Republicans in TX pass 10 commandments in school bill.

Correct. Even they are better than you at this.

You originally derailed this. Then derailed again multiple times due to constant goal post moves and red-herrings, and lost 5 different "debates" against 4 different people. Happens often. Hell you did it again,

Never forget your sides is that of anti-vaxxing, anti-abortion, anti-common sense gun control, and climate denial. All anti-science. All of which are exponentially worse than "muh dress"

@zaryia:

Correct. Even they are better than you at this.

Lol I quoted your own source 🤣. Here let's do it again.

As a collective of women of color, anti-racist health scholars we unequivocally assert that America is, and has always been, a racist country.

This is what you call a reliable source. You are an absolute clown show. 🤣 . You haven't won shit and all you have done is show how utterly unreliable the Information is you rely on.

@Maroxad said:

@zaryia said:

@InEMplease said:

@zaryia: They're never going to take this seriously Save yourself the headache.

Yeah I'm not going to bother anymore. After he just spammed ad-hominems for two pages straight on my peer reviewed studies without even countering one with citatoin, I tried another tactic and gave him multiple court rulings literally stating my position as a legal fact. Racial Gerrymandering being objectively real. Still nothing.

There is no point, this is like "debating" a Flat Earther.

Its actually kinda funny how pretty much everyone on this board seem to be agreeing that SilentChief is not worth "debating" with. As well as how manyu people have been comparing them to a flat earther.

Whether it is the denial of transgender validity, or systemic racism. I have noticed this has been the go-to logical fallacy, to try to dismiss the studies that contradict their delusions.

Everyone on this board as the same 5 far left posters? 🤣🤣

Remember you think a man who dresses up as a women is a women and you're saying I'm delusional?

@silentchief said:

@Maroxad said:

@zaryia said:

@InEMplease said:

@zaryia: They're never going to take this seriously Save yourself the headache.

Yeah I'm not going to bother anymore. After he just spammed ad-hominems for two pages straight on my peer reviewed studies without even countering one with citatoin, I tried another tactic and gave him multiple court rulings literally stating my position as a legal fact. Racial Gerrymandering being objectively real. Still nothing.

There is no point, this is like "debating" a Flat Earther.

Its actually kinda funny how pretty much everyone on this board seem to be agreeing that SilentChief is not worth "debating" with. As well as how manyu people have been comparing them to a flat earther.

Whether it is the denial of transgender validity, or systemic racism. I have noticed this has been the go-to logical fallacy, to try to dismiss the studies that contradict their delusions.

Everyone on this board as the same 5 far left posters? 🤣🤣

Remember you think a man who dresses up as a women is a women and you're saying I'm delusional?

Its impossible to take you seriously so here's a puppy in a teacup.

You read them all, and you couldn't challenge anything else than one Introduction sentence from one of my sixteen studies after two days. Even if I agree with you to take out that ONE study since you took issue with one introductory sentence (not the actual data) that's still fifteen left. How is that not a complete and utter win?

You even told me racial gerrymandering was real yourself in this thread. How is that not losing a debate when even you said systemic racism wasn't real?

• Systemic racism: individuals and interactions, institutions and society | Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications | Full Text (springeropen.com)
• Studies find evidence of systemic racial discrimination across multiple domains in the United States – Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies
• Systemic Racism in Police Killings: New Evidence From the Mapping Police Violence Database, 2013–2021 - Reed T. DeAngelis, 2021 (sagepub.com)
• Diagnosing and Treating Systemic Racism | NEJM
• Marijuana’s racist history shows the need for comprehensive drug reform (brookings.edu)
• Systemic-Racism-and-SUDs.pdf (marylandmacs.org)
• The boundaries of confusion: Gerrymandering and racial disparities in state House and congressional district line congruity - Niven - 2022 - Social Science Quarterly - Wiley Online Library
• The impact of racism on the future health of adults: protocol for a prospective cohort study | BMC Public Health | Full Text (biomedcentral.com)
• How Structural Racism Works — Racist Policies as a Root Cause of U.S. Racial Health Inequities | NEJM
• Addressing bias and knowledge gaps regarding race and ethnicity in neonatology manuscript review | Journal of Perinatology (nature.com)
• Frontiers | Racism and Structural Violence: Interconnected Threats to Health Equity (frontiersin.org)
• Structural integrity: Recognizing, measuring, and addressing systemic racism and its health impacts - eClinicalMedicine (thelancet.com)
• OSF Preprints | Systemic racial disparities in funding rates at the National Science Foundation
• Race and Redistricting | Annual Review of Political Science (annualreviews.org)
• Racial and Economic Foundations of Municipal Redistricting | Social Problems | Oxford Academic (oup.com)

• Systemic And Structural Racism: Definitions, Examples, Health Damages, And Approaches To Dismantling | Health Affairs

Political Disempowerment [Example of Systemic Racism]

Political disenfranchisement and disempowerment through voter suppression and gerrymandering are an important historical and contemporary manifestation of systemic racism. The legal right for all men to vote was secured in 1870. During the nearly 100-year era of Jim Crow laws, however, voter suppression of Black people was maintained in many states through violent intimidation and selectively applied laws. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not eliminate requirements that continue to differentially affect people of color. Even in 2021 many states recently passed or were considering legislation disproportionately restricting the voting rights of people of color,15 including by gerrymandering, the deliberate redrawing of electoral district boundaries to favor the political party in power. Gerrymandering makes some people’s votes count less than others’ do, depriving them of full representation.16

You lose. And badly.

When called out on committing logical fallacies you end up just commiting more. Not to mention lying. Notice how nobody here is taking issue with the other right wing posters in this thread. I did disagree with some of them, but they are not being bad people. You on the other hand are blatantly dishonest.

Edit: Despite your strawman and historical revisionism. No one is arguing against the "Adult Female Person" definition. What people are saying however, is that the definition is trans-inclusive, which you can tell by further reading the dictionary,

Notice the second definition, explicitly mentions gender identity? This means that the definition for female does exclusively root itself in sex. Now, combine this goes well with the female noun, I also cited. And you will see that your cherry picking immediately falls apart.

Now, we are at a bit of a crosspath, does the woman mean female as in gender identity, or female as in sex? Let's investigate further shall we?

Finding a third definition, we see that the Merriam Webster explicitly says that transgender women are women. So to keep things consistant, that means the 'female' bit in Adult Female Person refers to gender. Which isn't all that surprising to anyone who has a basic grasp on linguistics.

Now, why are you arguing against the dictionary? And why did you accuse me of arguing against the dictionary? Next time, learn when a canned argument ("What is a Woman") doesnt work.

On a side note, did they change the definition somewhat to have Person instead of Human? The fantasy/sci-fi nerd that is me highly approves.

@zaryia:

You read them all, and you couldn't challenge anything else than one Introduction sentence from one of my sixteen studies after two days. Even if I agree with you to take out that ONE study since you took issue with one introductory sentence (not the actual data) that's still fifteen left. How is that not a complete and utter win?

You even told me racial gerrymandering was real yourself in this thread. How is that not losing a debate when even you said systemic racism wasn't real?

Because you didn't agree with me and you called it reliable thus killing your credibility. I took issues with several studies so you just spammed as many as you could Google. You must likely didn't read all of them yourself or you wouldn't have directly quoted the study.

Because systemic racism implies that an institution puts people at a disadvantage. How are minorities at a disadvantage when they have one side doing it in their favor?

Republicans are all about using props, do they live by the 10 Commandments? Do they care about the Constitution? Oh hell effing no. Their philosophy can be summed as "I got mine, so fuuuck everyone else!"

Huh? Prove that the areas where racial gerrymandering is taking place that Democrats completely extinguished it's effects by doing the opposite. Totally nullifying it in the same county so that racial gerrymandering didn't have effects? Give me a link that directly shows this.

Just for you I'll remove the one study that used hyperbole in it's introduction which you took personal issue with.

• Systemic racism: individuals and interactions, institutions and society | Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications | Full Text (springeropen.com)
• Studies find evidence of systemic racial discrimination across multiple domains in the United States – Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies
• Systemic Racism in Police Killings: New Evidence From the Mapping Police Violence Database, 2013–2021 - Reed T. DeAngelis, 2021 (sagepub.com)
• Diagnosing and Treating Systemic Racism | NEJM
• Marijuana’s racist history shows the need for comprehensive drug reform (brookings.edu)
• Systemic-Racism-and-SUDs.pdf (marylandmacs.org)
• The boundaries of confusion: Gerrymandering and racial disparities in state House and congressional district line congruity - Niven - 2022 - Social Science Quarterly - Wiley Online Library
• The impact of racism on the future health of adults: protocol for a prospective cohort study | BMC Public Health | Full Text (biomedcentral.com)
• How Structural Racism Works — Racist Policies as a Root Cause of U.S. Racial Health Inequities | NEJM
• Addressing bias and knowledge gaps regarding race and ethnicity in neonatology manuscript review | Journal of Perinatology (nature.com)
• Structural integrity: Recognizing, measuring, and addressing systemic racism and its health impacts - eClinicalMedicine (thelancet.com)
• OSF Preprints | Systemic racial disparities in funding rates at the National Science Foundation
• Race and Redistricting | Annual Review of Political Science (annualreviews.org)
• Racial and Economic Foundations of Municipal Redistricting | Social Problems | Oxford Academic (oup.com)
• Systemic And Structural Racism: Definitions, Examples, Health Damages, And Approaches To Dismantling | Health Affairs

The above shows you are objectively wrong. Without a shadow of a doubt. Racial Gerrymandering is real, as are other forms of Systemic Racism.

It's real. Just like climate change, covid, evolution vaccines, etc. What even is this.

@Maroxad:

When called out on committing logical fallacies you end up just commiting more. Not to mention lying. Notice how nobody here is taking issue with the other right wing posters in this thread. I did disagree with some of them, but they are not being bad people. You on the other hand are blatantly dishonest.

Edit: Despite your strawman and historical revisionism. No one is arguing against the "Adult Female Person" definition. What people are saying however, is that the definition is trans-inclusive, which you can tell by further reading the dictionary,

No your just bashing them for their support of the 10 commandments. Regardless , you all say the same shit about all right Wing posters in this forum. He even went so far to compare me to previous posters he argued with on Climate change and vaccines.

I'm saying the lefts fails to differentiate the two.

@Maroxad:

Now, we are at a bit of a crosspath, does the woman mean female as in gender identity, or female as in sex? Let's investigate further shall we?

Finding a third definition, we see that the Merriam Webster explicitly says that transgender women are women. So to keep things consistant, that means the 'female' bit in Adult Female Person refers to gender. Which isn't all that surprising to anyone who has a basic grasp on linguistics.

Now, why are you arguing against the dictionary? And why did you accuse me of arguing against the dictionary? Next time, learn when a canned argument ("What is a Woman") doesnt work.

On a side note, did they change the definition somewhat to have Person instead of Human? The fantasy/sci-fi nerd that is me highly approves.

Women is an adult human female. The fact we are now at a cross path on the most simplest of defenitions is concerning.

Wasn't it you who told me the dictionary simply defines how words are used by modern civilization? The defenition was changed in 2022.

My guess is because the left makes no distinction between the two and a certain percentage of the population uses it that way they felt the need to update the defenition.

Here is the science of it though.

If you had an island of 100 women and 100 men , 100 years later you would have a community.

If you had a an island of 100 men and 100 trans women , 100 years later you would have the skulls of 200 men.

@zaryia:

The above shows you are objectively wrong. Without a shadow of a doubt. Racial Gerrymandering is real, as are other forms of Systemic Racism.

It's real among the Democrats. Republicans would need to do it just to counter.

It helped Democrats keep the house

They love putting minorities at an advantage

@silentchief: Where did I bash them? I disagreed with their conclusions, and provided reasoning as to why I disagree. Compare this with you, where I am explicitly calling you out on your logical fallacies, intellectual dishonesty, and very poor grasp on the english language.

And people are comparing you to flat earthers, anti-vaxxers and climate change skeptics because your debate strategies are identical to them. Right down to the attacks on academia.

As for your mental gymnastics, just give up. No one is contesting the with the dictionary. But people aree pointing out that Adult Female Person or Adult Human Female, both include trans women. This is not controversial at all among linguists. Modern usage of the word women generally include Trans Women. Which is why the dictionaries also include trans women as women. The dictionary changes every day, as a consequence of linguists studying how language changes and adapts over time. So I am not sure why you brought that up. It doiesnt help you in the slightest.

The left differentiates between sex and gender, something that has been done also been done by biologists for decades now. For someone who claims to understand the left, you show a dismal understanding of how the left actually thinks.

Nice try, but your hypothetical scenario concerns itself with sociology, not biology. And there is a lot more to gender and sex than reproduction. The science is that there is an overwhelming body of evidence that shows physical causes for gender diversity. Research done on trans folk provide consistently positive results. Which is to say, transgender validity is holding very well up to scrutiny.

Attacking academia does nothing but make you look like a fool. It backfired for you miserably in the previous transgender discussion we had, and it backfired for you here as well. Get a real argument. Stop throwing excuses for the lack of evidence to support your positions. Shut up, or put up.

Those were different counties. In GOP counties gerrymandering occurred and was not impacted by the gerrymandering from Democrats in completely different States. The black residents in those counties did have a dilution of their vote and this was NOT fixed by anyone. They WERE disadvantaged in these southern States.

This is stated in your own link.

@zaryia: Classic SilentChief, getting owned by his own sources 😂

@Maroxad: Dude, come on. I get what you’re saying to tell @silentchief, though you do seem to be confusing gender roles and gender norms with gender, but the common use definition of woman absolutely does not include trans woman. Some in society are trying to redefine it, but they certainly haven’t succeeded.

Look a the dictionary dude.

I gave 3 definitions from the dictionary that support eachother in the notion that women include trans women. I am lazy so I will just cite Wikipedia, plenty of spaces to go from there,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex%E2%80%93gender_distinction#:~:text=Sex%20generally%20refers%20to%20an,internal%20awareness%20(gender%20identity).

Or rather, I am just tired of going through an argument that was basically resolved by linguists, sociologists and biologists decades ago. Over and over and over. This is also why we are tired of arguing with anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, creationists and climate change skeptics. You all fall in the same camp of pseudoscience promoters.

Either way, I have provided the actual dictionary definitions themselves to make my case for me itt, and alluded to scientific research on the topic. You are going to need something more substantial than a contradiction.

@Maroxad: I don’t need a Wikipedia article. I think you and most others championing this trans cause are missing the point - it doesn’t matter how you feel or what you identify as. If you’re an adult male, you will always be a man, and adult females will always be women. It really has nothing to do with what people think they are in their heads, how science describes what they’re claiming to feel, or how the law regards them.

Gender roles are certainly societal constructs, but gender descriptive words like girl, boy, man, and woman are language constructs. I doubt we’re ever going to have a consensus that changes them. Doing so would render the words useless.

How did I get owned? I never denied Republicans do it. The point is they have to because Democrats do it as well.

Did you not read the definitions provided? Males and Females when applied to humans can be used to refer to gender, rather than sex, especially in every day settiings. Furthermore, Man and woman refers to gender, not sex.

Scholars reached a consensus on this ages ago. Here is what various scientific organizations have to say. And I didn't exactly cherrypick these either, I just googled and used most of the first results. Skipping the wikipedia page that I already cited, and CBS News (still supported my argument, but not a scientific organization).

Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions and identities of girls, women, boys, men, and gender diverse people.

https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/48642.html

In the United States, gender has historically been defined as a binary. Many other cultures have long recognized third genders or do not recognize a binary that matches the American understanding.

In any case, the idea of gender as an either/or issue is incorrect.

Someone who identifies with the gender that they were assigned at birth is called “cisgender.”

Someone who is not cisgender and does not identify within the gender binary — of man or woman, boy or girl — may identify as nonbinary, genderfluid, or genderqueer, among other identities.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232363#sex

The European Institute for Gender Equality, an autonomous body of the European Union, provides very extensive definitions of sex and gender:

“Sex refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define humans as female or male. These sets of biological characteristics are not mutually exclusive, as there are individuals who possess both, but these characteristics tend to differentiate humans as females or males.”

“Gender refers to the social attributes and opportunities associated with being female and male and to the relationships between women and men and girls and boys, as well as to the relations between women and those between men. These attributes, opportunities and relationships are socially constructed and are learned through socialisation processes. They are context- and time-specific, and changeable. Gender determines what is expected, allowed and valued in a woman or a man in a given context. In most societies, there are differences and inequalities between women and men in responsibilities assigned, activities undertaken, access to and control over resources, as well as decision-making opportunities. Gender is part of the broader sociocultural context. Other important criteria for sociocultural analysis include class, race, poverty level, ethnic group and age.”

https://www.coe.int/en/web/gender-matters/sex-and-gender#:~:text=Sex%20refers%20to%20%E2%80%9Cthe%20different,groups%20of%20women%20and%20men.

Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time.

...

Gender interacts with but is different from sex, which refers to the different biological and physiological characteristics of females, males and intersex persons, such as chromosomes, hormones and reproductive organs. Gender and sex are related to but different from gender identity. Gender identity refers to a person’s deeply felt, internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond to the person’s physiology or designated sex at birth.

https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender#tab=tab_1

This is indisputable at this point. No idea why you are trying to argue for the indefensible.

Ugh you guys make me want to bang my head on the keyboard. We need to invent new words I guess so these arguments cease.

Ask anyone what a biological women is and you will get the answer you seek. Gender identity is different. Do I think we're doing women a service by calling them some of the terms the extreme left is doing? No. It makes them nothing more than a function. Personally I just put the word trans in front of the gender and there is no confusion.

But stop demonizing people for being different.

You telling people they have a poor grasp of the English language is amusing to say the least.

Ironically I have never debated any of those issues. I don't particularly attack academia outside of certain fields that have extreme bias. Unlike those people I will actually cite relevant data that contradicts the studies.

They don't though not in reality. Nobody outside of the most extreme would consider a trans women a women. Ironically watching you argue with a fellow leftist over this is amusing showing you may be the one lacking understanding if ones position. You can have gender diversity, but a man who thinks he is a women is at best an effiminate woman. I don't know what you mean by " trans validity ". To me it seems you are saying a trans women is as valid as a women and to that i will say you are unequivocally wrong. I'm not denying that there are people who may actually think they are a different gender.

My hypothetical scenario concerns itself with both actually. The reality is my statement holds true. You saying I have a lack of evidence for the gender argument is like arguing with someone who is asking me to prove water is wet. You can't prove anything to them if they fail to accept the basics.

@Maroxad: In common parlance, both gender and sex are used interchangeably. I don’t see an issue with that.

The argument that people are what they claim to be in their heads is pretty counterintuitive. I’m not really sure how someone could inherently be something they claim is socially constructed. 🤷‍♂️

You keep citing scientific articles, etc. I hope you realize that the scientific community is most certainly not making proclamations. They’re really only documenting, reporting, and studying what people tell them. How would it be possible to scientifically determine that little Timmy was supposed to be born a girl? Clearly something else is happening and the scientific community is doing its best to try to figure it out.

Lol 🤣.

Watching Max turn on his own, This is hillarious!

If the purpose of an argument is to change people's minds and make them see things from your point of view you are an absolute failure! I'm glad even your own see how insane you sound.

I'm just glad you finally see what I'm talking about TJ. You thought this wasn't a thing but it is in fact a thing.

@zaryia:

Those were different counties. In GOP counties gerrymandering occurred and was not impacted by the gerrymandering from Democrats in completely different States. The black residents in those counties did have a dilution of their vote and this was NOT fixed by anyone. They WERE disadvantaged in these southern States.

And? Do you keep a tally everytime white voters get screwed in California or Texas? Both parties do it to put their respective demographics at an advantage. Not only that but entire concept is moronic because it implies everyone votes a certain way based off their race.

Your spell check not working?

Differing opinions isn't turning on one's own. Seems a bit childish to think that.

I am not the only one pointing your weak grasp on the english language. Pretty much everyone does. How many times on this board do people mock you for your grammar, reading comprehension and poor vocabulary? It happens pretty much every other thread you post in. Done by several people. Meanwhile, the only person seemingly taking issue with my grasp of the english language is you. And only you.

It doesnt matter, what I said is that "your debate strategies are identical to them". Learn to read.

Except they do. Even Right Wing Pundits accidently end up calling trans folk by the gender they identify with. Its done to the point it has basically become a meme. There *is* a reason, dictionaries adapted their terms.

Your argument is rooted in an Appeal to the Stone Fallacy. You have not provided a single piece of evidence to back your point. I cited 4 scientific organizations in the previous post alone. Of which include the World Health Organization. I also cited the dictionary. The fact that you resort to calling everyone you disagree with far-left on this topic, says a lot. Unless you have any real arguments, I see no reason to continue this discussion. I want evidence, not your rhetorical crap, to skirt around the fact that you have no evidence, something you, yourself have admitted.

Edit: And no, I am not turning on TJ. What are you even talking about? And while I am at it. The left, nor right are monoliths, but coalitions. And agreeing with the scientific consensus is not a far left position.

Not everyone on the left are my own. People who express anti-intellectualism are definately not my people. That includes Leftists who reject anything said by economists (which is a problem among left wing populists), scientists (anti-nuclear, anti-GMO) or geopolitics experts (Noam Chomsky's Ukraine takes made me no longer a fan of him). We recently had a militant trans person in this board. And no one, not even I thought that person argued in good faith. And thus I disliked them.

I always found that bizarre about SilentChief.

Any disagreement is somehow us turning on them. The fact is, there are many right wingers here we disagree with, but we don't exactly go after them like we do with SilentChief. Because these people, at least justify their arguments well enough, so that even if we disagree, I can at least see where they are coming from.

I disagree with TJ on this, but I do not think he is being disingenuous. Something I cannot say for SilentChief.

Yea it's a select few who usually do it right after I blast their shitty reading comprehension. Most people don't attack you because you generally only engage with people that agree with you. The vast majority of right leaning posters just ignore you. Rather it is your failure to define women or your embarrassing attempt to define an assault weapon. You love entering threads that are usually just meant to be a leftwing circle jerk. I do have typos as I often type on a mobile device with predictive text but it doesn't change the fact I have watched you repeatedly fail at defining basic words. This usually leads you into having an absolute meltdown and than storming out of the thread.

They aren't though. As I mentioned I can at least cite data or examples that contradict your argument, a flat earther could do no such thing. Just because the data wasn't used in a larger study doesnt make it invalid.

Yes mainly to avoid drama it doesn't change the fact they know they're not the gender they claim to be.

I have provided plenty of evidence. Can a " trans women" have children? Can you identify the sex of someone years after they pass by looking at their bone structure? Are their biological differences in hormone levels? Again arguing with you hear is like you asking me to prove water is wet. The reason why I call everyone far left on this topic is because I have not met a single exception to this rule. Even those I know personally that lean left often do not accept the trans nonsense. But here you are. A Vegan Atheist who hits all the check boxes of a modern leftwing activist.

IE: A Blue states loosening Abortion laws doesn't mean a Red State didn't restrict them for the women in that State...

This shouldn't be hard to grap. Those Red States still restricted access and those woman have restricted acesss....regardless of what CA did.

Racial gerrymandering is real, exists, and is a form of systemic racism. There is undeniable.

Putting him in the same camp as anti-vaxxers and flat earthers seems like turning on him to me.

All because he isn't buying into the trans nonsense?

This is also why we are tired of arguing with anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, creationists and climate change skeptics. You all fall in the same camp of pseudoscience promoters.

Such one dimensional thinking.

When a myriad of people, all come to the same conclusions about one person, or the one person has issues with a myriad people. Odds are the person everyone takes issue with has the issues. Occams Razor Applies. And once again, in the laws of that state, the term assault weapon are clearly defined. What a woman is, is also universally accepted by virtually every scholar. And it just happens to be the conclusion. I know you are deprived for any form of win, which is why you keep bringing up the assault weapon argument. But this is just getting silly at this point.

You literally stated you don't have any studies to back your claims. And now you make this assertion. Provide the evidence.

Hey look, SilentChief resorting to unsubstantiated conspiracy theories again, when virtually the entirety of academia disagrees with him. Remember what I said about arguing with you not being worth it. This is the exact kind of dishonesty I am talking about.

Atheism is a left wing position? Wut? Atheism is as much of a left wing position as christianity or islam is a right wing position. Which is to say... not at all. As for the rest... rhetoric isn't evidence, fertility has never been a criteria for being a woman (infertile women are still women), and if someone passes, odds are you will not be able to tell them apart from ciswomen. And once again you continue with your appeal to the stone fallacy. Get actual arguments rooted by actual evidence or I will not bother to respond to you. You are arguing against mountains of evidence provided by me and Zaryia. While admitting you have no real evidence on your own.

Pointing out that the same debate tactics are usually used by all of these groups is very similar? If you noticed, I used 'You' as a plural not a singular.

For the record, TJ has thus far avoided committing any logical fallacies. So for now, he isn't a pseudosciecne promoter, but his fellow transgender skeptics by and large, are.

I hope TJ doesnt fall for any of the pitfalls.

You didn't say shit about his debate tactics.

EXACTLY, that is how people with passable reading comprehension skills knew I was talking about transgender validity deniers in general as opposed to him.

I don’t want to be called a transgender skeptic. 😂

I know they’re quite real, but we don’t have to upend society and butcher the meanings of manhood and womanhood to accommodate their identity crisis. The terms trans woman and trans man are perfectly adequate already.

Fair enough, I wont call you that again then :)

Just know, that the people I am taking issue here is people like SilentChief who is making up excuse after excuse, when there is no academic literature that agrees with him. Although we disagree, I find your arguments acceptable. Not convincing, but at least I can try to see where you are coming from.

A myriad of people? 4 people who call me out right after I bash them on their shitty reading comprehension isn't a myriad of people. I mean sometimes it's just basic reading comprehension that some of you struggle with. This thread is a perfect example. I mentioned that reports of " racial discrimination " wasn't proof of racism and 3 of you tried to jump into a semantics debate implying that I thought " discrimination" and " racism were different. When in fact I was stating that " reporting something isn't proof that it happened. I never have this issue when I'm talking to somebody on a neutral issue but you are all so desperate for a gotcha moment and you all coincidently share the same worldview. As for your Assault weapon defenition you mistook the word " various " and implied it meant " all " which was factually incorrect. Trans women are not universally accepted as women by every scholar. That's a bullshit statement you pulled out of your ass.

Studies are not the only valid proof. Data is also proof. I can provide data claims. Just because they do not exist as part of a larger study doesnt make them invalid.

Conspiracy theory? Are you serious right now? Are you implying that being polite is proof they accept the gender nonsense?

Most Atheist lean left as do most vegans. Are you denying this? The rest of your arguments is so embarrassingly bad. If i run into someone who has three legs( due to a genetic anomaly) and I make the statement " humans have two legs" is that now a false statement? How are you completely ignoring the ability to give birth as a biological characteristic of a women? How are you ignoring the fact you can tell someone's gender/sex by their bones. This is evidence that has existed for hundreds of years you are somehow dismissing.

The fault is on you and you alone on that one. Your attempt to blame others reading comprehension is pathetic actually.

What excuse am I making?

I fall into the same category. Make sure you use the word " trans " to seperate the two. A common sense concession that you won't accept.

Me and Zaryia are posting study after study proving you wrong, and you are making up excuses as to why you don't have any studies supporting your argument.

Do you seriously not see what a failure that is on your end?

It is far more than than just 4 people, both in here and on the SW board. And again, accusing everyone else, especially when nobody is agreeing with you. Is a sign that the issue might be... inwards. As evidenced by how you are misinterpretting something every other post. For the record, virtually every scholar doesnt mean every scholar, it means the overwhelming majority. Which is accurate, hence why most, mainstream medical institutions accept trans women as women and trans men as men. Especially the ones pushing the medical sciences forward.

Data, you mean the same data that overwhelmingly points towards systemic racism in the US? THAT data?

I never mentioned Veganism because Veganism is a left wing movement, as there are clear left wing themes in that movement, namely animal rights and egalitarianism. Atheism however, makes no positive statements. And thus is completely apolitical.

As usual you confuse rhetoric for evidence. So I have no reason to engage with you on the actual trans issues. Come back when you have actual arguments. Until then, learn the difference between Sex and Gender, because you are clearly confused.

@Maroxad:

Me and Zaryia are posting study after study proving you wrong, and you are making up excuses as to why you don't have any studies supporting your argument.

Do you seriously not see what a failure that is on your end?

Again a study doesnt prove someone wrong especially when it has extreme bias and goes against other other data.

@Maroxad:

It is far more than than just 4 people, both in here and on the SW board. And again, accusing everyone else, especially when nobody is agreeing with you. Is a sign that the issue might be... inwards. As proven by how you once again misinterpreted something I said. Virtually every scholar doesnt mean every scholar, it means the overwhelming majority. Which is accurate, hence why most, mainstream medical institutions accept trans women as women and trans men as men. Especially the ones pushing the medical sciences forward.

Data, you mean the same data that overwhelmingly points towards systemic racism in the US? THAT data?

I never mentioned Veganism because Veganism is a left wing movement, as there are clear left wing themes in that movement, namely animal rights and egalitarianism. Atheism however, makes no positive statements. And thus is completely apolitical.

As usual you confuse rhetoric for evidence. So I have no reason to engage with you on the actual trans issues. Come back when you have actual arguments. Until then, learn the difference between Sex and Gender, because you are clearly confused

No it really isn't and it's two posters in SW who conveintantly have the same viewpoint as you and both are famous for posting for pages without making a point. I didn't misinterpret anything. I'm not here for a desperate gotcha I knew what you meant. Most mainstream medical institutions differentiate women and trans women with the term " TRANS" something you wont seem to do.

Except it doesn't! Especially when I provided data that counters it. Showing me a study thst shows " blacks are more likely to be shot by police " but than ignoring data that shows they are " far more likely to commit violent crime. Linking a study that ignores that correlation doesn't prove me wrong.

Well you have always struggled to connect the dots. Gender and sex are linked. The term women doesnt exist without biological sex. You also straight up lied or are misinformed about not being able to tell the difference In bones. So again do you what you said you were going to do previously and ignore my post. I'd rather talk to a wall.

@silentchief

• Studies are among the strongest evidence we have, your constant excuses to try to dismiss them is why you are being compared to flat earthers by several posters. The fact that you are trying to allude to them being biased, rather than pointing flaws in their methodology is such a laughably bad position to take.
• Trans women and women aren't mutually exclusive. Women include trans women, as well as cis women. But normally we just call them both women. It really isn't that hard.
• Learn what proportions and over/underrepresentation are. There are so many studies that show that even when accounting for all variables, people of certain races are being disproportionally targetted.
• They are associated with one another, but they are not the same. Read up what ANY medical organization has to say about both. I even cited several earlier itt.
• The bones are related to sex, not gender. Ever heard of Bone Restructuring? Your point is moot, I am baffled you even brought it up.

Once again, learn the difference between sex and gender.

Arguing against empiricism is a losing position. Whether is in the Systemic Racism discussion or Transgender Discussion. Arguing against studies and empiricism did not do your arguments any favors at all.

@silentchief: Why are you still arguing this? Trans people exist and you need to deal with it.

I know they exist I never argued otherwise. However pretending trans men/women are the same as biological men and women is madness.

Not all studies are created equal and he linked some bad ones. The only ones that have made that comparison are you and Zaryia. I have alluded to the obvious bias but I have pointed out flaws of their methodology repeatedly. You simply ignored them because a counter study wasn't provided.

I don't care what you want to call them. It's when you try to deny the differences exist and attempt to upend social structures because your side simply refuses to seperate the two.

I know exactly what it is hence why I mentioned the data and why the studies often leave it out. Studies on " systemic racism " will often look at outcomes with no reference to culture. They use racism as the source of disparity with little proof to back it up.

The term man and women are linked with sex. Maybe LSJ is correct you need to come up with the term since you are struggling with why the words exist.

But the terms man and women are linked directly to sex. Bone Restructuring is the " regeneration of lost bone" not sure what that has to with your argument? Do you mean " bone remodeling "?

I know the difference and one can't exist without the other.

You didnt point to any flaws in the methodology. You did however, repeatedly attack the authors for being a part of a minority group. Something that would get you laughed out of any academic debate. Just as it is clearly not doing you any favors here.

No one is denying there are differences. That is why we use the term trans woman, and cis woman. Both fall under the greater category of women. This really isn't that hard to understand.

Studies actually care about that which can be measured, that is why they don't mention your intangible stuff. If you actually read the studies, you will know that they specifically point at how people are being treated based on race by eliminating all other variables. This is how scientific inquiry works. So your "black culture" dogwhistle falls completely flat. These are people in the same situations, but some people are getting harsher sentencing than others, even as virtually every other situation is the exact same. This is undeniable evidence of systemic racism.

No, Man and Woman are linked with gender. This is why there are cultures with 3 or more gendered terms. Man, Woman, and more may vary based on if the culture recognizes 3 or more genders.

As for bone remodelling. Congrats, you made your first and only good point in this entire thread. Yeah, I meant bone remodelling, it was late and made a mistake that way. Good job!

Yes I did and I didnt attack the authors for being a part of a minority group I attacked them for being activist. Even Zaryia conceded on that study. They were not an unbiased source.

The legislation they try to pass says otherwise. If you want to go around calling " real women" cis women than have at it.

These are not immeasurable things I'm listing. They didn't eliminate all variables. For an example are they analyzing body cam footage during traffic stops? Are they analyzing the criminal records of the suspects? These studies were not consistent with this data. I would like real solutions to the problems as opposed to to just blaming everything on the lazy excuse of racism.

Male=Man Female =Women . You can dance around that immeasurable fact all you want. If your argument is one can unnaturally jack themselves up with hormones to change their bone structure to appeal more masculine or feminine I'm not sure how that helps your argument.