mistercwood

The funniest part about this "documentary" is that that's how they wanted to make it initially. And then they found out that sports associations don't actually just let any 'dude in a dress' show up and play, they would have had to go on HRT for years and proven this (amongst other things). So they pivoted and made it fictional, because the entire premise of the movie just doesn't happen in the real world. Funny that, huh?

This is the funniest thing I've read on here in months, no notes.

Almost. Just "they identify as female", at the end there. The fundamental grammar doesn't change, using "they" still modifies the other words the same way it always did in English. Easiest way I find for people to get comfortable with it is to assume you have no idea of the sex/gender of the person you're talking about (e.g. someone mentions their cousin is coming to a party, but gives no more info than that). If you need to refer to them now, it's pretty automatic - "What time are they coming? Can they bring a plate?", etc etc.

Incorrect. The amendment text is known and has been public since the start (one minor correction was made since the very first time it was made public): A majority of No voters make the case that we don't how the composition of the Voice will be put together, as those laws will be created and put through the normal parliamentary process only if the Voice gets through. It's arguably been a FUD campaign since the start, lots of scaremongering around the potential for unexpected nasties to get pushed through under the umbrella of the Voice. It's not been convincing to me, because any law passed to enact the Voice still needs to be in compliance with the Constitution, and no one has been able to give me an example of a nasty result that would be able to pass that hurdle. Ultimately the Voice is essentially just a symbol, it doesn't have any real power at all. But I don't agree that a symbol has to have power in order to be valuable in other ways.

Yes.

Is it still ad hominem if the target genuinely isn't bright enough to follow the discussion? Asking for no particular reason.

It's long because it's a great way for him to grift more ad views out of you.

Oh 100% agreed, I probably could have been clearer. Yes there's an uptick, though nearly not as much as is being painted by some, and yes it will be for the reason you mentioned, better acceptance and understanding at a broad level. My critique is of those who think people can be influenced into being trans, or that it's only increasing because it's become "trendy". This is akin to blaming the increase in left-handedness over the last century as being caused by trendiness. Lol.

I'm not disputing that it's serious, and I agree that innocent mistakes with someone's gender should not in any way carry repercussions, legal or otherwise. I think it was more that my alarm bells were ringing when you appeared to be parroting talking points from Jordan Petersen, in which he claimed (falsely) that the Canadian bill referenced in Winsor's previously quoted post would compel him to use someone's preferred pronouns and that the simple act of failing to do so could carry penalties from the state. That's the myth part. If that's not your position, then I think we're on the same page - mistakes made without malice should be excused. Again, the reference to social media as a potential cause for alleged upticks in trans kids is a talking point being pushed by some without evidence. It's often referred to as "social contagion", and it's being used as one of the wedges to try and paint many of these kids as confused and not "really" trans. The biggest work was being done in Germany around 1910 up to the 30's (Institut für Sexualwissenschaft - Wikipedia). I'm sure you can work out what happened to it. My key point here though was merely to point out that we've been conscious of trans people being a real thing for a very very long time. It's not a new trend or fad. As for nature/nurture, I generally feel nurture doesn't work that way. In the end though, I let the medical professionals do the work and update us if they find links contrary to current understanding. I think there can be good things to come out of more general discussion. But my caution is based on a lot of loud voices out there saying they're "just asking questions" and then only seeking out and platforming the most negative voices and stories, while pretending the positive ones don't exist. Often the negative stories aren't even verifiable, but it doesn't stop people latching on to them and saying "well even if it's not true, imagine if it was, why do you want to mutilate kids" etc etc. End of the day, my main position is that these things are for patients to discuss with their health professionals. Discussion outside of that needs a lot of care to avoid bolstering the people who just don't want trans people to exist.

You're right, I could have been more specific - broadly, no one is going to care if you misgender them by mistake. Yes, you'll get some people who want to make it a bigger deal than it is, for the reasons you state. But legal consequences for a mistake are most definitely a myth, yet they keep getting trotted out again and again.

Plenty of people getting baited on these threads, but it's not Brent....

And they're not. The idea that they ever would be was a myth. We definitely know it's not to do with Facebook, since we've got well over a century of serious study on the topic. Trans people are a very small percentage of the population, but they are not in any way a new phenomenon. This also is more or less the current state of affairs anyway. The only surgical procedures done on minors are, on very rare occasions, mastectomies. These are only done when the kid's dysphoria is so bad that a medical assessment has been made, that the risks associated with doing the surgery are less than the risks that the kid will seriously self-harm or suicide if it's not performed. In the US, the rate is around one patient every few days, nationally. In a population approaching 1/3 of a billion people, that's barely a statistical blip. There are orders of magnitudes more teen girls getting breast augmentations for vanity than there are getting gender-affirming procedures, but the equivalent moral panic is completely absent.

The entire case is moot (re: the religious freedom/website one), it should never have been in front of SCOTUS in the first place. I don't say that because I don't like the outcome, I say it because it literally did not meet normal requirements for litigation. The entire case was a hypothetical. There was no client, or company to build this alleged website. It was a woman making up a potential scenario, and saying she worried she *might* fall afoul of the law if she theoretically acted in a certain way in the future. That's not how SC cases work. You need an actual event with harmed parties, for a ruling to be made. If this had been a case with an outcome favourable to leftist causes, you'd be losing your damned mind, and you'd be right to do so. Instead it's owning the libs so you're cackling with glee, even though it's the most blatant case of judicial activism in your lifetime. In the absence of actual harmed parties and a real event, this is by definition "legislating from the bench". Cheering it on is blatantly un-American, and you should be ashamed.

I'm genuinely struggling to be clear on what you're trying to say here.

And if one of those little people turned out to be trans, would you also be explaining to them how you consider them a freak?

Is it true they go by the shorthand of "Nat-C" because they figured going straight to "Nazi" would be a little too on the nose?

I feel the need to make one tiny correction/clarification here - he wasn't found guilty of these things in court. The case was one of defamation that BRS (the soldier in question) brought against news organisations that had reported that he committed unlawful killings. The court found that he wasn't defamed as the organisations had reasonable belief to report the events as true. It may seem a stupid thing to pick at, but it's important to note that he currently faces no criminal or war crimes charges, just that a court found it reasonable to conclude that he did in fact do war crimes. I think he's guilty as hell, but there is no legal finding of that yet.

Lol. Lmao.

Bud I was mocking you for being a bot, or being so susceptible to propaganda that you are indistinguishable from one.

Wandering through an innocent ol' Twitter search and some of the phrasing really stood out to me, gee I wonder where I've seen this totally organic and definitely not manufactured messaging before...?

I'm increasingly disinclined to allow any distance between those two positions. If you're willing to appeal to and align yourselves with Nazis in order to gain power, is there much practical difference in being a true believer? I say nah.

I am in full agreement with your overall stance, however I am begging people to stop using this analogy. It *is* protected speech to shout fire in a crowded theatre, the ruling in the case that everyone talks about was almost immediately overturned as a 1A violation.

I didn't even watch the video, I was just mocking the source. While I'm sure they put out something that is factually correct by accident occasionally, PragerU are basically propaganda via pretty colours and shapes, so as not to too horribly tax their preferred audience's minds. EDIT: And now I've watched it. Yup, we all know *exactly* how those bloodlines get started....

Posting a PragerU video as an earnest rebuttal to my point about how embarrassingly lazy reactionaries are? This is extremely funny, no notes, please continue.