metalslug

They are not ovaries. Period. What they 'present as' on cursory examination has no relevance at all. (I can present as Santa Claus). You wrote nonsense and were caught on it. 'make them'? that your preferred parenting style? I would encourage them to identify as female, as the closest approximation of what they are and have familiarity with. I have certainly never stated that women are strictly XX as I'm familiar enough with the difference between DSD and transgender. I'll even do you one better; I'd be willing to call a XY born male, after fully transitioned , a woman.

The scenario above can never happen. Neither AIS (Morris) or Swyer syndrome can result in ovaries. Also; DSD or intersex should not be confused with transgender, not mutually inclusive at all. The former occurs in approx. 1 in 15000 women with XY and the latter around 2% who self-identify as trans or some variation thereof. Arguing the case of one group to explain another is dishonest.

Heey.. wait a second; https://adfontesmedia.com/product/media-bias-chart-latest-edition/#iLightbox[]/0 Were they working on the theory that if they go from right to left then they would end up in the center? If they switched from Fox to CNN then they were never exposed to the 'real danger' of unbiased media.

Read it again carefully and then put away your strawman. Not 'people'. 'Americans'. Do you see what's wrong with it yet? For Joe to assert that votes against Harris would be based exclusively on race and gender is as absurd as asserting that votes against Trump would be based on the same.

Did it occur to you how your own racism and sexism shows in that statement? You've asserted that a particular race and gender are superior, on their own merits, irrespective of other character faults. Compare your statement to this example; "...disturbing number of Americans would choose a giggling, insincere buffoon over a white man as our President?" Are you able to see what's wrong with this?

So long as they are facts, it would seem irrelevant where they come from in this case. It's not as though 'the Post' would publish anything that embarrasses their narratives. Feel free to dispute that any of those quotes are accurate.

Nothing that hasn't already been covered by previous posts, unless it helps you if I add a "So what ?"

Allow me to spell it out then; I had 'corrected' it to read as "people who only read their own sources", as in the context of exclusively referencing typically biased media sources who decline to publish anything that disturbs a left (or right) world view narrative; Righties: "The lefties are only reading left-wing biased media." Lefties: "Not true! I read widely from sources A, B, C, D ...." Righties: "Really? The you've missed this factual event reported in source C" Lefties: <silence> To be fair, both sides do this, so neither can be sanctimonious about it. There are regular news events that would make lefty politics feel awkward to discuss that never make it into SC, it's rather surprising that the 'trolling' is actually so limited considering the abundance of available material. It's then also automatic that none of these events would be posted by the lefties themselves as they are likely never even reported in their focused media of choice.

Fixed it for you.

Then perhaps... without folks like myself, brent, winsor, & whoever.. then members here might experience the same echo chamber monotone.

.

Utter nonsense and deflection. This was a questioning for a judicial position, she was quite logically being asked her legal opinion on a legal definition and did not offer any definition at all, other than to assert that only a biologist could possibly provide a definition. There's no amount of woke spin you can put on that. Nope. Witness #3 would be the most useless as they had the worst view, from behind. The witness with the best view gets the higher regard. Did they all see a man in drag? It's not the witnesses' obligation to make that determination, the courts and the investigators do. They should hope their presiding judge knows what a woman or a man is.

And yet an actual legal expert, on questioning for a judiciary position, deferred the question in it's entirety to expertise in biology. Absurd sporting outcomes by trans participants , non-transitioned men using women's public facilities. 'knowing that something is wrong' does not only apply in the context that you've used it. I would agree that it doesn't seem fair to permanently deny such participants the ability to ever compete in sports again and there may yet be a method to include these participants fairly, it's just not happening reliably enough yet.

Hmm.. we might require a special qualification to know the answer. It's a hard question ! According to at least one member of the judiciary; one needs to be a biologist to know (to their credit they thereby acknowledge that gender is biological), in the same way that only a veterinarian or zoologist would know what a horse is and only a botanist could define an apple...

Perhaps I'm a little naïve but I'd still like to believe that the US justice system still works on the presumption of innocence and that courts of law can prevail over courts of public opinion. How many cases have we already seen, against defendants on the left and right, in which the prosecutors had stated that they had 'overwhelming evidence' only to be undone by insufficient evidence or a failure to properly understand the actual law. For this reason I'll take any politically tainted claims of 'overwhelming evidence' with a pinch of salt. Therefore, in these future cases too, vs Trump and now vs Hillary, I'd be keen to see how both would fare. Bragg wont have his position forever and unless there's a statute of limitations on the charges then there will surely be opportunities later for it ?

Forgive my previous acerbic comment to you. Is this perhaps better? Now compare that to "Hunter didn't deny that Putin ordered Trump to try to discredit his father". With all the effort from the left in attempting to debunk the laptop it would be really easy for Hunter to deny the laptop as his, would indeed be one of the strongest testimonies per his personal knowledge of it. By comparison; I didn't deny it was my laptop and you didn't deny it was yours. Yet if either of us were asked the same question it would be an unequivocal response easily proven. Yet Hunter doesn't, keeping his options open for when it awkwardly comes clean.

Nope. My very first sentence was "Returning to the OP.." which is "Hunter Biden's laptop". I intentionally made no mention of the DOJ probe which, I agree, is a separate issue. I was however referring to the 'so what?' line you've had since the laptop was authenticated. I'm unable to say with certainty, in my independent capacity, that the laptop content indicates anything directly negative towards Joe Biden, but these 50 officials seem to believe that perception by association merits concern. You seem to be of the opinion that (alleged) dirt on Hunter has zero impact on US voter thinking and you're welcome to believe that. By contrast, these 50 officials do. If you trust their acumen and judgement that the laptop content is a Russian fabrication but distrust the same people on their opinion of it's influence on the election, then I find that to be curiously convenient for you. For the left (including NYT) to fight so hard to debunk the laptop before the election and then have NYT concede it's legit after the election, is also rather convenient.

Right, totally the same thing. Hunter is just as familiar with Putin as his own laptop. I can always count on you for insightful comment, bill...

Returning to the OP and because I'm generous to a fault, I have bolded the piece you missed earlier regarding 50 former intelligence officials who wrote “..this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in this election..." . These former officials (as no current official worth their salt would put their name to it) believe that the laptop content could have influenced the election outcome, it's implied in that very statement. You're welcome to hold an opinion that you disagree with these officials (as none of them have said 'so what?'), although to disagree with them would also imply that you don't believe it's a Russian fabrication. Can't have it both ways. Hunter himself certainly hasn't denied it's his.

Other than the US; refugees would then go to China, Russia,... Do I detect a mean streak in you, Wendy ?

So 50 former intelligence officials have written “..this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in this election..." . Evidently these 50+ people believe that the laptop content could have been damaging to the Biden family and consequently the election outcome. With the tin-foil ushanka now removed....

You mean the 'evidence' from Michael Sussmann, Igor Danchenko and the Steele document' ? I'm no Trump supporter, but I like horseshyte smear campaigns even less.

There are aspects of the ongoing conflict that have me mildly puzzled; Zelensky has recently said that Russia's terms of negotiation are now sounding 'more realistic' and include terms such as; Ukraine must remain outside of NATO forever. Crimea must be recognised as Russian. Eastern provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk must be independent. These terms are not much different from the practical reality of 3 weeks ago before the fighting started. Sweden and Finland seem to be doing OK (outside of NATO) and both Germany and France have indicated in the past that they will oppose Ukrainian membership, so NATO membership was always unlikely for Ukraine anyway. The other two terms are not fantastic for Ukraine, but to resist them prolongs the conflict arguably longer than it needs to. With those terms accepted Putin can get his 'win' without decimating more of Ukraine. Unless Ukraine truly believes it can win this war alone, then these terms merit consideration. Furthermore, a future less autocratic Russian leader may well revoke the NATO condition in future decades. Few things are 'forever'. Zelensky keeps repeating his request for a NATO no-fly zone and I expect it has been repeatedly explained to Ukraine why NATO will not agree to it. Most of the civilian and urban damage has come from land-based artillery strikes, significantly more than from the air, therefore the limited benefit of a no-fly zone is even weaker now relative to the risk of WW3. While I empathise with Zelensky's desperation, the repeated calls seem illogical at this point. Poland has called on NATO for a 'peace-keeping' mission to Ukraine at a time when there is no peace to keep and should surely be aware that such forces are only relevant before or after a war. Would I be alone to think that some of the political positions (taken by these respective leaders) above are a bit odd ?

Her courage is admirable although I hope she finds it worth it balanced against the reach of the message. This lady now potentially faces 15 years in Siberia or worse. There have been indications that a great many Russians already know the truth via a huge increase in VPN subscriptions to bypass internet restrictions within Russia, a growing awareness of truth albeit still unwise to protest publicly.