iNow

Pretty sure it's been repeatedly established in this thread that there is no such law. Social pressure is the only process against which you seem to be battling.

Building upon Phi's point above regarding "no such thing as one reality," I see the same problems here with the suggestion there is such a thing as "truth," bare or otherwise. We can go around in circles here and treat this like an endless philosophy thread where no actual progress gets made, but the implicit assertion you seem to be making is that your truth is the valid one, but the truth of the trans person is invalid. The idea, whether you mean it or not, is that they're wrong for expressing their personal identity and being authentic with themselves in the way that they do, and that accepting that expression as valid on your end is wrong since it doesn't map neatly into your own personal preconceived notions and expectations for what informs gender identification in society. That, IMO, is what we're trying to move passed. No need for labels like liar, manipulator, or worse. Those should be reserved for when folks continue refusing to improve or try harder even after having thoughtful discussions like these. We all have blindspots, but should only be judged if we refuse to address them even after they've been kindly illuminated.

Am not an expert either, but have been managing my own type 1 diabetes for decades now. Only thing I'd add to your thoughtful approach is try replacing those fats with vegetables wherever you can. Basically, high fat low carb is okay, but high fiber vitamin rich vegetables and low carb is even better. The fats have peripheral effects on blood pressure and artery blocking. Good luck, and hopefully someone who knows more will weigh in

No offense, but I’m not inclined to further engage. Your style strongly suggests your mind is already made up and also that you’re not amenable to change it even if I chase down the data you requested. I may have been born at night, but it wasn’t last night and I’ve seen this particular goat rodeo before.

It matters whether you’re on mobile device or full sized browser on laptop

In search of funding, she presented results and outcomes she wasn't achieving. Data was made up and invented with the intention of hopefully/maybe finding a way to deliver on the promises after money came in, but said the promises were already real in order to receive said funding. This isn't exactly rocket science.

I might put a slight proviso on this… squabbling with folks in good faith and with whom I share mutual respect, absolutely. When it’s just a social media comments section with strangers and folks are there to score points and agitate others or argue using fallacies… or when this happens IRL at the grocery store, outside of the school, or in related other public spaces… not so much.

Wonder if it’s not so much the political squabbling itself that gets one down, but instead is the inability to unplug from it either in our digital lives or our in person lives since we’re always online every. Single. Day. Day after day. After day.

Don’t be so sure. This conclusion seems a bit premature.

I’m having a hard time seeing how this gets operationalized IRL if it actually happens. Military is the enforcement arm. They are the muscle behind the decision. If they’re onboard with a flawed decision, then who muscles them out? It’s gonna take more than a few conscientious dissenters and militia clubs with AR-15s to remove a leader being protected by the US military, IMO.

I reckon that depends quite a lot on which specific individuals each specific president happens to elevate into said “top brass,” or who is made the Attorney’s General, for example. It gets decided by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the most senior military leader under the president. That individual must give the forces below them the order to either remove the previous president from the office by force, or the command to protect them from anyone claiming to be the new president and attempting to take power / execute the transition. See also my previous comment about how and why it matters who gets selected for these roles.

He did. What saved us is that enough people refused to follow them. Sadly, the groundwork is being laid right now so it will be much easier next time. There are good ideas in the voting rights act being pushed through Congress right now which will directly help with the issues you cite, but it’s being steadfastly blocked by the GOP and will only pass if the filibuster is changed.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but anyone still dismissing trans individuals as delusional is themselves… delusional.

*weren’t

I’m ignorant of many things, including some parts of sociology. It’s been quite a few years since those few semesters when I took classes and performed experimentation in that area, but I suspect I’m not quite as ignorant as you imagine. Wait, I did what where now? I’m sure I have many illuminating things to contribute, but I found your post so full of offensive terms that I’ve chosen instead to illuminate that. I’m informed enough to know that terms negroid, mongoloid, and related others aren’t used by anyone who matters or is worth my time.

Have you considered using terminology that didn’t fall out of favor due to being ignorant and discriminatory well over 60 years ago?

So much for being thread relevant. Carry on

Another handy trick is to post something that’s actually relevant to the thread topic. You might try that next time instead of judging all these people you’re only just meeting for the very first time in a community with which you’re still only just beginning to become familiar.

Perhaps restate the question you feel is being ignored.

Apology accepted

Of course, and I don't believe anyone is suggesting we ought to go without counterargument. Sadly thus far, most "counterarguments" are limited to "stop whining" and "you're just being too sensitive." Those aren't counterarguments. They're disrespectful dismissals of valid reasonable requests. Right... and we should watch out for all 7 of those people ( )who have actual mental health issues while ALSO respecting the other 99.9% who simply asking for acceptance (not even acceptance, just an end to the dismissal, disparagement, and disrespect) for identifying as their authentic selves.

I believe the correct response would’ve been: define “love.”

We all do as a culture. Together. Right now, the push is for improved standards. The momentum is for additional inclusion and acceptance. The resistance is indeed shrinking and dying. We’re witnessing now their last thrashing gasps, but hopefully we can soon make this: … an unnecessary delay and needless obstacle. It’s time and we don’t need to wait. We can achieve the betterment now if we all stand up and fight for it even when we’re not personally affected. If we do, then this: … becomes a pointless nonsequitur since we’re ALL attempting to make things better. The issue won’t be that we’ve gone too far, but that we haven’t yet gone far enough. Progress… We can all… each and every one of us right now and today… attempt to be MORE correct… politically or otherwise. We can do this with our own thoughts and we can lead by example while in parallel advocating for change when interacting with others. No death of aging flatulentarions required.

I don't believe I have formed an opinion on your personality. Perhaps I have, but at least not consciously. I've been trying to focus on your actual words and what you're actually posting. In that case, the style with which you (and all of us) post is quite relevant... as is the style we use when reacting and responding to others who might happen to find our inaccurate choice of pronoun (even after repeated correction) offensive and irritating.

I've noticed this too, but am often on my mobile device and chalked it up to a recent software upgrade on iOS. Any chance that's how you're accessing?