between the new, or proposed, voting laws in GA and TX and some deep blue states.  I'd be willing to bet there's at least one deep blue state with election laws as, if not more, strict.

I have to say, you are quite consistent in focusing on the Democrats' sins. It might be worth noting that the main guy from the other side would probably rather not have elections at all, or would at least prefer to artificially change their outcome in his favor, and a whole party apparently backs that approach. Imho, in this instance the Democrat's sins just pale in comparison.

[Wes Mantooth]

(07-21-2021, 08:53 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: If trans women thought that sex didn't exist, they would claim that cis and trans women were identical in every way, which they obviously are not claiming.

Tell that to the vast amount of of trans people who have been going after lesbians who have said they wouldn't pursue a relationship with a trans-woman, and calling them TERFS or trans-phobic.

[Dill]

(07-21-2021, 08:29 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: If they've taken the provision out, then why are you going on about it?

The second part sounds like a bit of sensationalism, a lot of "suppose this" and "what if" that..

A similar provision has not been taken out of the Georgia bill, which was signed into law last March.

That's why I'm going on about it.

It means that if Republicans challenge votes in Dem counties, the evidence does not have to rise to the level required in legal cases,

and Republicans get to decide whether to certify.

The kinds of challenge which could not satisfy evidentiary protocols in the courtroom in 2020 can now go around the courtroom.

The same can happen in AZ.

This bespeaks a concern not with "election integrity" but simply with winning no matter what the votes actually say.

[CJD]

(07-21-2021, 09:01 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Tell that to the vast amount of of trans people who have been going after lesbians who have said they wouldn't pursue a relationship with a trans-woman, and calling them TERFS or trans-phobic.

The only time I've seen that is when people show disgust. Like "eww, you're not a woman, I wouldn't date you. "

Trust me, no trans person wants to date someone who doesn't accept their gender identity. 

[Dill]

(07-21-2021, 08:53 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Her first sentence is "if there is no such thing as sex, etc..." because she thinks that's what trans people want us to believe. That alone is proof that she is conflating gender and sex. Trans people are saying they identify with a different gender than they were assigned at birth based on their sex. That, in no way, implies that sex doesn't exist. Quite the opposite, in fact. Trans people want others to understand the difference between sex and gender and are not trying to disqualify or lessen a cis person's life experience. 

If trans women thought that sex didn't exist, they would claim that cis and trans women were identical in every way, which they obviously are not claiming.

Yes, you called it correctly.  SEX is biological. If you have a penis and testes, you are biologically male even if you think you are mentally and emotionally a female.

GENDER is a social construct, a set of social roles people grow into, and sometimes choose. These change over time and from culture to culture. 
SEX doesn't. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-21-2021, 09:00 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, quite naturally not.
I saw you making the point to refute Democrat's ideas (like PR statehood) though, so it's not that outlandish that Republicans are faced with this very complaint as well.

Perfectly true.

Quote:I have to say, you are quite consistent in focusing on the Democrats' sins. It might be worth noting that the main guy from the other side would probably rather not have elections at all, or would at least prefer to artificially change their outcome in his favor, and a whole party apparently backs that approach. Imho, in this instance the Democrat's sins just pale in comparison.

This is due to the very left leaning slant of this sub-forum.  Prior to the move from the official site it was either slanted right or rather balanced.  If you could access posts from that era you'd see much more criticism of the GOP.  I don't feel the need to pile on to what ten plus other posters are saying.  Also, reading the same arguments endlessly repeated is boring and creates the very bubble I'm trying to avoid.  I like to point out the flaw and inconsistencies in people's argument and positions (probably due to being very good at interviews/interrogations).  That being the case, and the vast majority of posters here being left leaning, you're going to get a skewed vision of my personal positions.  Let's be real, the most conservative posters here, either now or in the past, weren't the most adroit debaters.  Also, the people who I've found the most personally disquieting, at least lately, have been very left leaning.  Go back to the days of GA9/TommyC, Dabo and SloppyLombardiSlaps and you'd get the exact opposite.

I will allow for my personal positions to have drifted right on some issues, especially in response to the real ugliness I've seen and been subjected to in the past two or so years.  But, as previously stated by long term posters such as Bel and michalesean I'm much more liberal on most issues than I am conservative.

[Wes Mantooth]

(07-21-2021, 08:57 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: It's cool. We all have our things. I cannot speak to your personal experiences but my trans friends have all seen a marked increase in happiness since transitioning and I just don't want them to be discriminated against.

Fwiw, not to butt in here, but I completely respect your friends and I wish them nothing but the best.  Whatever it is that brings them happiness is a good thing, and it is of no inconvience to me.

I realize this a sensitive subject, so I hope I don't across in a way that seems mean-spirited or unempathetic.  I just think that because it's such sensitive subject that some common sense get lost in translation in some of these situations we see play out.  We can agree to disagree on that, but I would hope we can agree on the majority of everything else.  

[Wes Mantooth]

(07-21-2021, 09:08 PM)Dill Wrote: Yes, you called it correctly.  SEX is biological. If you have a penis and testes, you are biologically male even if you think you are mentally and emotionally a female.

GENDER is a social construct, a set of social roles people grow into, and sometimes choose. These change over time and from culture to culture. 
SEX doesn't. 

This seems to be exactly what she said though.  I don't think anyone here is misunderstanding the difference between the two.  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree though.

[Dill]

(07-21-2021, 04:55 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2019/nov/07/which-us-states-hardest-vote-supression-election

I know; the Guardian - icky. But with all the BS in the news, it's hard to find something that doesn't just talk about upcoming laws versus laws on the books.

Looks as expected--almost all the former Confederate states have the strictest laws, with three coming in second. None have the ease of access found on the "left" coast and in the reliably blue IL, MN, NJ, and NY. 

What the Guardian map doesn't indicate is history.  Many of these restrictions are recent, within the last ten years, deep brown in the last 2 years. 

[Dill]

(07-21-2021, 09:13 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: This seems to be exactly what she said though.  I don't think anyone here is misunderstanding the difference between the two.  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree though.

She said, "If sex isn't real . . . ."  

That implies she is responding to someone who says sex isn't real. 

Who is that?  If she is responding to someone who said that, she is responding to someone who has confused sex and gender. But if that is the case, the right move is to explain the difference between sex and gender.  

Rowling does not. Instead, she goes on about "lived experience" (which has to be gendered in all humans but feral) as if that is simply biological.

PS I don't agree with personally attacking people across any media. I'm for penalizing death threats. 

[Stewy]

(07-21-2021, 08:29 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: If they've taken the provision out, then why are you going on about it?

The second part sounds like a bit of sensationalism, a lot of "suppose this" and "what if" that..

Introducing the provision itself is appalling enough to support discussion, but it was the way the Republicans introduced it, which is the most disgusting.  it was introduced and added in the last hour (literally) before the close of the session, which is what caused the Dem's to walk out completely.

If you look at the provisions that have been introduced in the Special Session called by the Governor, NONE of them have anything to do with security and everything to do with limiting voter access of specific income levels and demographics.

You either haven't bothered to read up on this or your a blindly partisan.  Is Fox News your truth?

How can you be so dismissive and apparently defend these views and tactics?  I am completely baffled.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-20-2021, 06:59 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: You're gonna be mad as hell when a bunch of rainbow wearing, transgendered, weed smoking socialists storm the Capitol and get baked AF.

I think the Left lost weed to the Right as soon as it became legalized and taxed in states. It's now fully entrenched in capitalism.  

[CJD]

(07-21-2021, 09:11 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Fwiw, not to butt in here, but I completely respect your friends and I wish them nothing but the best.  Whatever it is that brings them happiness is a good thing, and it is of no inconvience to me.

I realize this a sensitive subject, so I hope I don't across in a way that seems mean-spirited or unempathetic.  I just think that because it's such sensitive subject that some common sense get lost in translation in some of these situations we see play out.  We can agree to disagree on that, but I would hope we can agree on the majority of everything else.  

I appreciate that. 

I remember when the legalization of gay marriage was first being discussed in the 1990s and 2000s, a really big talking point was "is being gay a choice, or are you born gay/straight?"

Now, it's fine to be curious about that. I know that I was. It's an interesting philosophical question. Are you in control of who you're attracted to? Or is attraction just something specific to the core of who you are and you can't help who you find attractive? You could even translate that questions to different things. Why am I attracted to women with certain attributes (hair color, skin color, body type etc)? Did I interact with someone at a young age that molded my sensibilities or is it just luck of the draw? 

However, curiosity was not the reason that this question (Is being gay a choice?) was so omnipresent in political discussions for 10 to 20 years. The reason it was a topic for discussion in politics is because anti-gay marriage people wanted to use it as a pre-cursor for denying gay people their right to marriage.

"Well, if it's a choice, then they can CHOOSE to stop being gay. Therefore, we don't need to change the laws to let them get married. Clearly, they were molested as children too, so let's get them in therapy as well. Maybe we can even convert them back to being straight once they get over whatever childhood trauma they experienced."

That is kind of the crossroads we are at with trans people. Is it fascinating to discuss the differences between gender and sex and try to figure out what makes a trans person trans? Of course. There are entire sociological fields of study on the topic. Is gender inextricably linked to sex or are they clearly delineated and fluid? These are interesting questions. 

But they stop being interesting when politicians start using them as a pre-cursor to take away the civil rights of trans people. Trans bathroom bills, denial of health care and hormones/puberty blockers, dehumanization in the media etc. These are the consequences of those who question whether sex and gender are really that different. And these consequences have real world, negative impacts on people. 

If I'm being honest, even if sex and gender were 100% the same in every way (which I don't believe they are) and trans people are just attempting to change the meaning of gender so that they can "pretend to be women," I wouldn't care. Just like I ultimately didn't care if being gay was a choice. What I care about is human happiness and egalitarianism. And marrying who you love (assuming consent) and identifying with the gender they are more comfortable with is, undeniably, a more healthy lifestyle for gay and trans people, respectively. It doesn't affect me in any way and they are happier for it. 

Transgender people exist. It doesn't matter if people disagree with their definition of gender or whether or not they're "really a woman." They are who they are, no matter how many times people attempt to misgender them. And, in my opinion, JK Rowling's tweets were damaging to the trans life experience because, given her huge platform, they probably caused at least a portion of the trans community some issues, even if it was just an argument with their family or the broader impact of society thinking trans people are "mentally ill" or stupid because JK Rowling implied that they think sex doesn't exist.

I hope that makes sense.