This will oust the corruption of transgender

[The_Doc_Man]

This is simply not the crisis the left makes it out to be.

Pat, I firmly believe you are correct. The numbers just aren't there to justify calling it a crisis. But that is the nature of our political dialog these days. (Not "yours and my" political dialog, but "our country's" political dialog.) When people correctly ignore the statistics because they make no sense and don't support the word "crisis" in any way, the silence triggers escalation so the statistical blip becomes a crisis. Not to mention that if you get someone worried about a small crisis, they might not have time to pay attention to the bigger crisis. It's a classic misdirection trick.

As to our discussion on abortion, I have a curse. Often I can see both sides to an issue and fairly often the sides are in balance, leaving me to be unable to decide which path is better. You can exhort all you want, but when I don't decide it might be because I literally can't decide.

Please understand that I'm not blowing my own horn here, but in the past folks have commented on my balanced viewpoint. That balance comes from seeing both the forest and the trees. The ability to do that is a curse because it means I am often apparently indecisive. It's just the way I think. And in those cases where I apparently took a side, you know I had a reason even if you don't know the reason.

 

[Isaac]

As to our discussion on abortion, I have a curse. Often I can see both sides to an issue and fairly often the sides are in balance, leaving me to be unable to decide which path is better. You can exhort all you want, but when I don't decide it might be because I literally can't decide.

Please understand that I'm not blowing my own horn here, but in the past folks have commented on my balanced viewpoint. That balance comes from seeing both the forest and the trees. The ability to do that is a curse because it means I am often apparently indecisive. It's just the way I think. And in those cases where I apparently took a side, you know I had a reason even if you don't know the reason

It's a good problem to have doc

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Thanks, @Isaac - since I know you don't necessarily agree with me on some things, I appreciate the comment.

 

[Isaac]

despite my committment to the concept of what you might call absolute truth, i do challenge myself more than you might think.
after reading neil gorsuch's book "over ruled", which was an echo of many things i already believed, i then forced myself to read "progress - 10 reasons to look forward to the future", which was a challenge to what some may call my doom and gloom attitude about the present. just finished it, decent book with plenty of encouraging facts in it -- mostly along the lines of material comforts, but still encouraging stuff.

I think next I'm going to treat myself again to Sowell's "social justice fallacies" book, and Doc I always appreciate the fact that you reason through things despite our many disagreements. since we haven't argued in a long time there is more space to appreciate each other, lol

 

[Pat Hartman]

Doc, "balance" is actually choosing between never and whenever. When you don't choose, "they" win because "they" choose for you. This particular decision is binary. You can't play Solomon here. The fetus dies or it lives. If you don't believe that at one end of that scale is an actual human, then of course you can "See" both sides because neither choice matters. Who cares if a human you don't know gets killed because it was inconvenient. Some conflicts require a stand despite being able to "See" both sides.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Brilliant trans joke at time index 10 minutes into this video:-

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Doc, "balance" is actually choosing between never and whenever. When you don't choose, "they" win because "they" choose for you. This particular decision is binary. You can't play Solomon here. The fetus dies or it lives. If you don't believe that at one end of that scale is an actual human, then of course you can "See" both sides because neither choice matters. Who cares if a human you don't know gets killed because it was inconvenient. Some conflicts require a stand despite being able to "See" both sides.

Pat, it isn't about what I believe, but rather it is about recognizing that I can be wrong and that other folks can disagree with my belief. (As, obviously, you do.) But the consequences of my belief - when applied to someone else who disagrees with me - leads to someone else's rights being gutted. You say it is a binary decision. For a single person, a single abortion.. maybe so. But for the spectrum of beliefs on this subject taken across the entire population, it is not binary. It is a continuum. To me it is a "forest vs. trees" decision. That is the difficulty.

To me, the pragmatic solution is actually simple, though I'm sure you won't like it... Make abortion legal but then recognize that, based on statistics, it isn't chosen that often. Then let other folks make their personal binary decisions without a legal sword hanging over their heads. This is a case where each person must make the decision on her own. Before my faith was gone, I once asked my minister how the Methodist Church looked at abortion. He told me it was always treated as a matter of conscience. Which means if there is evil, it is between the woman and her Creator.

This next comment is an isolated case, anecdotal in nature, but here it is. Today's New Orleans newspaper had a report of a woman from Louisiana who had to LEAVE THE STATE to get an abortion because medical imaging tests showed her fetus was deformed with the condition acrania (Greek for "no head".) This is automatically fatal for the fetus but also imposes huge medical risks for the woman if she has to carry the fetus to term. She had to leave the state to get medical help for this condition. To me, this is an absolute sign that the state swung that pendulum too far. The "no exceptions" stance - I'll say this clearly - is FLAT OUT WRONG. It is insanity. It is as stupid as building a hot water heater with no pressure relief valve. Eventually, something is going to blow up.

There... you wanted me to decide? That's as far as I will take it.

 

[Pat Hartman]

There... you wanted me to decide? That's as far as I will take it.

And I agree. "No Exceptions" is too far.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

In this comparison between a woman and a transgender person it is clear that the transitioned male cannot move in a graceful way like the woman dressed in black in the first clip.

But then if you look at the clip with the woman dressed in red, she is actually flirting with her eyes. I don't think a transgender transitioned from a man to women would be able to accomplish that.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1839767337333080215

Mind you if you replace the attractive young woman with a female Russian shot putter I think the verdict would still be out!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

When I was still in college, I worked on Bourbon Street in New Orleans as a musician. During the band's breaks (smoke, potty, outdoor air, etc.) we would see lots of people who would have properly substituted for the right-hand side of that video, Uncle. G. Contrary to the claim in the title on the video, I never had trouble telling the difference. Jaw-line and prominent larynx are two of the give-aways. A woman's hips also lead to a very different gait between men and women. (Vive le difference!) When the M-to-F trans people speak, their "normal" speaking voice has different chest resonance usually, so they have to do a voice-affect that makes them sound unnatural as well.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Even young children can tell. We saw a children's play where one of the leads was a fairy godmother type character and she was being played in an over the top fashion by a man. I've seen this a number of times both in movies and on the stage and I didn't see anything odd about it. After the show, there was a meet and greet on the patio and the twins (around age 7) got to meet the cast. One of the girls tugged on my arm and whispered in my ear "Is she a he?". So I said yes and asked if she thought he did a good job. She did and so we moved on. She shook his hand and thanked him when we came to where he was standing. You can't make a big deal out of stuff a child can't really understand.

 

[Isaac]

You can't make a big deal out of stuff a child can't really understand.

Amen

 

[The_Doc_Man]

You can't make a big deal out of stuff a child can't really understand.

With no intention of implying this is true for any or all of the folks on this forum, I find that many adults don't understand the situation either. Or at least don't WANT to understand.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

many adults don't understand the situation

It is very difficult to understand though, that's the problem!

It is difficult to understand why, unless you consider something else....

I refer you to the concept of confusion marketing...

A typical example is establishing a telephone line for your house or business.

Originally it was all done at a fixed cost and fixed charges.

Then people that used the service more would negotiate a discount based on usage.

The next evolution was to create different packages like "friends and family" - "free weekend calls" and I imagine there are many other offerings.

The essence of this was to confuse the user... This enables the salesperson to leverage the customer into a package which generates more income for the telecoms provider...

Now you can begin to see what is behind recent development with people's sex and identity... It's politically motivated to cause confusion...

The real question is why?

Not "what is a woman" or "am I racist"

I suspect it's to cause people to keep their eye off the Ball!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The very question "what is a woman" - and the difficulties that people seem to have in answering it - are reflective of an underlying "language and definition" problem. The words "man" and "woman" have a common - but ultimately, superficial - definition regarding the presence and functionality of certain body organs. They also have some emotional implications and societal / employment implications.

When you do the research (as I did so that could better understand my gay step-daughter) you find that the superficial and deeper definitions can expose conflicts within a single person when they have that condition of birth in which they have different "plumbing" and "wiring". When we try to define a "person" we have to include the "gender assigned at birth" factor, but we now know that gender doesn't ALWAYS stop there.

By analogy, when I was learning chemistry-related thermodynamics, I found at least four different relationships between energy and entropy that superficially appeared to be almost alike - but in fact they were radically different, because of different ways of interacting. For instance, enthalpy is a measure of energy potential that most often applies to chemical-reaction batteries to produce electricity. But there is the Gibbs-Helmholz Free Energy which measures other aspects of such reactions to produce or absorb heat.

I don't have the vocabulary to render-by-single-word what we are talking about with this specific problem because we don't know the inner workings of the human brain. (See, for example, Jon and me discussing the concept of "free will".) The "trans" problem is lumped under the term "gender dysphoria" but I believe that phrase to be a broad-brush term that encompasses many different and disparate situations. All we do know is that there are some people for whom this particular dysfunctionality becomes oppressive enough to lead them into the trans world. At the risk of a terrible pun, it engenders a change in who they present to the world!

EDITED BY The_Doc_Man for clarification.

 

[Pat Hartman]

In the past, the theater was thought to be an inappropriate occupation for a woman so men always played female roles. In Kabuki, I think that is still true. Doesn't mean the actors are transvestites. This is quite a different situation from a drag show which is always overtly sexual.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

In the past, the theater was thought to be an inappropriate occupation for a woman so men always played female roles

I remember that while researching an assignment in my English Literature class in high school, I came across some articles in a public library on the men who played the women in Shakespeare's plays in that era. Back then it was apparently commonplace. That memory sent me searching, where I found this:

Gender on Shakespeare's Stage: A Brief History

Theatre as an art form has a long history of pressing the boundaries of gender.

www.writerstheatre.org

It suggests that women were not allowed to act in organized productions until about 1661. We have all benefited from relaxing that rule because of all the excellent performers - I'll use "actresses" for gender emphasis in this case, not for any other purpose - we have had the chance to see in action. A modern, very good, powerful performer and popular person comes to mind regarding this topic.

Rest in Peace, Maggie Smith, who was one of those women actors who brought a certain gravity and dignity to her many later roles. She was the perfect straight-woman for Whoopi Goldberg in the Sister Act movies, a great Professor Minerva McGonagle in the Harry Potter movies, and a stand-out in the Downton Abbey series. We will miss you, Dame Margaret Natalie Smith. Hail and farewell.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Poll-topping Austrian party vows to enshrine two genders in constitution & protect women’s sport.....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1840431204425777202

 

[Isaac]

With no intention of implying this is true for any or all of the folks on this forum, I find that many adults don't understand the situation either. Or at least don't WANT to understand.

While I of course do understand the point you're making, I think Pat still makes a valid point that children not just can't understand it, they shouldn't be dabbling in sexuality at a very young age. Until recently we all agreed on this, what happened.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Until recently we all agreed on this,

That's exactly it!

The left want to impose their new speak, their new thoughts, new laws and to do this they have to take down the establishment...

The goal is to erode the existing structure which has existed for centuries and was developed over thousands of years...

I would say they have no idea what they are doing, but I'm starting to believe people when they refer to them as devils and antichrists and the like. ..

Everything they do and say is anti-basic humanity!

Now I'm not a religious person, due to the fact that men run the religions, and to my mind they have corrupted them and so many ways...

I'll make a strange statement here, it doesn't mean I'm not religious! It just means I am dubious about the main stream religions....

So when these people are referred to as devils and devil worshipers, I can believe it!