iNow

At least nobody is arguing that biology disallows humans from being shorter than 4 feet tall. 

Or that being short is like claiming you’re an aardvark 

9 hours ago, MigL said:

these conditions can often make life unbearable for these individuals, even though there is no physical 'harm' to them, or those around them.

In context of this threads topic, the only thing making life unbearable to trans people is their fellow humans and the hate (and refusal to accept) those fellow humans so constantly direct toward them, despite the complete lack of any physical harm a trans person authentically sharing who they are causes to those around them.

Transgenderism is neither a syndrome, a condition, a disease, nor an illness to be cured or treated any more than homosexuality is and that was the gravitational locus of my post. 

If someone needs treatment to improve quality of life, then they should have access to it, even if others like myself are referencing their situation in an attempt to shatter the canard of biology saying only two sexes are possible. 

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

When things are so termed medically that tends to make people fall back on the two sexes that are not associated with an error in chromosomal pairing.

I take the point, but they’re still wrong. If someone claims there are only two skin colors, then highlighting humans with vitiligo in response offers a rather simple and powerful counter example which has the benefit of calling their central claim into question. 

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Please explain.

People often claim there are two binary sexes, and then further try to cloak themselves in the respect of biological science when they do.

In many instances, these claims are a direct conscious attempt to dismiss and dehumanize the validity of other citizens who are transsexual, to diminish and ostracize those who feel they were wrongly assigned an identity at birth that fails to match who they are today. Those who are simply being open and honest about who they are.

People, including myself, are wrong every single day. It happens, but presenting information from biology regarding the approximately 10 other accepted “sexes” in science to those asserting “biology only allows two sexes!” ought to cause any rational honest person to do some rethinking and reevaluation of their stance, since the claims of binary categories is self-evidently false. 

There are more than two sexes in biology and this we’ve known for decades. Ignoring a spectrum like an ostrich with head in sand doesn’t magically make that spectrum invalid. Rather, it makes the claimant a liar or a fool when repeated corrections go unheeded.

2 hours ago, MigL said:

just mentioning 'cure/treatment' for others gets you labelled  a  '****phobe', or worse ?

You identify as Italian. Maybe we ought to explore a cure or treatment for that? You identify as Canadian. Shall we push for a cure for that, too? I believe you’re an engineer, or a corporate employee. We likely will need to institutionalize you for fixing that, eh?

If not, one must ask why your identities are any more valid or acceptable than someone’s trans identity. Usually bigotry is involved, or at least ignorance… which is thankfully fixable with open honest feedback like that which you appear to decry above. 

Tl;dr. It’s not a median outcome, but why frame it as an abnormality? Red hair is rare too, but that’s not abnormal. Words and framing matter. 

58 minutes ago, joigus said:

Something like that.

Indeed ✌🏼

2 minutes ago, joigus said:

Sex is a biological fact that can be settled at cell-level. … Sexes there are two.

But that’s incorrect, as already clarified both here and elsewhere. 

Even if we limit our inquiry purely to humans, there’s still XYY Syndrome, XXY Syndrome (aka Klinefelters), Triple X Syndrome (XXX), Turner Syndrome, Noonan Syndrome, X0/XY Mosaicism, among others.

Nature is under no obligation to fit neatly into forced arbitrary binary human buckets. It’s a shame so many humans try forcing her to due to arbitrary social reasons. 

3 hours ago, ovidiu t said:

there is a difference between the perception of instantaneity and the actual temporal dynamics involved.

That difference is best described as ignorance of reality 

3 hours ago, ovidiu t said:

It was clumsy from my side to write that thought without further explanations

Especially when doing so in a physics section 

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Doesn't seem very enlightened to me

Also doesn’t seem like this is the OPs first foray or post into this topic, nor is it the first time treating this group dismissively. Trends provide important context for responses.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

In the Ricky Gervais sense? (Short

I can absolutely see MigL liking a Joe Rogan tweet. There’s just no accounting for taste 😂 

So not only do you wish to dictate how others use certain terms, but now you also wish to dictate how members use the reaction vote system? Fascist!  😝🤣

4 minutes ago, Gian said:

believe the incidence of gender dysphoria is

Is irrelevant. This is gender identity, not dysphoria. 

I've used many mixed sex and unisex restrooms and somehow I've magically survived to tell the story. 

You heard wrong.

Whoa! You mean Elon Musk got to meet HIM!?!  Golly. Can't believe I missed that!!

44 minutes ago, ovidiu t said:

Some of our processes are instantaneous

No, they are not. 

45 minutes ago, ovidiu t said:

a fixed point in the univers, an absolute clock

When you venture into the realm of fiction then literally anything can be used to explain. Maybe it's true only when purple unicorns fart in front of leprechauns, for example. 

25 minutes ago, Gian said:

Who decides what they mean?

Society as a whole. Words and terms and their applicable uses evolve with time. This is natural and has happened for thousands of years or more.

Perhaps a better question is why are so many insecure people worried about other people and how they define themselves? Why not just acknowledge their view is different from yours and go on with your day?

Fear. Stupidity. Tribalism. Hatred. These explanations all seem to fit the response here, and it's challenging to think of better explanations for the ridiculous response. 

Bruce is now Loretta. Who cares other than the ignorant? 

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

But we need armed militias to prevent the Government from 'fixing' the outcome of the Super Bowl ...
It's a Constitutional right.

This is sadly representative of and ridiculously similar to the meltdown happening across the right in the US ATM regarding Taylor Swift and the super secret democratic master plan to fix the outcome of the NFL playoffs so the deep state can prevent Trump from regaining his rightful place in the oval office. 

5 hours ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

So, are they? 

Depends entirely on how YOU define “best”

1 hour ago, Photon Guy said:

If you ask me we should've done this a long time ago

I don't disagree, but funding is clearly not limitless so focus areas must be prioritized.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Not really. Twenty million spent on lobbying is a pittance for a company doing >20 billion in sales. Buying congress is relatively cheap.

 

Pfizer, for example, spent almost $2.8 billion on advertising in 2022, but "only" $12.6 million on lobbying

You're completely right, and I began to realize this myself a few hours after my post.

The numbers Charon cited are in the trillions, and lobbying is nowhere near that... In fact, any lobbying expenditures are likely already looped into the "sales and operational costs" bucket.

It's still a considerable amount of money spent on lobbying and makes a considerable impact on both our legislation and our lives, but it clearly can't touch the broader marketing and ad spends which are themselves nearly double what's spent on R&D

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Some very rich people will pay alot to stop that happening

So will very many very poor and poverty stricken people. Guns are often a religion in the US, but those practicing it are hardly Mandalorians. 

5 hours ago, CharonY said:

I am also a bit curious what effects the use of electronics, such as tablets and cell phones have in childhood.

Deficits in social skills and coping strategies plus spikes in anxiety and depression… IMO

6 hours ago, MigL said:

I read statistics that 360 million Americans own 400 million guns, but 3/4 of Americans do not own guns, only 1/4 of them do.

That’s weird since including babies there are only about 330M Americans alive and that’s higher now than at any time across history. 

3 hours ago, Photon Guy said:

To allow the military access to more advanced guns and not citizens is a double standard

Correct. It is. The standard of the military is killing enemies. The standard for citizens is NOT killing their neighbors. 

3 hours ago, Photon Guy said:

If all else fails the people can revolt against the government should the government become oppressive. 

Yeah. Those Blackhawk helicopters with their hellfire missiles will become impotent against uncle Jim Bob and his AR

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

All of this goes towards explaining why we have a Supreme Court which (if it's doing its job in a fair and impartial way)

Sadly, this bedrock has been blasted and fracked for reasons of avarice and grift and earthquakes are spreading across the justice system like ripples through a scummy pond. 

8 hours ago, CharonY said:

in pharmaceutical industries, marketing generally has a larger budget than R&D

Lobbying is a massive expense line item too 

3 hours ago, MigL said:

he explains how neither Republicans or Democrats fixed anything during the years they each controlled all parts of Government.

I’m aware already 

8 minutes ago, Janus said:

and all they have to run on are grievance issues.

Plus fear and scapegoating and “other-ism” 

There are, of course, exceptions, but the overall trend is and has been for a very long time exactly as you say.