thrang

Things like this and the EU effort to force side loading of apps reinforce the stunning lack of practical intelligence and business acumen in so many elected officials.

JustSomeGuy1 said:

Marvin said:

Some people think this issue will be like gay rights and will just take time to resolve but this issue will be controversial until the end of time because there will never be a consensus on whether biological or gender identity is the more important one in every circumstance.

I think you missed what I wrote a couple days ago here.

It will likely NOT be until the end of time, because technology will catch up with this problem and render it moot. As long as we don't destroy ourselves first (nukes, climate change, etc.), we're likely to have perfect functional sex-changes, within the lifetime of many (most?) reading this site. Not to mention horns, tails, gills, extra limbs, etc. When bodies and sex become that fluid, I expect it's going to get harder to motivate people to hate based on sex. A lot of that energy will probably be directed against people taking on animal characteristics. Because while humans progress, we also like our petty moralizing and religious narrowmindedness. :-(

While I'm not a religious person, there is a lack of respect exhibited in the last sentence that is ironically dismissive, narrow-minded and denigrating

The supposition is that people or societies "don't have the right to define things" is not only objectively wrong, it is, as a position, attempting to define how others think, which is counterintuitive to the argument posited.

For example - you will never "convince" vast numbers of people that a homosexuality is "understandable,", yet there are countless efforts to push hard on those with this viewpoint - from a political/social engineering/media perspective. Why is one PoV ok but not the other? This is not to say this lack of understanding should permit such people treat homosexuals with any less respect in any facets of life or work - that's a very different issue. But trying to "convince" people who have a certain belief system to the point of derision and denigration is as, or more, guilty than the supposed offense.

If one says "it's all ok - everyone is different", then one needs to apply that thinking as well to those who actually have very different/opposing thoughts about a subject. This is one of the main issues with wokeism and the extreme extension of such thought (horns, tails, gills and such, or perhaps transgender males performing in female athletics). A different example - The Florida's law to prevent non-parents (teachers) from talking to K-3 kids about sexual orientation/gender issues is not only completely reasonable (this is not the role of a school or teacher), it in fact does not go far enough (from an age perspective), and is thoroughly mis-represented as "Don't Say Gay" legislation. An abhorrent distortion. It's also a law that, quite sadly,  is needed, given the nature of what a school curriculum should be focused on but too often completely veers off the rails (ie preparing children to read, write, perform math, and develop free thinking minds not subject to indoctrination).

So bringing it back to this topic, no one should be surprised when a vast majority of people factually and objectively say a pregnant man emoji is stupid. Nor should one attempt to school them very much, given the obvious nature of the distortion.

JustSomeGuy1 said:

thrang said:

JustSomeGuy1 said:

thrang said:

Jason - despite all your verbiage, most people are fairly confident that a) gender is real and everyone has one and b) a pregnant man is impossible. So this is nonsense at the most  obvious and fundamental level.

The good thing about this woke lunacy is the eventual whiplash on the return volley...

Learn to read. Just *two* posts before yours I provided a documented example of a pregnant man (he had something like Swyer syndrome, I don't recall the details but the link is right there). More to the point, the emoji *looks like* a man and is pregnant. There are a number of such people, as discussed a bit earlier.

As usual, the most ignorant people are the most certain of their knowledge. See my answer to lalafresh, it's entirely applicable to you as well.

[Edit: Deleted question, now I see why this was bumped]

Abstract

Anne Fausto-Sterling s suggestion that the prevalence of intersex might be as high as 1.7% has attracted wide attention in both the scholarly press and the popular media. Many reviewers are not aware that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia. If the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling s estimate of 1.7%.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/

Oh, and which men are getting pregnant?

Why did you post that? How is that relevant?

My response was to a person claiming "a pregnant man is impossible". I said nothing about how rare intersex is.

Though honestly, my earlier post was more relevant - the one I referred to was mostly a response to some overstuffed idiot who claimed that women with a Y chromosome 23 didn't exist (they do though they're rare). So, my bad. To summarize: Nobody gets exclusive say over what words mean. Whether you agree with the definition or not, a significant portion of the population says that "men" includes people who identify as men, regardless of internal plumbing. And those men occasionally do get pregnant. But even if you insist on your definition of "men" as specifically people with a Y chromosome, there's at least one documented case of a woman with a Y chromosome who gave birth normally (and that's what I linked to above).

None of this matters anyway. Until you ban unicorn and poop with eyeballs emojis, any argument about "reality" is clearly irrelevant nonsense.

Oh, and lastly, I was too careless in my last post, and I made a glaring error: I implicitly bought into the restrictive view of sex being dependent only on chromosomes, by referring to the woman in the linked article as "man" and "he". She is clearly a woman, and I'm sorry about that mistake.

"Identifying" as a man and becoming pregnant and saying "men can come pregnant" are vastly different things.

Biologically, a "man" is unable to become pregnant.

If you are equating "identification" and "pregnant men" with unicorns and poop, we are in agreement.

Jason - despite all your verbiage, most people are fairly confident that a) gender is real and everyone has one and b) a pregnant man is impossible. So this is nonsense at the most  obvious and fundamental level.

The good thing about this woke lunacy is the eventual whiplash on the return volley...

Absolutely - end mandates. Full stop.