The Democratic Presidential Debates
Comments
-
You operate with a very narrowminded and scientifically ignorant sense of what (physically) is a man and a woman. Read up if you want...https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jos/2011/702735/ecdanc said:
I'm happy to let this drop, but I do encourage you to keep thinking about these issues. You operate with a very binary sense of what (physically) is a man and a woman. As we continue to progress, you may find that stance alienates more and more people. Have a good day.Ledbetterman10 said:
Well I disagree but I've already explained why so I won't go on and on. You just keep fighting the good fight against us bigots.ecdanc said:
You can call it "semantics" if you want; I'm simply reading what you said. Your efforts to justify that statement merely sink further into a morass of offensive statements. If a trans woman is a woman, then her body is a woman's body. She, by definition, has the "physical makeup" of a woman. Short women have women's bodies; tall women have women's bodies; trans women have women's bodies.Ledbetterman10 said:
You're arguing semantics. I've made it quite clear I'm arguing that from a physical standpoint, a transwoman has the physical makeup of a man. And while that is not relevant in another aspect of her life, it is if she's competing in spors against women.ecdanc said:
I'm not sure what your point is: are you claiming he didn't refer to a trans woman as a man? Or that him doing so is ok?HughFreakingDillon said:
one of my more favourite quotes of the last few years: "just because you're outraged, doesn't make you right".ecdanc said:
He directly referred to a trans woman as a man. That is not verbiage; that is a statement about what a trans woman IS. I hope you really are an ally in the real world, but you aren't showing it here.HughFreakingDillon said:
i don't take 'sides'. i align myself with common sense. the terms he used were ignorant at worst, not even close to bigoted. there is a major difference there. you simply can't expect everyone to accept and change their verbiage overnight. it just doesn't work that way, and screaming at someone who doesn't know does more harm to any given cause than good.ecdanc said:
Seriously, for just one moment, take my abrasive personality out of the equation: do you really want to align yourself with what Ledbetterman said? You claim to support trans rights, but you take up his side here?HughFreakingDillon said:
this is funny watching the back peddling.ecdanc said:
Not it isn't, and that statement appears bigoted.Ledbetterman10 said:
Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt.Spiritual_Chaos said:the ”other women will be hurt” is a really weird argument to fall back on.
But I know your type. So keeping arguinig with Hugh that I'm a bigot, or flag my post, or tag the moderator or whatever. Cancel away.
Have a good day!
Post edited by Ledbetterman10 on2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com0 -
I’m not a scientist, so could you please summarize this article in laymen’s terms, then explain how it supports your claims.Ledbetterman10 said:
You operate with a very narrowminded and scientifically ignorant sense of what (physically) is a man and a woman. Read up if you want...https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jos/2011/702735/ecdanc said:
I'm happy to let this drop, but I do encourage you to keep thinking about these issues. You operate with a very binary sense of what (physically) is a man and a woman. As we continue to progress, you may find that stance alienates more and more people. Have a good day.Ledbetterman10 said:
Well I disagree but I've already explained why so I won't go on and on. You just keep fighting the good fight against us bigots.ecdanc said:
You can call it "semantics" if you want; I'm simply reading what you said. Your efforts to justify that statement merely sink further into a morass of offensive statements. If a trans woman is a woman, then her body is a woman's body. She, by definition, has the "physical makeup" of a woman. Short women have women's bodies; tall women have women's bodies; trans women have women's bodies.Ledbetterman10 said:
You're arguing semantics. I've made it quite clear I'm arguing that from a physical standpoint, a transwoman has the physical makeup of a man. And while that is not relevant in another aspect of her life, it is if she's competing in spors against women.ecdanc said:
I'm not sure what your point is: are you claiming he didn't refer to a trans woman as a man? Or that him doing so is ok?HughFreakingDillon said:
one of my more favourite quotes of the last few years: "just because you're outraged, doesn't make you right".ecdanc said:
He directly referred to a trans woman as a man. That is not verbiage; that is a statement about what a trans woman IS. I hope you really are an ally in the real world, but you aren't showing it here.HughFreakingDillon said:
i don't take 'sides'. i align myself with common sense. the terms he used were ignorant at worst, not even close to bigoted. there is a major difference there. you simply can't expect everyone to accept and change their verbiage overnight. it just doesn't work that way, and screaming at someone who doesn't know does more harm to any given cause than good.ecdanc said:
Seriously, for just one moment, take my abrasive personality out of the equation: do you really want to align yourself with what Ledbetterman said? You claim to support trans rights, but you take up his side here?HughFreakingDillon said:
this is funny watching the back peddling.ecdanc said:
Not it isn't, and that statement appears bigoted.Ledbetterman10 said:
Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt.Spiritual_Chaos said:the ”other women will be hurt” is a really weird argument to fall back on.
But I know your type. So keeping arguinig with Hugh that I'm a bigot, or flag my post, or tag the moderator or whatever. Cancel away.
Have a good day!
0 -
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0
-
ecdanc said:
Bernie Sanders's acceptance of the Joe Rogan nomination seems on topic--many leftists are talking about how problematic him accepting that endorsement is (Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor had an especially insightful Twitter thread about it recently)--it's problematic precisely because of his racism and anti-trans statements--ergo, we're on topic!brianlux said:Somebody please remind me what this thread is about!
Say, how about that Andrew Yang qualifying for the February debate. Sweet!
No, you got into an argument over whether or no Rogan is this or that. That is not on topic.
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0
-
Im open to hearing more. I think the monthly"freedom dividend" is a terrible idea though. Maybe that was just to get people to notice.brianlux said:0 -
ecdanc said:
I removed those and apologized.mrussel1 said:
You missed the edited post where I was told "go fuck yourself" and Ledbetter was called a bigot. So yeah, shit went pretty side wise on a topic that could have been interesting.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
Give it a fucking rest.ecdanc said:
No, you didn't try. You're on the fucking internet. Look it up yourself before you say something offensive. You did not ask what term to use; you mocked the fact that there is a "woke" term. And in the process, you further diminished trans women by suggesting they are not "born female." Don't now try to play like you really care about the words you should use.Ledbetterman10 said:
Typical. Even when I try to ask what term I can use instead of “regular” so that I can better myself and not be a bigot towards the LGBTQ community, I’m likened to a racist uncle. Oh well, I tried.ecdanc said:
You remind me of my uncle: "well, when I was growing up we just called them [n-words]; how am I supposed to keep up with what they want to be called?"Ledbetterman10 said:
I was waiting for that response. Like clockwork, I knew you’d have a problem with “regular” there. Sorry I don’t know the woke term for a female that’s born female and stays female. So I went with regular.ecdanc said:
"Men who transition to women competing against regular women." We have a winner for the thread's most anti-trans statement!Ledbetterman10 said:
You turned it this way. And video isn’t insulting to trans people. It’s a good satire of the insanity of men who transition to women competing against regular women in athletic competitions.ecdanc said:
Must say I'm a little saddened by this turn in this thread.Ledbetterman10 said:A transwoman should complete in sports with the men. Her physical dynamics are that if a man’s, and she could hurt the “regular” women. (What’s the gender term you want there that won’t offend you?)
In a few hours 135 unread? Like wth happened here. Did someone stumble into this topic with an extra MSG ticket?I’ll take the heat for that . I’ve been pricing a hypothetical Quebec trip and blowing smoke on porch. I’ve been bitching about the lack of nyc shows, and I’m likely going to Balt. I’m a spoiled brat. My fault.
hey how about the lack of klobuchar discussions?0 -
i don't think so.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Was it birther-Rogan who said it?HughFreakingDillon said:
one of my more favourite quotes of the last few years: "just because you're outraged, doesn't make you right".ecdanc said:
He directly referred to a trans woman as a man. That is not verbiage; that is a statement about what a trans woman IS. I hope you really are an ally in the real world, but you aren't showing it here.HughFreakingDillon said:
i don't take 'sides'. i align myself with common sense. the terms he used were ignorant at worst, not even close to bigoted. there is a major difference there. you simply can't expect everyone to accept and change their verbiage overnight. it just doesn't work that way, and screaming at someone who doesn't know does more harm to any given cause than good.ecdanc said:
Seriously, for just one moment, take my abrasive personality out of the equation: do you really want to align yourself with what Ledbetterman said? You claim to support trans rights, but you take up his side here?HughFreakingDillon said:
this is funny watching the back peddling.ecdanc said:
Not it isn't, and that statement appears bigoted.Ledbetterman10 said:
Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt.Spiritual_Chaos said:the ”other women will be hurt” is a really weird argument to fall back on.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
Spiritual_Chaos said:
Smart, energetic, sensible, articulate, willing to listen, diplomatic- I love this guy. The movement is building!
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
because you think you get to decide what level of 'ally' i am. you don't. just like you don't get to keep labeling people simply because they don't support your view 100%.ecdanc said:
I'm not sure what your point is: are you claiming he didn't refer to a trans woman as a man? Or that him doing so is ok?HughFreakingDillon said:
one of my more favourite quotes of the last few years: "just because you're outraged, doesn't make you right".ecdanc said:
He directly referred to a trans woman as a man. That is not verbiage; that is a statement about what a trans woman IS. I hope you really are an ally in the real world, but you aren't showing it here.HughFreakingDillon said:
i don't take 'sides'. i align myself with common sense. the terms he used were ignorant at worst, not even close to bigoted. there is a major difference there. you simply can't expect everyone to accept and change their verbiage overnight. it just doesn't work that way, and screaming at someone who doesn't know does more harm to any given cause than good.ecdanc said:
Seriously, for just one moment, take my abrasive personality out of the equation: do you really want to align yourself with what Ledbetterman said? You claim to support trans rights, but you take up his side here?HughFreakingDillon said:
this is funny watching the back peddling.ecdanc said:
Not it isn't, and that statement appears bigoted.Ledbetterman10 said:
Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt.Spiritual_Chaos said:the ”other women will be hurt” is a really weird argument to fall back on.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
mrussel1 said:
Im open to hearing more. I think the monthly"freedom dividend" is a terrible idea though. Maybe that was just to get people to notice.brianlux said:
The thing to remember here is that Yang wants to include with the Freedom Dividend a Value Added Tax (which many developed countries already use very effectively) and close some of these loop holes that places like Google and Amazon use to avoid paying taxes. Unfortunately, a lot of news media sources don't give a very clear picture (but what's new there, LOL!) I hope you do get a chance to look a little further into Yang. I think you will find many of his ideas and qualities appealing.
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
You can do all those other things without the freedom dividend though.brianlux said:mrussel1 said:
Im open to hearing more. I think the monthly"freedom dividend" is a terrible idea though. Maybe that was just to get people to notice.brianlux said:
The thing to remember here is that Yang wants to include with the Freedom Dividend a Value Added Tax (which many developed countries already use very effectively) and close some of these loop holes that places like Google and Amazon use to avoid paying taxes. Unfortunately, a lot of news media sources don't give a very clear picture (but what's new there, LOL!) I hope you do get a chance to look a little further into Yang. I think you will find many of his ideas and qualities appealing.0 -
You avoided the question.HughFreakingDillon said:
because you think you get to decide what level of 'ally' i am. you don't. just like you don't get to keep labeling people simply because they don't support your view 100%.ecdanc said:
I'm not sure what your point is: are you claiming he didn't refer to a trans woman as a man? Or that him doing so is ok?HughFreakingDillon said:
one of my more favourite quotes of the last few years: "just because you're outraged, doesn't make you right".ecdanc said:
He directly referred to a trans woman as a man. That is not verbiage; that is a statement about what a trans woman IS. I hope you really are an ally in the real world, but you aren't showing it here.HughFreakingDillon said:
i don't take 'sides'. i align myself with common sense. the terms he used were ignorant at worst, not even close to bigoted. there is a major difference there. you simply can't expect everyone to accept and change their verbiage overnight. it just doesn't work that way, and screaming at someone who doesn't know does more harm to any given cause than good.ecdanc said:
Seriously, for just one moment, take my abrasive personality out of the equation: do you really want to align yourself with what Ledbetterman said? You claim to support trans rights, but you take up his side here?HughFreakingDillon said:
this is funny watching the back peddling.ecdanc said:
Not it isn't, and that statement appears bigoted.Ledbetterman10 said:
Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt.Spiritual_Chaos said:the ”other women will be hurt” is a really weird argument to fall back on.0 -
The Freedom Dividend is not what America is all about. It would on it’s own, enable the word “socialism” to defeat him.brianlux said:mrussel1 said:
Im open to hearing more. I think the monthly"freedom dividend" is a terrible idea though. Maybe that was just to get people to notice.brianlux said:
The thing to remember here is that Yang wants to include with the Freedom Dividend a Value Added Tax (which many developed countries already use very effectively) and close some of these loop holes that places like Google and Amazon use to avoid paying taxes. Unfortunately, a lot of news media sources don't give a very clear picture (but what's new there, LOL!) I hope you do get a chance to look a little further into Yang. I think you will find many of his ideas and qualities appealing.1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
2024 Napa, Wrigley, Wrigley0 -
mrussel1 said:
You can do all those other things without the freedom dividend though.brianlux said:mrussel1 said:
Im open to hearing more. I think the monthly"freedom dividend" is a terrible idea though. Maybe that was just to get people to notice.brianlux said:
The thing to remember here is that Yang wants to include with the Freedom Dividend a Value Added Tax (which many developed countries already use very effectively) and close some of these loop holes that places like Google and Amazon use to avoid paying taxes. Unfortunately, a lot of news media sources don't give a very clear picture (but what's new there, LOL!) I hope you do get a chance to look a little further into Yang. I think you will find many of his ideas and qualities appealing.
Probably, M, but I think the AVT makes the Freedom Dividend possible though no the other way around.
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
OnWis97 said:
The Freedom Dividend is not what America is all about. It would on it’s own, enable the word “socialism” to defeat him.brianlux said:mrussel1 said:
Im open to hearing more. I think the monthly"freedom dividend" is a terrible idea though. Maybe that was just to get people to notice.brianlux said:
The thing to remember here is that Yang wants to include with the Freedom Dividend a Value Added Tax (which many developed countries already use very effectively) and close some of these loop holes that places like Google and Amazon use to avoid paying taxes. Unfortunately, a lot of news media sources don't give a very clear picture (but what's new there, LOL!) I hope you do get a chance to look a little further into Yang. I think you will find many of his ideas and qualities appealing.I don't see the Freedom Dividend as being the same as socialism, not at all. And Yang has never referred to himself as a socialist. If people interpret it that way, thin need to do the MATH, i.e. Yang's slogan, Make America Think Harder.And look, Google and Amazon and Big Pharma, etc. are, in essence, receiving HUGE dividends by not having to pay takes while you and I fill their pockets. I don't think that is what America wants."It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
your question was asking what my point was. you gave two possibilities, neither of which was my point. so yes, i did answer your question.ecdanc said:
You avoided the question.HughFreakingDillon said:
because you think you get to decide what level of 'ally' i am. you don't. just like you don't get to keep labeling people simply because they don't support your view 100%.ecdanc said:
I'm not sure what your point is: are you claiming he didn't refer to a trans woman as a man? Or that him doing so is ok?HughFreakingDillon said:
one of my more favourite quotes of the last few years: "just because you're outraged, doesn't make you right".ecdanc said:
He directly referred to a trans woman as a man. That is not verbiage; that is a statement about what a trans woman IS. I hope you really are an ally in the real world, but you aren't showing it here.HughFreakingDillon said:
i don't take 'sides'. i align myself with common sense. the terms he used were ignorant at worst, not even close to bigoted. there is a major difference there. you simply can't expect everyone to accept and change their verbiage overnight. it just doesn't work that way, and screaming at someone who doesn't know does more harm to any given cause than good.ecdanc said:
Seriously, for just one moment, take my abrasive personality out of the equation: do you really want to align yourself with what Ledbetterman said? You claim to support trans rights, but you take up his side here?HughFreakingDillon said:
this is funny watching the back peddling.ecdanc said:
Not it isn't, and that statement appears bigoted.Ledbetterman10 said:
Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt.Spiritual_Chaos said:the ”other women will be hurt” is a really weird argument to fall back on.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
Still avoiding. You cool with what he said?HughFreakingDillon said:
your question was asking what my point was. you gave two possibilities, neither of which was my point. so yes, i did answer your question.ecdanc said:
You avoided the question.HughFreakingDillon said:
because you think you get to decide what level of 'ally' i am. you don't. just like you don't get to keep labeling people simply because they don't support your view 100%.ecdanc said:
I'm not sure what your point is: are you claiming he didn't refer to a trans woman as a man? Or that him doing so is ok?HughFreakingDillon said:
one of my more favourite quotes of the last few years: "just because you're outraged, doesn't make you right".ecdanc said:
He directly referred to a trans woman as a man. That is not verbiage; that is a statement about what a trans woman IS. I hope you really are an ally in the real world, but you aren't showing it here.HughFreakingDillon said:
i don't take 'sides'. i align myself with common sense. the terms he used were ignorant at worst, not even close to bigoted. there is a major difference there. you simply can't expect everyone to accept and change their verbiage overnight. it just doesn't work that way, and screaming at someone who doesn't know does more harm to any given cause than good.ecdanc said:
Seriously, for just one moment, take my abrasive personality out of the equation: do you really want to align yourself with what Ledbetterman said? You claim to support trans rights, but you take up his side here?HughFreakingDillon said:
this is funny watching the back peddling.ecdanc said:
Not it isn't, and that statement appears bigoted.Ledbetterman10 said:
Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt.Spiritual_Chaos said:the ”other women will be hurt” is a really weird argument to fall back on.0 -
You're acting like such a baby. First off, on the subject of "avoiding," your pathetic response to the article I posted yesterday that lays out the physical differences of men and women was a total cop out ("Uhh...I'm not a doctor. Can't you explain this in layman's terms?"). Umm... no. If you're too stuck in your ways to even want to read up on other side of the argument, then you're just like the Republicans that ignore the science of climate change because it doesn't fit their narrative.ecdanc said:
Still avoiding. You cool with what he said?HughFreakingDillon said:
your question was asking what my point was. you gave two possibilities, neither of which was my point. so yes, i did answer your question.ecdanc said:
You avoided the question.HughFreakingDillon said:
because you think you get to decide what level of 'ally' i am. you don't. just like you don't get to keep labeling people simply because they don't support your view 100%.ecdanc said:
I'm not sure what your point is: are you claiming he didn't refer to a trans woman as a man? Or that him doing so is ok?HughFreakingDillon said:
one of my more favourite quotes of the last few years: "just because you're outraged, doesn't make you right".ecdanc said:
He directly referred to a trans woman as a man. That is not verbiage; that is a statement about what a trans woman IS. I hope you really are an ally in the real world, but you aren't showing it here.HughFreakingDillon said:
i don't take 'sides'. i align myself with common sense. the terms he used were ignorant at worst, not even close to bigoted. there is a major difference there. you simply can't expect everyone to accept and change their verbiage overnight. it just doesn't work that way, and screaming at someone who doesn't know does more harm to any given cause than good.ecdanc said:
Seriously, for just one moment, take my abrasive personality out of the equation: do you really want to align yourself with what Ledbetterman said? You claim to support trans rights, but you take up his side here?HughFreakingDillon said:
this is funny watching the back peddling.ecdanc said:
Not it isn't, and that statement appears bigoted.Ledbetterman10 said:
Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt.Spiritual_Chaos said:the ”other women will be hurt” is a really weird argument to fall back on.
So quit being so sensitive and harassing Hugh about whether he's "cool" or not with me suggesting when a transgender woman FIGHTS a ciswoman (I used "ciswoman" there to pacify you. Wouldn't want you whining over my use of "normal" woman again), then that is basically a man fighting a woman. Cry about it.
2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com0 -
I'm not crying; I'm angry. Hate makes me angry.Ledbetterman10 said:
You're acting like such a baby. First off, on the subject of "avoiding," your pathetic response to the article I posted yesterday that lays out the physical differences of men and women was a total cop out ("Uhh...I'm not a doctor. Can't you explain this in layman's terms?"). Umm... no. If you're too stuck in your ways to even want to read up on other side of the argument, then you're just like the Republicans that ignore the science of climate change because it doesn't fit their narrative.ecdanc said:
Still avoiding. You cool with what he said?HughFreakingDillon said:
your question was asking what my point was. you gave two possibilities, neither of which was my point. so yes, i did answer your question.ecdanc said:
You avoided the question.HughFreakingDillon said:
because you think you get to decide what level of 'ally' i am. you don't. just like you don't get to keep labeling people simply because they don't support your view 100%.ecdanc said:
I'm not sure what your point is: are you claiming he didn't refer to a trans woman as a man? Or that him doing so is ok?HughFreakingDillon said:
one of my more favourite quotes of the last few years: "just because you're outraged, doesn't make you right".ecdanc said:
He directly referred to a trans woman as a man. That is not verbiage; that is a statement about what a trans woman IS. I hope you really are an ally in the real world, but you aren't showing it here.HughFreakingDillon said:
i don't take 'sides'. i align myself with common sense. the terms he used were ignorant at worst, not even close to bigoted. there is a major difference there. you simply can't expect everyone to accept and change their verbiage overnight. it just doesn't work that way, and screaming at someone who doesn't know does more harm to any given cause than good.ecdanc said:
Seriously, for just one moment, take my abrasive personality out of the equation: do you really want to align yourself with what Ledbetterman said? You claim to support trans rights, but you take up his side here?HughFreakingDillon said:
this is funny watching the back peddling.ecdanc said:
Not it isn't, and that statement appears bigoted.Ledbetterman10 said:
Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt.Spiritual_Chaos said:the ”other women will be hurt” is a really weird argument to fall back on.
So quit being so sensitive and harassing Hugh about whether he's "cool" or not with me suggesting when a transgender woman FIGHTS a ciswoman (I used "ciswoman" there to pacify you. Wouldn't want you whining over my use of "normal" woman again), then that is basically a man fighting a woman. Cry about it.
As for your article, I was testing to see if you understand it. If I'm dealing with a scientist, I might approach things differently.
But, I'll jump in: in the context of your argument, the article begs the question. It repeatedly refers to "gender differences," yet--so far as I can tell--the study did not include transgender people. So, your reasoning is: men and women are discrete physical beings, definable a priori, with differing traits; here is an article that precedes with the premise (not the conclusion) that men and and women are discrete physical beings definable a priori (it then proceeds, of course, to offer more specific knowledge about one of those differences). You're using circular logic.0
https://youtu.be/cgnBIuXYXYQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URz-RYEOaig
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help