(05-02-2023, 08:56 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: No, I just find your thoughts hilarious.
For all of human history, you could definitively define what a woman is with objective reality but now it's just some subjective thing that anyone can be.
The political rights/status of black people in liberal democracies has changed over the last 250 years,
in large part because, for the majority in those societies,
the objective reality" of what a black person is has changed.
The the poltical rights/status of women has also changed in such societies.
Would you argue that the "objective reality" of "what a woman is" has not changed?
(05-03-2023, 10:07 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: You’re also doing a disservice to women by just saying anyone can be a woman whenever they want just by saying they’re a woman.
Remind me where I said that.
Also, why would that be a "disservice"? It's not like paying them less for the same work or denying them the right to choose.
(05-03-2023, 10:07 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Black people were treated as slaves and less human but it didn’t change the objective reality that they were people.
The political status of women has changed but it doesn’t change the objective reality of what a woman is.
People who enslaved blacks did not think the "objective reality" was that their slaves were people. Otherwise their own laws forbid enslavement
(at least in the Anglo world.).
"Objective reality" had to change before the law could apply to blacks.
Same for those who thought women should not be able to vote or control their own bodies.
The "objective reality" of what a woman is had to change.
(05-03-2023, 12:25 PM)Dill Wrote: Remind me where I said that.
Also, why would that be a "disservice"? It's not like paying them less for the same work or denying them the right to choose.
You're saying anyone is female just because they say they are.
You're not thinking about all the different hormones, chemical levels, dealing with things like periods, most women being able to bear children and whatever else that is unique to women by just saying anyone can be one.
And it's a disservice because all of the things I listed above are struggles that women go through and have to deal with and saying "oh, well anyone can do all that."
(05-03-2023, 12:25 PM)Dill Wrote: People who enslaved blacks did not think the "objective reality" was that their slaves were people. Otherwise their own laws forbid enslavement
(at least in the Anglo world.).
"Objective reality" had to change before the law could apply to blacks.
Same for those who thought women should not be able to vote or control their own bodies.
The "objective reality" of what a woman is had to change.
False.
The objective reality of what a woman is can't change. The people who enslaved blacks had a subjective reality, which you're actually proving my point because, just because someone sees something in a certain way, i.e. that they're really a woman when they're actually a man, doesn't change the reality that they're actually a man.
(05-02-2023, 01:45 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: It was an obvious stunt by those girls and, if it weren't, how would that qualify as identifying as crippled?
The average crippled person doesn't get pushed down a flight of stairs in a wheelchair.
Not unless they really piss someone off! Isn't that what Trump posted about DeSantis? Something about how he'd like to have him in a wheelchair and push him over a cliff?
(05-02-2023, 10:12 PM)michaelsean Wrote: A certain group move to pro-the most extreme. Transgender trumps women. It’s insane that anyone thinks biological males competing against women is ok. It’s one of the reasons why being turned off by the Republicans party the last five years leads me to a third party and not even consider Democrats.
I'll admit the whole sports thing has me a bit confused and seems weird to me, but I mostly played co-ed soccer in my school and high school days, so I never really thought much about this stuff until it became political. With that being said, the fact that we have two all or nothing parties and the "males and females need separate sports" argument falls on the GOP side puts it into "let it go" territory for me. As a lone weirdo dude I'm just going to avoid going on record for supporting genital inspections for school kids, let's put it that way. Better safe than sorry, and all that. Back in my day if a girl beat you at something you just joked that she had a penis (out of her earshot, depending on what she just beat you at) and moved on with your life. I never thought we'd have the top political figures in the country seriously analyzing such things.
And I was 3rd party from 2009 until the present, but I'm throwing in the towel and just moving to the left, I guess. 3rd party candidates went from "no hope" to currently being used by people like Trump and Machin and Sinema as threats in order to hold whichever political party they're most upset with hostage.
(05-03-2023, 03:59 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'll admit the whole sports thing has me a bit confused and seems weird to me, but I mostly played co-ed soccer in my school and high school days, so I never really thought much about this stuff until it became political. With that being said, the fact that we have two all or nothing parties and the "males and females need separate sports" argument falls on the GOP side puts it into "let it go" territory for me. As a lone weirdo dude I'm just going to avoid going on record for supporting genital inspections for school kids, let's put it that way. Better safe than sorry, and all that. Back in my day if a girl beat you at something you just joked that she had a penis (out of her earshot, depending on what she just beat you at) and moved on with your life. I never thought we'd have the top political figures in the country seriously analyzing such things.
And I was 3rd party from 2009 until the present, but I'm throwing in the towel and just moving to the left, I guess. 3rd party candidates went from "no hope" to currently being used by people like Trump and Machin and Sinema as threats in order to hold whichever political party they're most upset with hostage.
I'm talking about college athletics.
I hate to break it to you, but your move left has been pretty obvious for a while. Which is fine. Except for crazies, I don't have a problem with people based on their politics.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(05-03-2023, 04:21 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm talking about college athletics.
I hate to break it to you, but your move left has been pretty obvious for a while. Which is fine. Except for crazies, I don't have a problem with people based on their politics.
Well, I'm more back to my college/grad school era style of being a democrat in the sense that I'm socially liberal and the right is actively fighting against that stuff and getting too good at it to ignore. I haven't changed my position on things, but I can admit that I could defend voting for Gary Johnson in 2016 a lot easier than I could defend voting for Jo Jorgensen and her podcaster VP in 2020. I'm open to a strong libertarian ticket in 2024, but I'm not holding my breath.
But again, in 2008 I was big on Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani, so I guess I'm either open to change or I'm just hooked on backing the losers. I mean, I am from Pittsburgh and chose to be a Bengals fan and that has been the "right choice" for about 5 total years of my life.
So really, I'm as left as I've been in my adult life (I would have been MAGA as hell if this were going on when I was 15-20 or so). I'm off the chart, because I've gotten more liberal as I've aged.
Side note, republicans caring what goes on in college sports is odd since they've become so anti-college lately.
(05-02-2023, 08:56 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: For all of human history, you could definitively define what a woman is with objective reality but now it's just some subjective thing that anyone can be.
The definition of what comprises womanhood has always been purely and necessarily subjective.
(05-03-2023, 03:23 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: You're saying anyone is female just because they say they are.
You're not thinking about all the different hormones, chemical levels, dealing with things like periods, most women being able to bear children and whatever else that is unique to women by just saying anyone can be one.
And it's a disservice because all of the things I listed above are struggles that women go through and have to deal with and saying "oh, well anyone can do all that."
False.
The objective reality of what a woman is can't change. The people who enslaved blacks had a subjective reality, which you're actually proving my point because, just because someone sees something in a certain way, i.e. that they're really a woman when they're actually a man, doesn't change the reality that they're actually a man.
The terms male-female and man-woman fall under very different categories. You seem to be struggling with differentiating between the two. When you speak of chemical levels, the menstrual cycle and childbearing capacity, you're referring to the biological classification; what it means to be female. That biological classification does not automatically translate to gender, which is an identity classification that only the individual can determine; man or woman.
As a very simplistic example, suppose a biological male encapsulates every outwardly normative notion you have of a woman; by what standard would you refute their assertion of womanhood that isn't completely subjective and arbitrary?
I'm simply curious as what objective standard you think you're applying to determine who meets the criteria to be deemed a man or women.
(05-03-2023, 07:20 PM)Lucidus Wrote: The terms male-female and man-woman fall under very different categories. You seem to be struggling with differentiating between the two. When you speak of chemical levels, the menstrual cycle and childbearing capacity, you're referring to the biological classification; what it means to be female. That biological classification does not automatically translate to gender, which is an identity classification that only the individual can determine; man or woman.
As a very simplistic example, suppose a biological male encapsulates every outwardly normative notion you have of a woman; by what standard would you refute their assertion of womanhood that isn't completely subjective and arbitrary?
I'm simply curious as what objective standard you think you're applying to determine who meets the criteria to be deemed a man or women.
(05-03-2023, 12:25 PM)Dill Wrote: Remind me where I said that.
Also, why would that be a "disservice"? It's not like paying them less for the same work or denying them the right to choose.
People who enslaved blacks did not think the "objective reality" was that their slaves were people. Otherwise their own laws forbid enslavement
(at least in the Anglo world.).
"Objective reality" had to change before the law could apply to blacks.
Same for those who thought women should not be able to vote or control their own bodies.
The "objective reality" of what a woman is had to change.
He didn't say that you said that, he asserted that another action would impose that as a disservice to women.
Only in relative recent history in terms of civilized history.
On the last bolded, let's use a recent PR mistake by a huge corporation as an example. Anheuser Busch decided to embrace the trans community, they have paid dearly for their actions. Clearly the "change in objective reality" hasn't occurred for their target audience. I think that you could summarize that by simply stating; The market has spoken..
Volson is meh, but I like him, and he has far exceeded my expectations
(05-03-2023, 08:19 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: He didn't say that you said that, he asserted that another action would impose that as a disservice to women.
Only in relative recent history in terms of civilized history.
On the last bolded, let's use a recent PR mistake by a huge corporation as an example. Anheuser Busch decided to embrace the trans community, they have paid dearly for their actions. Clearly the "change in objective reality" hasn't occurred for their target audience. I think that you could summarize that by simply stating; The market has spoken..
Perhaps you missed their management speaking to the fact that they took the "expected outrage" into consideration as part of their decision, knowing that certain types of people would feel obliged to be offended. They knew exactly what they were doing from a long term financial perspective; embracing a whole new generation that is more accepting and understanding.
It's been rather hilarious watching people on social media switching their alcoholic beverages only to find out that said beverages have also supported the LGBQTIA+ community in the past. At the same time, it's also very disheartening to know that we, as a community, are still met with such unabashed hatred and vitriol.
(05-03-2023, 08:42 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Perhaps you missed their management speaking to the fact that they took the "expected outrage" into consideration as part of their decision, knowing that certain types of people would feel obliged to be offended. They knew exactly what they were doing from a long term financial perspective; embracing a whole new generation that is more accepting and understanding.
It's been rather hilarious watching people on social media switching their alcoholic beverages only to find out that said beverages have also supported the LGBQTIA+ community in the past. At the same time, it's also very disheartening to know that we, as a community, are still met with such unabashed hatred and vitriol.
What's odd about that whole trans beer thing is that I had 0 idea that it happened or who that influencer is (I still don't know anything about said influencer, other than this specific situation) until a bunch of major GOP players and celebrities sounded the alarm and blasted the entire thing to the universe. People are free to boycott all they like, but stuff like this really shows how the "we don't get offended" crowd really loves to announce to the everyone how pissed they are about stuff like this.
(05-03-2023, 09:09 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: fatties have been riding around krogers on motorized scooters since i was a kid.
I remember when I was 19 or so and one of my pals worked at Wal Mart and told us that they had to let anyone use those scooters and I remember thinking that was insane that they weren't for the disabled only. I get it now, from an academic perspective and legal "cover your arse at all costs" sort of thing. My wisdom that came with age was realizing that everything is done for money and money alone. People can talk about freedom and morality all they like, but money is the reason anything is the way it is.
(05-03-2023, 09:09 PM)Nately120 Wrote: What's odd about that whole trans beer thing is that I had 0 idea that it happened or who that influencer is (I still don't know anything about said influencer, other than this specific situation) until a bunch of major GOP players and celebrities sounded the alarm and blasted the entire thing to the universe. People are free to boycott all they like, but stuff like this really shows how the "we don't get offended" crowd really loves to announce to the everyone how pissed they are about stuff like this.
Indeed, the cans were simply sent to the individual, not the public. They've done this with other individuals previously, with zero outrage.
(05-03-2023, 09:14 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Indeed, the cans were simply sent to the individual, not the public. They've done this with other individuals previously, with zero outrage.
Conservatives when they notice this sort of stuff always reminds me of this fine scene:
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: 7LNf.gif]](https://i.gifer.com/7LNf.gif)
Which is fine. Except for crazies, I don't have a problem with people based on their politics.
