I expected Devil to instead go with, "I guess I'll worry about this when MY doctor's med school acquiesces."
Med Schools Are Now Denying Biological Sex
- Thread starter HotelAlphaWilcoKilo
- Start date
No but there is a normal amount of fingers and toes that one is born with and expected to have. Having more or less is considered a defect, potentially a disability. It's not that they are not human but we don't make the rules by the exception. Human beings are generally born with 10 fingers and 10 toes. Anything outside of this is a defect.
Human beings are also generally born either male or female. Anything outside of this is a defect. . . an exception.
Good discussion with a biologist on the subject. Nobody will take the time to listen, but wanted to point it out nonetheless.
I didn't read a single word past this. Seems like "It's Science" is only important when trying to tell a Christian their God is a magical spaghetti monster in the sky.
I remember back when there was debate over whether or not homosexuality was genetic. Many of those supportive of gay rights were quite keen on the idea that it was and eagerly touted bits of information and studies that provided evidence for the contention.
I couldn't help but think that this attachment to the idea was a response to the oppositions contention that being gay was a choice.
It turns out that genetics contribute a bit, likely, but isn't the whole story. But that, of course, is moot -- because being gay says nothing either way about your morality and character as a person.
And that's sort of how I feel about these arguments over biological sex where the trans movement is concerned. They're scrutinizing the notion of biological sex because the opposition can say "you're not a real woman" and reference in reference to their biology. They want to win that argument.
But it's all moot -- their central philosophy here is that regardless biology you can feel a certain way and be a certain way. They've already established that.
I couldn't help but think that this attachment to the idea was a response to the oppositions contention that being gay was a choice.
It turns out that genetics contribute a bit, likely, but isn't the whole story. But that, of course, is moot -- because being gay says nothing either way about your morality and character as a person.
And that's sort of how I feel about these arguments over biological sex where the trans movement is concerned. They're scrutinizing the notion of biological sex because the opposition can say "you're not a real woman" and reference in reference to their biology. They want to win that argument.
But it's all moot -- their central philosophy here is that regardless biology you can feel a certain way and be a certain way. They've already established that.
I don’t think anyone was out advocating for transgenders in this instance. Fox Opinion just decided to drum up a new culture war.
Conversely, many (most?) conservative leaning people have a hard time accepting climate change science, vaccine science, among many other topics. It goes both ways.
Yep. It's all a product of a conservative culture war. We shouldn't even be talking about people (especially doctors!) denying a sex binary. All kinds of sexes are capable of reproducing.
Females, males, flemales, malfs, femmemeals, malificents, etc.
B-b-but FOX!
It's a discussion of how the left has pushed "acceptance" so far as to overwhelm basic biological thought into what we're seeing here. You're seeing professors treading lightly on the subject (as what the OP originally posted here) in fear of being labeled insensitive at best, or transphobia more likely if they speak out about it.
The podcast is long, but well worth the listen. Most good discussions are going to be hard in 30 second soundbites.
Which is sad.
A. God is the OG scientist. Had an astrophysicist speak at our church...shared his testimony of transition from Atheism to Christianity due to his scientific research (uber short explanation).
B. Climate change is real...kind of a "duh" at this point.
C. Vaccine science is astounding and I seriously want to punch anti-vaxers in the face. (and pray for them, of course)
Next....
I can't even keep up with all the acceptable language, not that I waste any time trying.
But yeah, to think that necessary would likely be labeled "hate speech" (silly me). But for those who do think such AND have an inkling to do so great deference must be paid.
A) Well, as far as scientists go he's certainly in the minority. But good for him. If he can keep his faith in a higher power from hindering his scientific research, more power to him.
B) I should have specified, human caused climate change and it's very real impact on our current and future climate. If you're on board with that, more power to you. I'm not sure that's very common with many on the right.
C) Again, good on you. It seems to be a touchy subject for many on the right currently.
Yep. The whole thing started with Tucker. There was no talk of it before. No one was saying "trans women are biological women" before Tucker.
A) - I agree with you
B) - I absolutely agree with you
C) - Sad isn't it?
Caveat: I'm not a Republican. I'm a right-leaning moderate Independent. I used to be a Republican. However, that party was assassinated by Trump, so I no longer have a party.
Good deal. I'm somewhere between a libertarian and moderate, so pretty much everyone hates me. Cheers!
But for real, download that podcast and listen to it when you have time. Good stuff.
Everyone can be whatever they want to be, even if it doesn’t really exist.
Being offended is subjective. One can be offended by anything if they really want to be offended. This is not a good basis for which to conduct our social affairs.
Offense is a societal construct.
Seems like a brilliant idea that the administrators hold the educators
"Nope," I didn't expect it?
You really surprised me with your go-to, "How is this hurting you! Just be nice!" retort.
Well I don’t know, ask the permanently aggrieved crowd who promote this horseshit. They are the ones who will not stop until their intolerant views are conformed to and anyone who disagrees is ostracized or fired from their job. Obviously this professor believed his job was on the line for saying such a trivial thing as he did. The fact that the OPs event even took place offends me.
Exactly.
Seriously, Day-star, your kid came back from semester a couple of years ago and, instead of challenging the orthodoxy the were spitting, you just went with it, right?
How can someone not read this and conclude this person is very obviously mentally ill? Anyone want to help me understand this situation?
I'm not sure where the mentally ill part is. I've heard of women not knowing they were pregnant right up to delivery a number of times. It happens.
I blame this on the triage nurse.
If what the speaker said distracted me from the overall thing I was there to learn about than that is an opportunity wasted. If my son brought this to my attention I would tell him the same thing.
I think there is sort of a natural offense, people can be offended, and it matters. But anymore there seems to be so much offense that is wrapped up in your political identity, your tribe, your group. There's a currency attached to being offended, it gets you something when you're in that group. It's a way to be. So to me we're dealing with a lot of synthetic offense anymore, learned offense, if that makes sense. That's the stuff that I just can't respect too much. Yes, ultimately offense is subjective, but not all offense is created equal.
Okay follow me here. Does the fact that I’m offended make me morally superior to you?
It seems the permanently offended crowd believe their level of intolerance(their being offended) equates to righteousness. Where even Questioning the dogma of “transgenderism” is blasphemous.
Starting to see any parallels here Mr Devil?
You were there to learn that biological sex is a construct and any mention of such should be eschewed lest a non-binary-identifying individual is offended/traumatized by the mere mention of scientific reality.
"Your ass used to be beautiful."
Yeah but the woman claimed to be a dude. Which caused the confusion in the attending nurse and resulted in the baby’s death. The mental illness of the transgender caused the “man” to deny the reality of her situation and the baby to die. That’s messed up. The transgender crowd should be held responsible for enabling this person’s delusion and keeping them sick.
Sounded like the person claimed they were trans, but the medical staff just looked at the gender on the chart and treated as such, which led to the issue. I think that's a good example of why sex needs to be recorded and used appropriately in medical settings.
I think a problem is that quite a few loud people are militant dipshits about this the way that so many Twitter (and HROT) "allies" are. There are people who identify as transgender (a silent majority of an infinitesimal minority? Who knows?) who also are cognizant of biology and realize they are male or female and would just like to go about their lives.
But, of course, the middle-aged men and "progressive" women of HROT are thankfully here to tell them that they're simply confused and ashamed.
Last edited:
