iNow

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.

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.