slug.com slug.com

3 5

Truth and Reality

So the LGBTQ+ community and CRT are trying to erase objective truth. Good luck with that one. Doing that leaves us with subjective truth and very lonely. Because who can know another's subjective truth.

But let us not call it truth. That is an error. There can be only one truth. Let us call it objective reality and subjective reality. Both of which cannot be truths. There is a third reality as well, a collective reality. Objective reality cannot be known until all the data regarding it is known. Until then we have a collective reality - we collectively agree, the Earth is round and before that the Earth is flat. We collectively agree the universe is heliocentric and before that the universe is geocentric.

Words play a big part in forming reality. It is why politicians will change definitions. It changes concepts and thus changes subjective and collective realities. When they start doing that they are forcing a reality - their reality, on those they govern. One can go along with them and align their reality with them. What are they doing in actuality but molding the collective reality.

Disagree and you find yourself outside their collective reality and vulnerable without their protection. It is very difficult to maintain a subjective reality under such conditions but there are opposing collective realities.

Is there climate change? Well, I think, yes we can all collectively agree there is but what do we know about it. Until we can control it we can only guess at what the changes will be. As we get to know more we will become closer to being able to predict the changes. When we can create the changes we know pretty much everything about the climate. Until then we only have a belief, a collective reality.
Notice the words though, "climate change". Something we can all agree occurs - an objective reality, perhaps. We cannot know for certain though how it is going to change. Claiming we do is a collective reality - a belief. We need to know more before we can predict the change with certainty. When we can control climate change then we can say we have arrived at an objective reality. Climate change is something that we at this time do not know enough about in order to control it. We believe we can change the climate. I would say we don't know what we are doing yet if we take control of climate change. It's such a massive thing that does not change instantly. It changes over decades, perhaps and larger changes occur over centuries. Events like volcanic eruptions, meteor collisions can change things quickly but few things do. We have been wrong in our forecasts to date so I would say we are lacking quite a bit of data about climate. It was global cooling at one point, then it was global warming and now it is just climate change, My subjective reality tells me we are having our collective reality regarding climate change politically molded, among other things being politically molded.

FrankZeleniuk 8 Sep 30
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

3 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

4

It is objective fact that CO2 is what plants need to "breathe," to produce the oxygen WE breathe.

It is objective fact that CO2 has been declining on Earth for millions of years. Much of prehistoric Earth had far higher CO2 levels than in historic times. And before CO2 it was methane. Plants did not exist on Earth. Neither was there any oxygen.

It is an objective fact that the current CO2 levels are very close to the minimum CO2 levels required for plant life on Earth.

It is an objective fact that if we are successful in reducing CO2 much more, plant life will disappear on Earth, and we will not be breathing very long after that.

It is objective fact that atmospheric methane and water vapor combined are greenhouse gasses between ten to a hundred times more effective at magnifying the sun's energy that CO2.

It is also an objective fact that atmospheric methane and water vapor are 100 to 1000 times more plentiful than CO2.

It is a reasonable conclusion that if CO2 were as dangerous a greenhouse gas as Climate alarmists claim, and methane and water vapor are 1000 to 100,000 times more effective at converting the sun's energy, then they would have reduced the Earth to a smoking ruin long ago.

Nicely said.

0

What exactly are the objective truths being "erased" by the LGBTQ+ community? And by CRT - which, objectively, is not being taught in grade school.

Do you agree that objective truth is real and might be discoverable?

Biological males can be females. Biological females can be males. Biologically, the sexes of the human body are not interchangeable. Somehow I am supposed to accept that they are biologically interchangable. This is only possible subjectively most people collectively don't accept that subjective reality. Some do and that is their collective reality. Some sympathize this subjective reality but consider it a fantasy. Do we know everything about sex? Obviously not because we are now busy inventing genders left and right....well almost entirely left.

As to CRT. I think it is being taught in school but not directly. So people can say it isn't being formally taught. Leaving out the "formally", of course. Not really a lie. Kind of a half truth.

Now the definition of racism has changed so that only the white race can be racist. The justification for that is that a race that has no power cannot be racist. Yet Barack Obama was the most powerful man on the planet at one time. So under that reasoning I find the change to that concept of racism entirely political resulting in divisiveness and argumentation.

@FrankZeleniuk

RE: Biology

No one thinks that biological males can become biological females. No one thinks biological females can become biological males. Ok, before you go there, I don't literally mean "no one" and I'm sure you can probably find a few wackadoos who claim it is possible... hell, some might even be hardcore evangelical Christians who think "all things are possible through god".

But I digress. The "woke mob" doesn't claim that biological males/females can be converted to biological females/males. What they say is that human biology isn't quite as black and white as elementary school taught you, and it isn't as simple as XX or XY. There are cases of intersex people who don't conform to purely XX or XY chromosomes (could be XXY, XXX, YO, XO, etc) and have characteristics of male and female, and are typically "assigned" a sex at birth by a doctor to force them into one, and so it is perfectly understandable if they don't "feel" like that one sex later in life. This is biologically factual, complete objective reality. The mere existence of intersex people destroys the notion that there is only male or only female.

What's more is that the X and Y chromosomes aren't the end all be all. There is also the SRY gene which carries the markers for male biology and sex development. This gene is typically found on the Y chromosome, but it doesn't have to be. This gene can be absent from the Y, leading to a fully biological female with XY chromosomes. This gene can actually be present on the X, leading to a fully biological male with XX chromosomes. It's fully possible that a decent number of people have this situation, and are none the wiser. You could have lived your life as a male not knowing that your chromosomes were XX - if you found this out, would you start identifying as a female?

[scientificamerican.com]

But that is only part of it. There are other aspects. First off, some degree of biology can be changed, such as hormones. Taking hormones can alter the chemistry of the body, and can cause biological males to grow breasts, or biological females to grow facial hair, or change bone density and fat distribution, and all sorts of other things. Now, this does not change the chromosomes or genes, but it can still biologically factually objectively change your body to conform closer to different sex characteristics. Depending on when hormone treatment was started and for how long, many characteristics not related to the gonads can be almost indistinguishable from the sex they are trying to emulate, which makes some sports-related complaints reach the level of reactionary outrage culture rather than fact based analysis. People like Joe Rogan are perfectly fine claiming you shouldn't be allowed to use hormone therapy to live as the gender you want, but is then perfectly fine deciding to use hormone therapy himself to artificially pump up his testosterone for body building. People want to test biological women for their testosterone levels, forcing them to take medication to alter their chemistry to compete in sports (completely biological women, not trans women), but think it is fine for a man like Michael Phelps to have a biological advantage with his lactic acid production.

But again, I digress, as the main thing is that gender does not equal sex. Gender is a social construct. Native Americans had a concept of "two-spirited" for generations before being colonialized, which is similar to gender-fluidity or non-binary. These concepts have existed in Western culture for generations as well, such as tales of Greek or Norse gods changing their sex whenever the situation called for it. We can also observe this in non-human species, where some animals like frogs and fish can change their sex and produce different gametes when their population requires it for reproduction. Gender and gender roles have shifted over time, with old generations seeing their men dress in wigs and cloaks and makeup. Men have been in drag for generations, from Kabuki theater to Shakespeare to Bugs Bunny to powderpuff football, and no one ever complained that it was indoctrinating or sexualizing children before.

So if gender is a social construct, why can't it be changed? Why can't a man live as a woman, and a woman live as a man? Why can't someone say they are both or neither or fluid? Is it so hard to respect someone's pronouns? We allow Ted Cruz to be called Ted Cruz, even though his legal name is Rafael Cruz - no one is creating an hour long rant on YouTube claiming they won't respect his name. We correct ourselves when we accidentally mis-gender a dog or a cat, and we respect the pronouns of cars and boats. Why can't we show the same respect towards our fellow humans? We can accept that some members of society believe women were created out of a rib, or that man lived amongst dinosaurs, or that men need their foreskin removed to have a relationship with their god, but we can't accept someone living as a different gender?

Now if you want to talk about forced acceptance of certain things, like letting people into locker rooms or sports, that is a topic that can be discussed with nuance and have an actual understanding coming from both sides. But if you want to discuss objective reality, well there it is.

The Right has made this a culture war issue since they have consistently been losing each generation as society accepts more people and more civil rights. They claim they need bathroom bills to protect children, and then harass and bully children who don't conform to their expectations. They claim they can "just know" when someone is transgender, but then harass biological females trying to enter the ladies room because they don't look feminine enough, or they murder trans women because they were sexually attracted to them and then flew into a rage upon discovering they were trans. The claim the Left is sexualizing children, but then the Right enacts laws like the one in Ohio where even an anonymous suggestion that a student on a sports team is trans will require a genital inspection.

@FrankZeleniuk

RE: CRT

First, I think the concept of racism can be interpreted differently based on semantics. Some say "racism" refers to institutional and systematic bigotry based on race, which in the USA is enforced by White people, so only White people can actually be "racist" - any other race-based bigotry is just bigotry / discrimination, not labeled "racism". Others say that "racism" is nothing more than race-based bigotry in general, no specifically institutional / systematic, and therefore anyone can be "racist". Personally I agree with the latter definition, and think the former stance causes semantic issues like found in your comment. However, it could be helpful to clarify when you find yourself in this sort of situation, and ask if someone is saying that Black people can't be racially bigoted towards White people, or if they just mean the US / North American institution.

In reference to Barack Obama - that doesn't really change the first definition, as while he may have been the President, that doesn't mean he was the emperor and there still weren't racists in power trying to sabotage him and diminish his accomplishments. For every Liberal who voted for him only because he was Black, there was a Conservative voting against him only because he was Black. Donald Trump built his political career by constantly attacking Obama and claiming we wasn't born in the USA and was ineligible.

As for CRT, no, that is not taught in grade school. It is a legal philosophy course taught in college, primarily as an elective. It was admitted by Right Wing strategists (look up Christopher Rufo) that the claim of CRT was a purposeful campaign to foment outrage and perpetuate a culture war issue and get their more Conservative opinions thrust upon children.

If you want to talk about objective reality, then teaching the objective truth about our country and its problematic history is the way to go - like acknowledging the horrible things Columbus did, or the history of slavery and Jim Crow and sundown towns and red lining, or the Trail of Tears, or Japanese Internment, or our blind eye to the Holocaust, or our treatment of LGBTQ+ people, etc. Passing bills that you cannot teach a subject because someone might "feel bad" is ignoring objective reality. Telling teachers that they need to lie about slavery or pretend it didn't exist or that it was "good for Black people" so that a White child doesn't potentially fell guilty is exactly erasing objective truth as you claim "the Left" is doing in your original post.

@JacksonNought

Re: Gender

Now I know why Supreme Court nominee, Ketanji Brown couldn't define what a woman was.
You did a fine job of explaining no one can tell. There is no real objective reality when it comes to gender. Someone has to tell you their gender.

Certainly, there are anomalies in the objective reality we call nature. Besides the objectively real genetic ones you have mentioned regarding sex, there is dwarfism(genetic), gigantism and acromelogy(hormonal), These have objectively real explanations.

As an analogy to gender dysphoria, meaning existing only in one's mind and not in any objectively or even collectively observable reality, A dwarf identifying as a giant, or vice versa, is similar.

Not to say that somewhere down the line an objectively real cause may be discovered and our objective reality changes.

We are talking about the existence of subjective reality, a collective or a common reality and an objective reality. None of which are truth. It's all constructed.

I would add that citing men that have historically dressed as women does not mean they were transgender and is irrelevant to the discussion. It was the customary dress of the time and had no relevance to gender dysphoria. Women and men wore different gender identifiable clothes.
Because men in Scotland wore kilts does that make them transgender? It was simply the custom of the time. Nothing to do cross dressing.
In Shakespeare's time women weren't allowed to be actors. Obviously they were needed and the positions were filled by young boys. Not to say there weren't any transgenders that may have enjoyed wearing feminine attire in both those historical references.

Your argument is attempting to, wrongly or rightly, change the dominant collective reality of western societies. There is not the same adamant demand for change in other societies being expressed, at the moment. For women, perhaps but not gender dysphoria. Maybe later when the western social construct is emaciated first.

A good political question to ask may be why the current social construct is being deconstructed.
Is it out of the goodness of the hearts of the cisgendered or the progressive liberals or is it in recognition of past inequalities and the need for reconciliation? Since the movement is mostly led by cisgendered progressives with political power that must be the case. They have come to their senses at last. Although their concerns and legislative leanings seem kind of odd, politically partisan and bigoted.
either they have come to their senses or there is some ulterior motive. They can't have become Saints bent upon rectification just like that, can they? There is a global agenda maybe it has something to do with that? Does you thinks it is possible that they don't really give a damn about the LGBTQ+ community whatsoever? That they may be just using them to further the collectivization of a world government? A collective global reality. One where they determine the reality? No deplorables allowed. No challenges to their reality, especially regarding their political power. What do you think? Just like the TST is helping them. Do you think they care about your freedom as a collective or are they using you, too?

Re: CRT

The debate rages as regards its pedagogical inclusion.

[reason.com]

Both CRT and Gender have gone through the political redefining of words to formulate different concepts. Coincidence? Intentional? Clarifying? Confusing? To me intentionally confusing and vague?
Even you say BLM is different than BLM the organization. If it is different maybe it would be less confusing than saying BLM is BLM but is not BLM.

If you want to talk about objective reality, then teaching the objective truth about our country and its problematic history is the way to go.

There is no such thing as objective truth. There is only a perceived objective reality. That was the whole point of the original post.

If you wish to highlight some other objective reality then you have to cite historically verifiable information. The horrible things Christopher Columbus did doesn't convince me of anything and were they considered horrible at that time or are they just horrible from a modern perspective? I mean drawing and quartering a man is horrible but it was done back in the days and considered just desserts.

@FrankZeleniuk

Now I know why Supreme Court nominee, Ketanji Brown couldn't define what a woman was.

She had no reason to, though. First, it was a bad faith question meant just for political points, same with Graham's badgering her about her religion. It wasn't appropriate to answer, in a legal sense, as she may have to rule on it in the future.

I would ask you then, what is a woman? Make your definition as specific as possible, since I'll be poking holes in it.

There is no real objective reality when it comes to gender. Someone has to tell you their gender.

It is safe to assume sometimes based on how someone is presented, but if you are corrected, it is easy to just accept what they say and use their pronouns and move on without making a huff. You don't need to police people, like trying to stop women from entering the bathroom if you don't think they are feminine enough, or going back through a little girl's records to see if she was trans because you were salty your own kids lost in sports (https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkgaj8/utah-parents-gender-check-anti-trans-sports).

I would add that citing men that have historically dressed as women does not mean they were transgender and is irrelevant to the discussion.

I am not saying they identified as a different gender, but pointing out that today's stereotypical gender roles / appearances have not always been the case - so boys wearing dresses doesn't mean parents are sexualizing them or trying to force them to be trans, as many Right Wing Reactionaries claim. Men wearing dresses isn't destroying Western culture, as people like Candace Owens claim. Men pantomiming and wearing drag isn't sexualizing and grooming children.

A good political question to ask may be why the current social construct is being deconstructed...

I think your assertion is wrong. Is a social construct being deconstructed, or are we just giving people rights and freedoms that we previously denied them? Maybe it is both, and you can't have one without the other? Maybe the cisgender White people are leading the way because they are the majority and in power, and you can't really have the minority disenfranchised group make progress without help.

I think it is conspiracy and reactionary thinking to assert that giving people rights is just an underhanded way for "globalists" to destroy modern society and enslave people into one world government and murder all of the Christians and "deplorables".

@JacksonNought

First, it was a bad faith question meant just for political points,

How does that gain political points? Did she gain some political points with you? Didn't think so.

It's a hearing where questions are asked regarding character.

What is a woman?

The female sex of the species. Not someone who thinks they are the female sex of the species. Biologically, they have xx chromosomes. They can bear children. They have a vagina instead of a penis.
They are the guardian of the future of the species. Feminists are women that have lost that all important purpose. Transgender women never had it.

You don't need to police people, like trying to stop women from entering the bathroom if you don't think they are feminine enough,

no one is stopping women from entering a bathroom. They are stopping men when they are fantasizing
they are women.

Aren't I cruel.

boys wearing dresses doesn't mean parents are sexualizing them or trying to force them to be trans,

Today it does.

Is a social construct being deconstructed, or are we just giving people rights and freedoms that we previously denied them?

A social construct is being deconstructed, make no mistake about that. Being a useful tool to aid in that objective is just being a useful tool in the present and a disposable individual in the future.

Are we giving people rights and freedoms that we previously denied them?

If we release a rapist from jail are we just giving him rights and freedoms that we previously denied him? Or are we giving him an opportunity to rape again?

There is a difference between playing fantasy at home and imposing your fantasies on others that do not wish to participate. I know! You have been horribly imposed upon and irreparably damaged. As I have said before, this in not the 1800's. The LGBT+ individual has rights and freedoms they were previously denied. Now they want to re-imagine the social construct which is pushing it. LGBTQ+ ideology is about promoting alternatives to heterosexuality that, quite frankly, are not conducive to the propagation, or to use a more progressive term, "sustainability" of the species.

@FrankZeleniuk

How does that gain political points?

Because it has nothing to do with actual qualifications for being a SCOTUS justice, but is rather a bad-faith question for the askers to go back to Fox News or Newsmax and play little soundbites to pat themselves on the back and rile up their base and say look how cool I am and how much I own the libs. Just like how Lindsey Graham kept asking personal questions about Jackson's religion - and how the same was asked of Barrett.

So let's look at your definition.

The female sex of the species. Not someone who thinks they are the female sex of the species. Biologically, they have xx chromosomes. They can bear children. They have a vagina instead of a penis.
They are the guardian of the future of the species. Feminists are women that have lost that all important purpose. Transgender women never had it.

XX Chromosomes, hmm? Ok, so we already covered in my previous posts how this is very basic grade school understanding and doesn't begin to cover biology. So a man, with a penis and testicles and testosterone who has the SRY gene, but XX chromosomes, you would call a woman? A biological male suffering from Klinefelter syndrome has XXY chromosomes - is that a woman? Or does it have to be only XX, nothing more nothing less? Than what do you call a biological woman with XO chromosomes?

They can bear children? Ok, what about biological women with infertility issues? So if a biological woman, even with XX chromosomes, is unable to give birth, she isn't a woman? How about after a biological woman reaches menopause and can no longer give birth - does she cease being a woman? What about cancer-related or elective surgeries to remove the ovaries - do they cease being women at that point?

A vagina instead of a penis? Ok, so you acknowledge that a trans man who got bottom surgery and no longer has a vagina is now a man? You acknowledge that a trans woman who got bottom surgery and now has a vagina is now a woman?

Feminists have lost that purpose? So you are one of those people who think women should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and it is wrong for them to go out and get education and careers and not want children?

no one is stopping women from entering a bathroom. They are stopping men when they are fantasizing they are women.

Not true. These so-called "guardians" like to police the restroom and claim they "just know" when a man is trying to enter the restroom. But time and time again they stop and harass biological women because they aren't "feminine" enough for them. Same with the people who "just know" and then hit on trans women and fly into a rage and try to murder them upon finding out. I wonder if these same people would stop trans women like Blair White from entering the ladies room, or if they would allow trans men like Buck Angel or Chaz Bono to enter.

Also same with the people I mentioned who, without parental consent, dug into school records of a girl to see if she was trans because her parents were giant snowflakes who couldn't handle their own children losing in sports. Or other schools where even an anonymous person claiming a student in trans will result in a genital inspection.

Today it does.

That is your own bias being used. I guess you want old Bugs Bunny cartoons taken off the air, because he is dressing as a woman and that is forcing kids to be trans and sexualizing them. Oh wait, but the Right complained when a warning was added to old Looney Tunes because of overtly racist themes... insert two button meme here I suppose.

It seems you and the Right are the ones who cannot separate sex from identity. Two men love each other and get married, they could be completely asexual and just love each other, but you can't stop thinking about gay sex. A little boy wears a skirt to school, and you can't stop thinking about the child's genitals. Sounds like a YOU problem.

I live in Philly. The Mummers have a popular parade every New Years... and guess what, they dress in drag. I guess we gotta shut that down, eh?

What about Santa? You allow a creepy man to dress in pretend and have children sit on his lap? You allow other people to dress in trans-species costumes and pretend to be elves? And you tell children they are actually the real Santa and really elves? Seems like indoctrination to me. Down with mall Santas!

A social construct is being deconstructed, make no mistake about that.

Do you complain about other social constructs being deconstructed in the past? Should men go back to wearing makeup and wigs to get back to traditional social constructs? Hey, the SCOTUS just used a 17th-century jurist, Matthew Hale, to justify removing abortion rights, so why not go back to that time in other areas? You aren't a true alpha male if you don't have a wig and makeup!

If we release a rapist from jail are we just giving him rights and freedoms that we previously denied him? Or are we giving him an opportunity to rape again?

Wow, so you equate letting a rapist go free with letting gay people get married or allowing trans people to get jobs and housing without being discriminated against. Says a lot about you. I guess you want to return to the old days where homosexuality was a crime, maybe even bring back slavery - after all, those were the social norms.

There is a difference between playing fantasy at home and imposing your fantasies on others that do not wish to participate.

I agree! Just like that coach who made a spectacle by praying on the football field, imposing his fantasy on others. Or that recent school which sent students to a "job fair" which ended up being a religious event. Or those Christians who enter schools and advertise their fantasy "good news club" to children. Or politicians like Marjorie Taylor Greene who want to impose their fantasies into law. Or those anti-CRT people like Ron DeSantis who want to impose their fantasy that we've never been a racist country on students and force them into "patriotic education".

The LGBT+ individual has rights and freedoms they were previously denied.

A lot more rights than previous, that is true, though only very recently. And yet there still are denied rights.

LGBTQ+ ideology is about promoting alternatives to heterosexuality that, quite frankly, are not conducive to the propagation, or to use a more progressive term, "sustainability" of the species.

Again, you are unable to separate your bias from the truth. It is like those people who claim "there are only two races, white and political" or some variation, and think that any piece of media that doesn't star a straight white cisgendered male is nothing but woke ideology and trying to be political. Gay people merely existing isn't trying to promote an agenda. Telling children that some people are gay - such as saying one of their classmates has two dads - is not trying to force people to be gay.

I wonder how gay and trans people, who have existed for centuries, have been able to exist if child indoctrination is only a recent development with the "woke left"?

I wonder if based on similar trends, there is some shadowy group indoctrinating children into being left-handed? [washingtonpost.com]

You know what else isn't conductive to the propagation or sustainability of the species? Our current gun laws which let children be executed in school. Our current policies regarding welfare and wages and poverty, which have millions starving and dying. Our climate change policies, which prefer giving some corporate execs more money while the world falls apart around us. Hasn't seemed to bother the Right before? Only the gay thing. Just like the "Christians" who claim it is their religious right to discriminate against gay people, but don't seem to have a problem with any other "sins" which are supposed to be equal, such as divorce or eating pork or mixed fabric or lying, etc.

@JacksonNought

Because it has nothing to do with actual qualifications for being a SCOTUS justice,

Character and understanding of socio/political structure have nothing to do with being a judge, let alone a justice of the SCOTUS? Is that the reason Amy Coney Barrett's views on women were not inquired about? Oh wait....

So a man, with a penis and testicles and testosterone who has the SRY gene, but XX chromosomes, you would call a woman? A biological male suffering from Klinefelter syndrome has XXY chromosomes - is that a woman?

I'm not a biologist, are you? How do YOU tell if a human being is a man or a woman? Smell? It's so complex these days. It used to be quite simple and straight forward. The biology didn't change.

The male has sperm that have X and Y chromosomes and they are divided close to half. A "Y" chromosome has an SRY gene(sex determining region of of the Y chormosome) and they are divided close to half and half. The female gamete has only an X chromosome and the male sperm provides either the x or y chromosome to make a male or a female. The Y in an xxy zygote makes the individual male but male characteristics are somewhat subdued by the extra copy of an x chromosome. This results in Klinefelter syndrome. Conclusion,: those with an xxy chromosome are basically a man.
Interesting to note that an X chromosome is not a sex determining chromosome. The presence of the Y chromosome pr0vides the switch that determines the sex.

Although I am not a biologist I have looked a little deeper into the biology than Wikipedia or other woke sites that have the same difficulty of defining a woman. It's creeping into the science now. Like anthropogenic climate change.

Biologically, there are abnormalities in chromosomes that produce things like deformities, Down's syndrome, Turner's syndrome and other things like the XO chromosome that has no sex determining switch and produces a hermaphrodite. No one is arguing that. Before we understood the biology there was no arguing what a woman was. there was a man, a woman and some abnormalities. Biology is useful in explaining the abnormalities. There are probably some biological experiments going on that if we knew of them we would be appalled.

So if a biological woman, even with XX chromosomes, is unable to give birth, she isn't a woman? How about after a biological woman reaches menopause and can no longer give birth - does she cease being a woman?

Not a logical argument, simply argumentative.

Ok, so you acknowledge that a trans man who got bottom surgery and no longer has a vagina is now a man? You acknowledge that a trans woman who got bottom surgery and now has a vagina is now a woman?

Surgical operations do not produce a vagina or a penis. Removal of either does not change the biological sex of the organism. Again not a logical argument.

I guess you want old Bugs Bunny cartoons taken off the air, because he is dressing as a woman and that is forcing kids to be trans and sexualizing them. Oh wait, but the Right complained when a warning was added to old Looney Tunes because of overtly racist themes... insert two button meme here I suppose.

Even kids are not fooled by Bugs Bunny. Is Bugs teaching children how to act seriously? Do children mistake a cartoon image for reality? They soon learn that cartoons are not reality. They can't fly like Mighty Mouse. They can't fall off a cliff and peel themselves off the ground after. They learn that entertainment is not reality.

What about Santa? You allow a creepy man to dress in pretend and have children sit on his lap?

Anyone found to be a "creepy old man" is not allowed to play Santa. But you would endanger children because the creepy old man is just a pedophile and that is entirely ok with you. Calling him a creepy old man is the crime.

These so-called "guardians" like to police the restroom and claim they "just know" when a man is trying to enter the restroom. But time and time again they stop and harass biological women because they aren't "feminine" enough for them.

I would not be against a third option for bathrooms and locker rooms for people who want to identify as something other than the gender they are biologiclly. It would economically be burdensome but that would identify them which is not what I think they want. They want to be considered one of the two sexes. Not the one they are biologically - the one they feel like.

Should men go back to wearing makeup and wigs to get back to traditional social constructs?

Not a logical argument. Style and custom are social constructs that vary. Sex and race are not social constructs. Once again you confuse objective realities with subjective realities.

We cannot accommodate every subjective reality that exists that would be about 9 billion people.
The whole debate is about the accommodation of subjective realities. Let's face it some are just bizarre by thinking they can turn their subjective reality into an objective reality. People like Hitler, Stalin and Mao did that and 100s of millions died. That would be nice, wouldn't it. If we could just kill off all the conservatives and republicans in America. What a great place it would be!
Is that your objective?

You know what else isn't conductive to the propagation or sustainability of the species? Our current gun laws which let children be executed in school. Our current policies regarding welfare and wages and poverty, which have millions starving and dying. Our climate change policies, which prefer giving some corporate execs more money while the world falls apart around us.

Can you stay on a topic or do you have to bring every other issue into the argument.

Laws are objective realities that are deemed to be guides and best courses of action for individuals in a society. Sometimes they are wrong. Sometimes they are dated. They can and are often changed. Gun laws allow individuals to protect themselves, not just from other individuals but from governments. Some people don't follow laws meant to preserve the collective interest.
Because a society is a collective. Not everyone will be instantly happy. One can pursue happiness but not to the detriment of society or of other groups or individuals. There will always be those who are marginalized, those who disagree, those who abuse the laws and even those who think laws are to be followed to the letter without logical or reasonable application.
Biological laws are not perfectly followed in nature. There are anomalies. Men's laws are even less perfect. His societies are not perfect. If you can logically argue a point and get wide agreement there is a chance you can change a society.

So far I haven't found any of your arguments convincing. The chance of altering societies requires convincing and logical reasoning or direct force or a combination of both. Your reasoning is fallacious and I see in society today the use of force more than reason.
You can have your point of view and with that you should be content. You correctly decry the illicit use of force, i.e.shooting up schools, yet you facetiously use force politically, with no logic behind it to deconstruct current social norms. The arguments of the woke progressive left fail so political force is needed, which it shouldn't be, in order to get wide approval. A rational argument can be won. It may even take several generations to deconstruct the prevailing objective reality, but it can be done. It needs factual and logical reasoning to establish it. If it is established solely by force it has no sustainability. There is no factual basis to your argument though, as Galileo had or Harvey or Pasteur. So until there is some factual or even reasonable argument to change the entire western civilization I don't see you will ever succeed. It requires too great a force.

There is an attempt right now to use political force to fundamentally transform the global structure of civilization as it exists and centralize the engineering of it. Open your eyes and look beyond your individual interests. I was going to say "petty" interests but everybody's interests are important to them.
A wider vision is necessary to see how a political force is using and creating various crises and factions for their own nefarious purposes.

The fact you are continuing our discussion shows you have conviction to your cause, an honorable trait, wrong as that cause may be. I am not trying to be oppositional, I'm trying to reach an understanding. So far, no luck. I can't get past your attempt to target and destroy opposition. I could interpret it as "hatred" if I were indeed being oppositional but I understand you would say yours is a noble cause in search of equality, fairness and justice.

2

Unfortunately, being that I am a “Realist” there is ONLY ONE “Reality”.
I/We may not even know what it is right now … maybe not even in the future … but there is ONLY ONE.
The search for it is quite intriguing.

Then you'd be searching for truth.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:371265
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.