Split Transgender issues (was: California Doing California Things)

[Colonel Sanders]

J.K. Rowling, Dave Chapelle, and Dawkins are examples. Each took hits of varying degrees and were harassed without relent on social media for innocuous and even accurate statements.

What "innocuous and even accurate" statements are you referring to, and in what sense were they "canceled"?

Rowling with her accidental like of a post on Twitter, which she unliked/took down as soon as she realized her mistake. She apologized but has been harassed ever since. The harassment got even worse when she essentially told those people to go F themselves, which I admire her for. She is still reviled among that crowd.

Dawkins pointed out that yes, there are men and women. Crazy stuff I know.

Chapelle took a trans comedian on the road to open for him. In his act he made a joke about how she bombed her first night out, but then got better after time went on. For that, he has been castigated.

Reasonable people don't like that shit. Also, things like that get associated with the Dem party, which the Dem party then tacitly supports these extremists by not publicly rejecting those extremists, so people associate extremist nonsense with the party.

Other terms like "white people problems" and "male toxicity," both of which are usually made in sweeping generalities are other things that exclude millions from the party. Why the DNC doesn't come out and reject those sweeping generalities is beyond me.

These attitudes come from a tiny percentage of the voting population but they have an outsized voice that damages the whole; and the Dems don't do anything to fix it.

 

[Politesse]

Rowling with her accidental like of a post on Twitter, which she unliked/took down as soon as she realized her mistake.

Well, this is just a lie. Not that she took down the post, but what you're implying about it being an innocuous or unintentional act. She literally published an essay defending her social media bullshit, then started a multimillion dollar legal fund to defend religious nutjobs and child abusers. She has not in any way recused herself from her political positions, she's loud and proud about them. She's also the world's wealthiest author, and is currently raking in further millions from a tv show, presently airing, based on one of her books. She has not been "canceled" in any meaningful sense.

To the extent that I personally do not buy any of her products, as is my right as a consumer to decide, it's not because of some thing she re-tweeted, it's because I know a few cents of every dollar I gave her would immediately be donated to causes I do not support. If she doesn't want to be criticized for her political views, she should stop engaging in political activism.

Am I "canceling" Trump because I don't stay in his stupid hotels when I'm traveling? Are you "canceling" Trump when you buy steaks from someone else?

 

[scombrid]

J.K. Rowling, Dave Chapelle, and Dawkins are examples. Each took hits of varying degrees and were harassed without relent on social media for innocuous and even accurate statements.

What "innocuous and even accurate" statements are you referring to, and in what sense were they "canceled"?

Rowling with her accidental like of a post on Twitter, which she unliked/took down as soon as she realized her mistake. She apologized but has been harassed ever since. The harassment got even worse when she essentially told those people to go F themselves, which I admire her for. She is still reviled among that crowd.

Dawkins pointed out that yes, there are men and women. Crazy stuff I know.

Chapelle took a trans comedian on the road to open for him. In his act he made a joke about how she bombed her first night out, but then got better after time went on. For that, he has been castigated.

Reasonable people don't like that shit. Also, things like that get associated with the Dem party, which the Dem party then tacitly supports these extremists by not publicly rejecting those extremists, so people associate extremist nonsense with the party.

Other terms like "white people problems" and "male toxicity," both of which are usually made in sweeping generalities are other things that exclude millions from the party. Why the DNC doesn't come out and reject those sweeping generalities is beyond me.

These attitudes come from a tiny percentage of the voting population but they have an outsized voice that damages the whole; and the Dems don't do anything to fix it.

That’s a lie about Rowling context. And Dawkins is a fucking shitweasel that can’t get laid unless he has some kind of coercive power dynamic. Fucking pathetic and a huge let down. I loved The Blind Watchmaker and Selfish Gene. Then I find out that he is barely a step above Jordan Peterson.

But beyond that. Extremism undoes the left but is a huge benefit for the GOP? Why the double standard. Why is it extreme to comment on public speech but not to engage in the overbearing government action that the right wing supports?

 

[Colonel Sanders]

J.K. Rowling, Dave Chapelle, and Dawkins are examples. Each took hits of varying degrees and were harassed without relent on social media for innocuous and even accurate statements.

What "innocuous and even accurate" statements are you referring to, and in what sense were they "canceled"?

Rowling with her accidental like of a post on Twitter, which she unliked/took down as soon as she realized her mistake. She apologized but has been harassed ever since. The harassment got even worse when she essentially told those people to go F themselves, which I admire her for. She is still reviled among that crowd.

Dawkins pointed out that yes, there are men and women. Crazy stuff I know.

Chapelle took a trans comedian on the road to open for him. In his act he made a joke about how she bombed her first night out, but then got better after time went on. For that, he has been castigated.

Reasonable people don't like that shit. Also, things like that get associated with the Dem party, which the Dem party then tacitly supports these extremists by not publicly rejecting those extremists, so people associate extremist nonsense with the party.

Other terms like "white people problems" and "male toxicity," both of which are usually made in sweeping generalities are other things that exclude millions from the party. Why the DNC doesn't come out and reject those sweeping generalities is beyond me.

These attitudes come from a tiny percentage of the voting population but they have an outsized voice that damages the whole; and the Dems don't do anything to fix it.

That’s a lie about Rowling context. And Dawkins is a fucking shitweasel that can’t get laid unless he has some kind of coercive power dynamic. Fucking pathetic and a huge let down. I loved The Blind Watchmaker and Selfish Gene. Then I find out that he is barely a step above Jordan Peterson.

But beyond that. Extremism undoes the left but is a huge benefit for the GOP? Why the double standard. Why is it extreme to comment on public speech but not to engage in the overbearing government action that the right wing supports?

No, it's not a lie. She holds the same views that most people do about trans issues e.g. it's not possible to change one's biological gender. It's not a matter of debate, it's a matter of fact. God forbid someone not engage in this fantasy. She also took a bunch of shit for saying that only women can menstruate and that's the truth. In order to not belabor the point, he views are supportive of women rather than "oppressing" trans people.

Dawkins distinguished different kinds of sexual assault from one another where his basic point was that different kinds of results can produce different traumas. Oh no, let's not discuss this because we wouldn't want appropriate treatment for differing aspects of abuse. The irony is that the screeching over this analysis is that it lumps all victims into the same group, which does a grave disservice to those victims because depending on circumstances, the trauma manifests itself in different ways and therefore treatment must be tailored to those different manifestations.

I don't know that the double standard has to do with anything. That's not the issue. Neither is free public speech. The issue is whether the DNC should espouse extremist views rather than eschewing them. The perception among millions is that the DNC does espouse those views which in turn loses them important elections, which hurts all of us.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

As for Dave Chapelle. His trans jokes were below his usual standard and punched down. He got called for it. The jokes read like the “humor” that white nationalists use to “other” minorities and make their ideas appeal more broadly. Dave didn’t get censored or even black listed. He got criticized. Boo hoo. He can take it. He is a good person with a big heart and he’s not a dummy like Rob Schneider.

He has learned and grown and adapted and actually has seen how the right wing has added his trans jokes to their repertoire of attacks. It is baffling how it can be labeled as extreme to criticize a comedian in the face of the GOP and Project 2025z

He didn't "punch down," but a tiny minority accused him of it and their outsized voices gave the right easy ammunition. I never said he was blacklisted or censored by anyone. It's those outsized voices that create the perception that Democrats support those willful misinterpretations of what he said is the point I'm making. I've been very clear about that.

Do what you want, be who you are. I don't give a shit; it's none of my business. I have my own life to lead and things to worry about, just like everyone else. However, when extremism severely damages us by aiding the enemy, it becomes a legitimate concern.

Our shitty electoral college and senatorial system should be changed, but that's not going to happen. Therefore we have to find a way to win elections within this dysfunctional system, which in turn means that practicality must be king.

I have a pretty good idea of the responses that will come from the above so I'll just wait those out to address them.

 

[Politesse]

She holds the same views that most people do about trans issues e.g. it's not possible to change one's biological gender. It's not a matter of debate, it's a matter of fact. God forbid someone not engage in this fantasy.

Facts aren't actually defined by your feelings, buddy. Or Jo's. If these were facts, ie objectively legible points of data, access to those facts would be the major factor in what people believed about gender, not political, ideological, or cultural commitments. In this case, however, the more educated a person is on the science of sex and gender, the less likely they are to be dogmatically dedicated to the claims of Western Christianity regarding dualistic gender essentialism.

 

[TSwizzle]

She holds the same views that most people do about trans issues e.g. it's not possible to change one's biological gender. It's not a matter of debate, it's a matter of fact. God forbid someone not engage in this fantasy.

Facts aren't actually defined by your feelings, buddy. Or Jo's. If these were facts, ie objectively legible points of data, access to those facts would be the major factor in what people believed about gender, not political, ideological, or cultural commitments. In this case, however, the more educated a person is on the science of sex and gender, the less likely they are to be dogmatically dedicated to the claims of Western Christianity regarding dualistic gender essentialism.

It really is a religion for you.

 

[Derec]

In this case, however, the more educated a person is on the science of sex and gender, the less likely they are to be dogmatically dedicated to the claims of Western Christianity regarding dualistic gender essentialism.

I see both extremes as wrong here. Most people fall neatly into the gender binary, because normally you get full sex differentiation in the fetus.

In cases it doesn't, you get an intersex condition. And genital differentiation can proceed normally while taking a different path in the brain.
But these are exceptions. Exceptions we should not dismiss, or treat as freakish, but we should not pretend that they are the norm either.
The norm is still the gender binary, so I do not think much of the activists who want to "overthrow" it.

As a practical matter, I think people who are e.g. born male but identify as female should not be persecuted, and should be given opportunities to align their identity with their body as much as medically possible. But they still need to acknowledge that they are different than biological women, and that for example affects physical performance in sports. I also do not think that everybody should be pressured to declare their pronouns as became the fad - pushed by the activist class - a few years ago.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

She holds the same views that most people do about trans issues e.g. it's not possible to change one's biological gender. It's not a matter of debate, it's a matter of fact. God forbid someone not engage in this fantasy.

Facts aren't actually defined by your feelings, buddy. Or Jo's. If these were facts, ie objectively legible points of data, access to those facts would be the major factor in what people believed about gender, not political, ideological, or cultural commitments. In this case, however, the more educated a person is on the science of sex and gender, the less likely they are to be dogmatically dedicated to the claims of Western Christianity regarding dualistic gender essentialism.

A trans person can't reproduce. That's a fact. The only feelings I have about it are towards people who are hellbent on refusing to acknowledge reality. It's aggravating.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

She holds the same views that most people do about trans issues e.g. it's not possible to change one's biological gender. It's not a matter of debate, it's a matter of fact. God forbid someone not engage in this fantasy.

Facts aren't actually defined by your feelings, buddy. Or Jo's. If these were facts, ie objectively legible points of data, access to those facts would be the major factor in what people believed about gender, not political, ideological, or cultural commitments. In this case, however, the more educated a person is on the science of sex and gender, the less likely they are to be dogmatically dedicated to the claims of Western Christianity regarding dualistic gender essentialism.

A trans person can't reproduce. That's a fact. The only feelings I have about it are towards people who are hellbent on refusing to acknowledge reality. It's aggravating.

The problem with "acknowledging reality" is that our brains are finely tuned to our perception of it. It can be a bit like the Renshaw Cow or the All is Vanity painting (woman in mirror / skull). Perception isn't the end of understanding.

It gets tougher too because our brain rewards obfuscation and maintaining the path, instead of accepting truth or something that is more truthful.

Gender v sex v dangly bits v hormores v the microcosm that is our consciousness is an absurdly complicated construct that we tried to manage into a single dichotomy that damn well know, isn't that simple. And, in general, compassion and humanity is never part of the discussion. Particularly when one group doesn't even want to recognize transgenderism is even a thing.

*looks up*

WTF? This isn't remotely on-topic with the thread regarding California, instead of the actual transgender thread. I'm going to stop here.

 

[Politesse]

She holds the same views that most people do about trans issues e.g. it's not possible to change one's biological gender. It's not a matter of debate, it's a matter of fact. God forbid someone not engage in this fantasy.

Facts aren't actually defined by your feelings, buddy. Or Jo's. If these were facts, ie objectively legible points of data, access to those facts would be the major factor in what people believed about gender, not political, ideological, or cultural commitments. In this case, however, the more educated a person is on the science of sex and gender, the less likely they are to be dogmatically dedicated to the claims of Western Christianity regarding dualistic gender essentialism.

It really is a religion for you.

No, sport. Science is not a "religion", it is a methodology of study that assumes the priority of empirical evidence over belief or perception.

 

[scombrid]

She holds the same views that most people do about trans issues e.g. it's not possible to change one's biological gender. It's not a matter of debate, it's a matter of fact. God forbid someone not engage in this fantasy.

Facts aren't actually defined by your feelings, buddy. Or Jo's. If these were facts, ie objectively legible points of data, access to those facts would be the major factor in what people believed about gender, not political, ideological, or cultural commitments. In this case, however, the more educated a person is on the science of sex and gender, the less likely they are to be dogmatically dedicated to the claims of Western Christianity regarding dualistic gender essentialism.

A trans person can't reproduce. That's a fact. The only feelings I have about it are towards people who are hellbent on refusing to acknowledge reality. It's aggravating.

MTF can’t reproduce? Gobsmacked!!!!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Everyone who doesn't toe the Woke line must be a bigot.

Are you new here? Derek posts little on this forum except about black thugs, lying women, politicians "submitting voluntarily" to Islam, and the ever-present dangers of Wokeness, an ideology he cannot actually define but knows is the enemy of everything he holds dear. Which he also can't define, because he seems to hate nearly everything about this country as it has actually existed since the passage of the 14th, and most of the people who live here.

Which doesn't change the basic problem.

Maybe you should ask yourself how things got this way and the role your ideology played in it.

Fascism and its many cousins have always been a popular ideology among a certain set, and I see no evidence from history whatsoever that giving into it makes it any less so. It thrives because feeding paranoia and conspiracies is a cheap and easy way to garner political support from those who have a class advantage over many others but are financially exploited and have few hopes for the future.

Suppose we concede. Throw the transgendered population into their clutches, let them jail and torture any transgender kid they can find, no holds barred. Do you really think that will stop them? That they will be mollified, not afraid of gender ideology anymore? That they won't just go seeking their next target?

I don't anyone who thinks the left should have completely conceded. But the left made some serious blunders:

1) Trans in sports. The science here is not settled in regard to MTFs that went through male puberty. That should not have been pushed until the science was much clearer.

2) Self-identification. That gave the right a major attack point and I think a bit too far. While plenty of psychiatric support would be a good thing I don't see it as essential--but there should be some guidance on playing the role properly and a requirement to show that you have this information. Without any standards an illusion of a problem that provided lots of ammunition.

3) The left's obsession with disparate outcome establishing discrimination and witch-hunting said "discrimination." A huge incentive to avoid any inadvertent appearance of discrimination. And a lot of people can see how unfair it is--in practice society discriminates against white males and they have a legitimate objection to this.

And I'll add one from a discussion on another board that shows the problem even though it by itself is tiny. The issue was the "fairness" of a system to spot suspected (as in worth of investigation, not as in established wrong) welfare cheats. It was important that it not "discriminate" against any group. But how do you measure this? Against the old system. Note that this inherently bakes in any biases that existed, a system which doesn't have the old bias will be found not to be fair.

The metric has become the goal. And a lot of people see this.

If you don't believe me, ask Tswizzle what my political ideology actually is. It ought to be easy, I've known him for more than a decade now and we converse often. This thread alone has been running for more than two years and I am a frequent contributor. See if he can tell you anything about my political beliefs that actually came from something I wrote about them. 82 pages of this thread and he cannot do it; the best you'll get is the exact same stereotypes Fox news trumpets about any given "liberal". Go ahead! Ask him what I think about Gavin Newsom's performance as governor and his policies toward the homeless, for instance. He still has no idea, despite many, many attempts at clarification over the years.

You have pushed for trying to move politicians to the left--but that doesn't move the voters.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, it's not a lie. She holds the same views that most people do about trans issues e.g. it's not possible to change one's biological gender. It's not a matter of debate, it's a matter of fact. God forbid someone not engage in this fantasy. She also took a bunch of shit for saying that only women can menstruate and that's the truth. In order to not belabor the point, he views are supportive of women rather than "oppressing" trans people.

I don't think anyone can change their gender. But they can recognize that their gender does not match their biology.

Just like you can't make yourself gay, you can only recognize whether you are gay/straight/bi.

Dawkins distinguished different kinds of sexual assault from one another where his basic point was that different kinds of results can produce different traumas. Oh no, let's not discuss this because we wouldn't want appropriate treatment for differing aspects of abuse. The irony is that the screeching over this analysis is that it lumps all victims into the same group, which does a grave disservice to those victims because depending on circumstances, the trauma manifests itself in different ways and therefore treatment must be tailored to those different manifestations.

I'm not aware of the specific details but to a large degree trauma is trauma. The triggers and the reaction might vary but the underlying mechanism is pretty much the same.

I don't know that the double standard has to do with anything. That's not the issue. Neither is free public speech. The issue is whether the DNC should espouse extremist views rather than eschewing them. The perception among millions is that the DNC does espouse those views which in turn loses them important elections, which hurts all of us.

Both sides espouse extreme positions. I do not like the Democrats but I recognize the Republicans are far worse. But Republicans are far better at getting their followers to ignore other sources.

 

[Bomb#20]

No, it's not a lie. She holds the same views that most people do about trans issues e.g. it's not possible to change one's biological gender. It's not a matter of debate, it's a matter of fact. God forbid someone not engage in this fantasy. ...

I don't think anyone can change their gender. But they can recognize that their gender does not match their biology.

Just like you can't make yourself gay, you can only recognize whether you are gay/straight/bi.

You appear to be confusing gender identity with gender. Not the same thing. Some people can change their gender -- it's pretty common in guevedoces.