iNow

Open your own thread. That’s not the topic here.

So oil and minerals out of Ukraine and semiconductors out of Taiwan. Any sanctions imposed if either get annexed would only hurt our own pocketbooks and our own economy in the US. So, sanctions as a response seem unlikely. Does NATO declare war to push back if this happens? If the US goes in alone, do other nations follow like in Iraq?

Exactly. This plus the increasing rise of authoritarian tendencies and simple minded support for narrow populist messages across the planet has me wondering what happens next and what a weakened US could even achieve. Another challenge is that people (John Q. Public) are so distracted and occupied by catnip social issues like anti mask and anti vax and abortion and inflation and related topics that they never even bother to engage with the actual big deal issues like hundreds of thousands of troops preparing to invade sovereign countries.

Intelligence suggests Russia is planning to invade Ukraine in January apparently with the intent to take it over. Likewise, China has been stepping up plans to seize Taiwan. Have been talking about it for years, but seem to sense more opportunity in todays global political climate. Should US respond if/when either of those two things happen? If so, how and for how long? Does your answer change if both events happen at the same time? Game it out…

Who are you even talking too, bot?

When it happens (which all available evidence thus far indicates as the most likely outcome), that definitely won’t be the reason.

Is the claim that they make errors sometimes and ideologues often blow those up into pretend scandals, or is the claim that they actively lie and spread disinformation knowingly on purpose? Asking bc you’re only sharing evidence in support of the first.

I’ve been called worse things by better people

This might be an interesting question to explore, especially in its own thread. Here in this thread, however, it's not terribly relevant, nor does it impact any of the arguments I've made. It's a bit like asking me to explain abiogenesis in an evolution thread. Related, but separate. Thank you for sharing. This too is entirely irrelevant to the actual discussion happening here.

Irrelevant. Embedded in your comment is the assumption that ability to bare children is definitive when determining sex. It's very clearly not, and this point remains valid EVEN IF if we stipulate the point against which I've been arguing and even if we proceed with the "THERE ARE ONLY 2 SEXES!!!1!!2!!one!11!!" mindset. Why? Because we still call individuals female when a) they are infertile, b) they are postmenopausal, and c) they are prepubescent. If one continues classifying any of the above 3 populations as "female," then by definition we know ability to bare children is not definitive in terms of sex classification. I understand, but many are. This is necessary, but insufficient in terms of answering the actual topic of this thread. Also, almost no matter what definition gets chosen for those 2 binary groups, we will continue to have outliers which mandate a 3rd category of "other." No, in neither the animal kingdom nor in humans. It's sometimes useful to say there are only 2 sexes, but it is never accurate.

It's a cool idea. Appreciate the tip!

I think you need a blog more than a forum.

Interesting. I may need to remember this one. Are you suggesting this bc they’re hard rubber wheels, or would the same suggestion to use Armor All also work better than Teflon if used on a metal wheel axle?

2 + X = greater than 2 🤓 (since counts of populations cannot be negative in this scenario)

Merely repeating a claim shown to be invalid doesn’t magically render it true.

In that case, you’re not the target of my pushback which is and has been consistently focused on those claiming there are ONLY 2, no exceptions.

Accuracy. Precision. Aligns better with reality. You tell me. I’m not the one here emotionally arguing from a 6th grade level understanding of biology that there can only possibly be 2 sexes.

Personally, I’d create more than 3 categories… for purposes of this discussion it doesn’t matter what they are… but if we AT LEAST now agree that there are more than 2 and a category of “Other” is more accurate and offers value, we could simply define it as “not male AND not female.” Done.

Go with “something else.” We agree that a simplified binary system is useful in some contexts. However, there’s a sizable population of posters in this thread claiming there are ONLY 2 sexes and refusing (for seemingly emotional reasons) to acknowledge the outliers which fit into neither. When asked how to approach all other intersex and related possibilities, they ignore them or dismiss them as defects. When asked into which of those 2 male/female buckets intersex individuals should be placed into, they refuse to answer. When asked why they feel it’s better not to simply acknowledge that a 3rd category of “Other” is useful and more accurate, they call the person asking an ideological politically correct social justice warrior suffering from the grotesque idiocy of a peanut sized brain and storm out of the thread in a huff. So yeah… something else it is.

Exactly. You only have two. So which group do you assign all of the intersex folks to? I’m literally asking you to answer my question. You have intersex people. Do you lop them into the male bucket? Do you lop them into the female bucket? What do you do for those who are neither? What criteria are you using? Isn’t this weird insecure emotional drive to force everyone into simplistic binary choices (male, female, and literally nothing else) actually making this whole thing WAY more complex than it needs to be?

Agreed. So which one is it?

Maybe when you stop grinding your axe and tossing in a bunch of red herrings you’ll answer the actual question I’ve posed.

False dichotomy. I see both happening (sad laugh)

You’ve share opinions and made assertions, but calling it a refutation does violence to the meaning of words.

Into which category will you place intersex individuals? Are they male, or are they female? It could, but that’s off topic, has nothing to do with this thread, and nothing to do with any of the actual arguments being made here.