iNow

To repeat my previous query which wasn't directly answered: Who precisely do you believe is trying to remove that choice from you? Can you name names?

Let's say one day we figure out how to open wormholes, and it turns out for some reason that it's easier to wormhole to Saturn from the Sun than to wormhole to Earth from the Sun. Seems unlikely, but at least my framing is future-proofed and accounts for those possibilities. My framing is less likely to be inaccurate as new things are learned and discovered... it's a fact within the current framework, and if the framework some how changes later it will not necessarily be a fact in that other framework. Hope this helps. "Truth" is a term with lots of baggage. If there's a better path to letting go of that baggage, then it's generally a good idea to take it, IMO. It's not a truth value, though. We're actually asserting a likelihood of validity or accuracy. Truth has too many skeletons in the closet My position here about respecting the distinction between truth and facts is quite similar to respecting the difference between faith and trust that so often comes up in these god conversations.

Again though, who exactly do you believe is doing this? Can you name names?

To be perfectly clear, I'm not assuming you're transphobic. I'm suggesting you potentially have blindspots on this topic about which you may not be consciously aware.

I recommend trying one at a time instead of all at once

Cue spam link from another new user account in 3...2...

You’re welcome

Mixed feelings, and this thread has crossed my mind. I watched it and laughed, as I usually do when watching him perform. He makes insightful points and challenges sacred cows. I read the controversy and felt the criticism toward him was misdirected… and like you said, sometimes being made without actually having seen the special… a bit of a bandwagon effect… but I kept listening and I kept reading. I had blind spots that required illumination. In the end, I think he pushed it a bit too far, but I support leaving the special up. Points that later resonated with me and gave texture to my thinking were that he seemed to be applauding only those trans individual who in his words could take a joke… like his trans friend that killed themself (or like infosciences previously mentioned Asian friends in this thread who “Just roll with it” when mocked and made fun of or when left out). I accept this counter claim that expecting everyone to take the joke means he’s in parallel needlessly piling on to the already overwhelming negative feedback and hurtful comments noncomedians so often level at trans individuals every single. Even in this thread on this site filled with smart critical thinking people we've seen trans individuals described as having mental problems and being delusional and attention seeking… we’ve seen people assigned female at birth and asking to be identified as male today as equivalent to someone saying its racist to call black berries black… so I’m sympathetic to the idea that we should stop kicking people when they’re already down. I realize that comedians do this as part of,their jobs, though. Nobody is off-limits for kicking and that’s an important part of comedy. It’s not like he’s a university professor or elected official or ideological movement leader after all, so I tend to cut him some slack. The counter claim that gave me the most pause is how he identified himself as a TERF (trans exclusionary radical feminist). That’s a group known for a long history of spouting bile and nastiness and hatred and vitriol at the trans community. Maybe he wasn’t fully aware of this history when dressing himself with that label, but that’s really no excuse IMO. If you call yourself a nazi, you’ll have to deal with how others authentically respond to that. He called himself a TERF, and that has a violent connotation so it’s unsurprising people have reacted this way. I laughed at many of his jokes, though. I like Dave Chapelle and have for many years. I especially liked how he handled the murder of George Floyd by Chauvin in his 8 Minutes and 46 Seconds video on YouTube. We all need to laugh sometimes, especially at ourselves, and laughter often helps clarify difficult truths, but we must also remain vigilant with our own thoughts… we must be perpetually aware of and cautious about how others feel when we start (or keep) laughing at them.

Didn’t realize it mattered to others how easy something is for you personally to read. Fascinating approach to communication and clarity you seem to have. Next time maybe try Comic Sans or Wingdings to achieve the full effect

Speaking of EM waves… Is there a rational explanation for why you’ve chosen a horrible impossible to read yellow font?

Shocker It's actually the opposite of this. Proofs are for math. Science is always at best provisional and based on evidence. Here again we see the problems which ensue when you continue using sloppy language and imprecise thought. +1 for this acknowledgement. Progress

Actually, you were pointing that out about this site here, and the members in THIS community taking the time to respond to you... not society at large. You also appear to be doing so as a method of evasion of questions you obviously struggle to answer. If you want better answers, stop being so sloppy in your posts. So? Sloppy thinking is only ever correct by accident. Science is a method of minimizing human bias and sloppiness. If that bothers you, then maybe stop voluntarily posting at a site dedicated to enthusiasm for science and its methods.

Lots of folks here would be more than happy to engage you on this, to point out flaws, and even to support certain points. You simply need to do so with a certain degree of rigor. You need to work harder to support claims which fall outside of the mainstream. Don't bitch and moan if you're unwilling to do that work, and don't lie about what's actually happening. This has nothing to do with nobody wanting "to address the issue." The desire is simply to ensure we do so in a productive way that's more than a wild-assed guess / shotgun approach / arm waving nonsense spewing. Lots of folks come here with ideas, and they get a fair hearing, but you need to do your part instead of claiming victimhood like an immature child.

Yeah, you know... except for that 5 decades of demanding and questioning evidence. Hard to believe it's nearly 2022 and comments as profoundly ignorant as this one still continue being made. It's off-topic, anyway. Climate science isn't a religion, nor does it have bearing on the actual question of whether scientists can themselves be religious (which has the laughably simple answer of yes)

Please don't move the goal posts nor strawman me. I've used reason throughout my post and elucidated at length why I shared what I did. I am open to challenge and correction, but I supported my statements implying that maybe he really does have a problem with sexual identity, even if perhaps he's not conscious of it. You're welcome to disagree with my assessment, but not to suggest I'm asserting he's transphobic. I expect better. 🙄

There's nothing odd in what I said, and I said the same thing as you did here myself throughout this thread. To clarify this latest comment, I will revert to you with a question: Where exactly in the Methods section of your research paper will you be putting God? In what part of the analysis will God be used to explain the results and outcome? No where, that's where, hence my point. A belief in God may motivate you. It may drive you to undertake science so you may better know the mind of god(s), but god will have nothing whatsoever to do with the methods or processes of science itself, nor will god(s) ever be a valid scientific explanation or model of how the universe functions. Or, precisely as I said yesterday, individuals must: "leave their beliefs out of the picture entirely and pretend their personal version of god(s) don’t actually matter while engaged in that science." And not once have I suggested otherwise, neither in this thread nor in any of the countless others where this same question has been asked through the years Consider treating it as a fact within a given framework instead of treating it as a truth. That will help alleviate these silly issues with words having different meanings depending on who you ask and when you ask them.

We're not talking about some random person who made the silly suggestion that we replace the word "black" in the name of the fruit "black berries" because it might be racist. It's a single anecdotal example of a foolish claim, not something being advocated culturally or requested by tens of millions, and it is self-evidently silly... and it's silly on purpose. The problem with your point is that you continue equating these silly on purpose examples with the very real and valid need to align ourselves on how society accepts the gender identification of millions and millions of fellow humans... of folks who are non-binary or who identify differently now than they were assigned at birth. You continue (whether consciously or not, it's there) suggesting that when someone assigned as female at birth later identifies as male and asks that their gender identification be respected by others... you suggest this is similar to someone saying we should stop using the word "black" to describe black berries because it's racist. It shows rather plainly just how non-serious you consider these totally fair and legitimate requests to respect someone's gender identification... and my assertion regarding how little seriousness you treat this with is amplified when you follow-up immediately by lumping these requests to respect the gender identify of others into a simple category we can all easily and without thought cast aside and dismiss as "too PC." Well, no actually... It's not just about being politically correct. It's not just about some people being ridiculous, nor is it about people living in some sort of a delusion, nor a mental issue, nor a desire for attention, nor any of the other countless things so many people here have ignorantly suggested across the last 20 pages of thread discussion. Nobody is being asked to be called new labels like "Ze" or "thou" or "dog" or "pilgrim." This is about gender and the request is for others to use He/Him, She/Her/, They/Them, etc. These are established categories in accepted parlance, and the need is not to invent new categories and labels, but to instead gently adjust the thresholds we use when applying them. However, when you say this request is about being "PC" or mention that it is "ridiculous," or implicitly assert that these requests are functionally equivalent to suggesting we no longer call black berries "black" because one dude one time somewhere said it might be racist and we fear the slippery slope... Well, then it's pretty hard to take you at your word when you also say: ... because the evidence provided by your repeated posts, the way you frame the argument, and the examples you share in your comments rather strongly suggests otherwise.

I love lamp

Anyone can believe in the tooth fairy, too, and generally for similar reasons. They can still practice science as well, but only if they leave their beliefs out of the picture entirely and pretend their personal version of god(s) don’t actually matter while engaged in that science

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.