Bill Maher Goes Off On Neil deGrasse Tyson

[Mr. Friscus]

That wasn’t the controversy from the article was it?

It was the controversy from the discussion between Maher and Tyson. That’s what we’re talking about

 

[Mr. Friscus]

As per the article there is evidence that women’s biological make up supports extreme endurance activities better than a males. In some extreme endurance races we’ve seen women performing with similar results, sometimes worse and sometimes better.

Show me a world record where the female time is better than the male time.

There isn’t one.

So why the BS? Why can’t you just admit what is true?

 

[JoeB131]

If a person thinks they are something they are not, it is not bigoted of me to say they should not receive any special considerations that may be afforded to the subjects of their confusion.

Again, this sounds like your hangup and problem, not theirs.

So millions of people above the age of 17 go to PornHub and other porn sites to view naked people and yet they wouldn’t have any desire to see the real thing in a locker room setting with the only caveat being that they have to put on a dress? You are very, very naive.

Oh, quite the contrary, I think most straight guys would be too humiliated to try that.

And it's the illogical conclusion that many people have a concern with. Gender dysphoria should not equate to hormone therapy, GAC, and the absolute risks, irreversibility, and life time treatments that come with GAC. There is a lot of unknowns and the long term effects, we still don't fully understand. Can we start with the concept that the biological body we are born with should be the body we learn to love and try and get those that are 'dysphoric' to love?

By that logic, we should have started any chemotherapy because we didn't know at the time what the long term effects would possibly be. In fact, even today, 27% of those who get Chemotherapy die, and in some cases it hastened their deaths.

 

[JoeB131]

Nope. You are male or female. Science, try it.

Science recognizes that transgender brains are different than cisgendered brains, and there is benefit to GAC.

Your ideology began with a disgusting immoral pervert.

Not my ideology, and frankly, Dr. Kinsey (while wrong on many things) revolutionized how we see sex.

If you suffer from depression and it doesn’t go away with treatment, you don’t embrace the depression and say it’s a good thing and try to get more depressed. In a study of people who went through gender dysphoria without the indoctrination ended up just being confused gay people, and they went about their lives fine afterwards.

Except it's not really the same thing.

Nope. Our society has catered drastically to near worship of the trans condition and yet, they still suffer the same.

Plus, as this glorification happened and exposure to the condition increased, not all age groups identified at the same rate.

Before teachers stopped forcing kids, only 4% of the population was classified as "Left-handed". then they stopped doing that, and low and behold, Left-handedness rose to 12% of the population. Was it a "Fad", or did the numbers normalize when they stopped being suppressed.

Germany for instance, has 3% of the population that identifies as Trans, compared to 1% of the US. Are the Germans just being trendy, or are they just better on trans-rights than we are?

So, this is largely a social contagion and indoctrination of the youth. It’s the cool thing to do, the latest way boring teens can make themselves more interesting because they lack personality or interests of their own. It’s the “goth” movement but way worse and with irreversible effects.

So you think there are Trans-clubs in schools? Really?

 

[Mac-7]

Neil deGrasse Tyson illustrates what is wrong with the left.

They just aren't real. They've been brainwashed into believing something that just isn't rational, and you cannot get them to change their minds.

deGrasse is faking intelligence

 

[Slade3200]

I read the article, I saw nothing out of context with how Maher interpreted it at all, and you can't explain what you meant by it.

This was also in the article:

For ethnographic and archaeological evidence, we are attempting to reconstruct social roles, for which the terms "woman" and "man" are usually used. Unfortunately, both these word sets assume a binary, which does not exist biologically, psychologically or socially. Sex and gender both exist as a spectrum, but it is difficult to add that nuance when citing the work of others.

Tell us what other sex there is biologically that is not male or female?

This was written by two women who now insist that women were better hunters than men in hunter/gatherer societies because they are better at endurance due to their estrogen. The whole article is a bunch of bullshit.

1. Intersex Conditions: There are individuals who are born with variations in sex characteristics that do not fit typical definitions of male or female. These intersex conditions can involve differences in chromosomes, gonads, or hormone levels. For example, some individuals may have XXY chromosomes (Klinefelter syndrome) or other chromosomal variations that result in physical traits that are not strictly male or female.

2. Hormonal Influences: Hormones play a significant role in the development of secondary sexual characteristics, and variations in hormone levels can result in a variety of physical traits. Conditions such as androgen insensitivity syndrome can lead to individuals with XY chromosomes developing female characteristics.

3. Spectrum of Traits: Many scientists and researchers argue that biological sex exists on a spectrum rather than as a strict binary. This perspective considers the complexity of genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors that contribute to an individual's biological sex and related characteristics.

4. Cultural and Social Dimensions: It's also important to recognize that discussions about sex and gender are influenced by cultural, social, and personal factors. Gender identity and expression can differ from biological sex, and these aspects are increasingly recognized in discussions about sex and gender.

 

[LibertyKid]

Again, this sounds like your hangup and problem, not theirs.



Oh, quite the contrary, I think most straight guys would be too humiliated to try that.





By that logic, we should have started any chemotherapy because we didn't know at the time what the long term effects would possibly be. In fact, even today, 27% of those who get Chemotherapy die, and in some cases it hastened their deaths.

You're equating cancer, something that someone doesn't choose to get, a disease that WILL kill you, with Gender dysphoria and GAC, that someone chooses to do to a perfectly good, healthy and sexually functioning body. Seriously. You are an idiot.
And don't even try to throw out how GAC is 'saving lives'. If you read the CASS report that I have provided (even though you won't and you'll provide some illogical quip as to why you won't read it, even though the report is supportive of Trans)you'll read that the data isn't there or is skewed or is not fully representative or robust (i'm paraphrasing).

 

[LibertyKid]

Another article written by one of the authors:

What I have in red is 'wokism' taking precedence over science, pure and simple. And wtf does the 2nd bolded part mean?

To Understand Sex, We Need to Ask the Right Questions

Within academia, disagreements about sex recently came to a head when the American Anthropological Association (AAA), the world’s largest professional organization for anthropologists, and the Canadian Anthropology Society (CASCA) removed a panel discussion entitled “Let’s Talk about Sex Baby: Why Biological Sex Remains a Necessary Analytic Category in Anthropology” from their upcoming annual meeting. The panel was submitted for review and initially accepted in mid-July. It was then removed in late September, following concerns in the anthropological community that the panel conveyed antitransgender sentiment and decrepit ways of thinking about human variation.

Both among the general public and in academia, the core argument boils down to the question of how many sexes exist. The tricky thing is that the answer to this question differs depending on the context. One perfectly accurate response is: “To a first approximation, zero.” The vast majority of life-forms—including bacteria and archaea—do not reproduce sexually. But if the question concerned the number of animal sexes present in a given tide pool or backyard garden, the answer would need to account for organisms that switch sexes, sometimes mate with themselves or switch back and forth between sexual and asexual reproduction. When we ask, “How many sexes are there in humans?” we can confidently answer “two,” right? Many people think sex should be defined by a strict gamete binary in which a person’s sex is determined by whether their body produces or could produce eggs or sperm. But when you are out and about in the human social world, are you checking everyone’s gametes? And what of the substantial number of people who do not produce or carry gametes?

That entire article is a bunch of woke propaganda.

 

[LibertyKid]

1. Intersex Conditions: There are individuals who are born with variations in sex characteristics that do not fit typical definitions of male or female. These intersex conditions can involve differences in chromosomes, gonads, or hormone levels. For example, some individuals may have XXY chromosomes (Klinefelter syndrome) or other chromosomal variations that result in physical traits that are not strictly male or female.

1.7 % of the entire global population according to google AI (So take it for what it's worth). Hardly enough data to use for any substantial claim.

2. Hormonal Influences: Hormones play a significant role in the development of secondary sexual characteristics, and variations in hormone levels can result in a variety of physical traits. Conditions such as androgen insensitivity syndrome can lead to individuals with XY chromosomes developing female characteristics.

Hormonal imbalances do occur. Not sure what this is proving.

3. Spectrum of Traits: Many scientists and researchers argue that biological sex exists on a spectrum rather than as a strict binary. This perspective considers the complexity of genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors that contribute to an individual's biological sex and related characteristics.

If we are going down the road of biological and hormonal imbalances and dysfunctions, sure, those occurrences can cause hypo or hyper development causing normal traits to be under or over developed. However, in the end, we are born, male or female.

4. Cultural and Social Dimensions: It's also important to recognize that discussions about sex and gender are influenced by cultural, social, and personal factors. Gender identity and expression can differ from biological sex, and these aspects are increasingly recognized in discussions about sex and gender.

And this is the crux. Social expression is one thing that any man or woman can choose to do. However, it should NEVER cause science to say change, well, science. For a group of anthropologists to say "following concerns in the anthropological community that the panel conveyed antitransgender sentiment and decrepit ways of thinking about human variation." is absolutely absurd.

 

[OldFlame]

1. Intersex Conditions: There are individuals who are born with variations in sex characteristics that do not fit typical definitions of male or female. These intersex conditions can involve differences in chromosomes, gonads, or hormone levels. For example, some individuals may have XXY chromosomes (Klinefelter syndrome) or other chromosomal variations that result in physical traits that are not strictly male or female.

2. Hormonal Influences: Hormones play a significant role in the development of secondary sexual characteristics, and variations in hormone levels can result in a variety of physical traits. Conditions such as androgen insensitivity syndrome can lead to individuals with XY chromosomes developing female characteristics.

3. Spectrum of Traits: Many scientists and researchers argue that biological sex exists on a spectrum rather than as a strict binary. This perspective considers the complexity of genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors that contribute to an individual's biological sex and related characteristics.

4. Cultural and Social Dimensions: It's also important to recognize that discussions about sex and gender are influenced by cultural, social, and personal factors. Gender identity and expression can differ from biological sex, and these aspects are increasingly recognized in discussions about sex and gender.

At the bolded.

There are biologically 2 sexes, period.

And hence I have proven that Maher and the op is correct, and nothing was 'taken out of context'. Because now you're taking up the argument to side with the 'more than 2 biological sexes' side when you said we were just merely taking what was said out of context. It's called 'moving the goal posts'.

 

[JoeB131]

You're equating cancer, something that someone doesn't choose to get, a disease that WILL kill you, with Gender dysphoria and GAC, that someone chooses to do to a perfectly good, healthy and sexually functioning body. Seriously. You are an idiot.

Obviously, it isn't a "functioning" body if every morning, you feel alienated from it.

Your argument against GAC is that because sometimes it doesn't work, and sometimes doctors make mistakes like Chloe Brockman, we should deny GAC care to everyone or make it harder to get.

Fine. Since Chemo fails or makes things worse 27% of the time, let's get rid of Chemo.

See how that works.

Or, maybe, maybe we just let patients and doctors figure it out for themselves and not listen to bigots like Elon Musk and J.K. Rowlings.

And don't even try to throw out how GAC is 'saving lives'. If you read the CASS report that I have provided (even though you won't and you'll provide some illogical quip as to why you won't read it, even though the report is supportive of Trans)you'll read that the data isn't there or is skewed or is not fully representative or robust (i'm paraphrasing).

Nope, not reading any Transphobic reports from other countries.

I will listen to Columbia University..

Gender-affirming Care Saves Lives

Growing legislative attempts to limit, ban, or criminalize access to this critical model of medical care endangers the health and well-being of transgender and nonbinary youth.

www.columbiapsychiatry.org

or the University of Massachusetts.

Gender-affirming Care ‘Can Save Lives’ of Transgender Youth | UMass Amherst

New research co-authored by UMass economist Duc Hien Nguyen shows hormone therapy is associated with a 14.4% decrease in suicide risk if treatment is started between the ages of 14 and 17.

www.umass.edu

or the American Medical Association

What’s Wrong With Criminalizing Gender-Affirming Care of Transgender Adolescents?

This article canvasses states’ legal prohibitions and challenges to them and considers consequences for clinicians and patients.

journalofethics.ama-assn.org

The problem with Religious Fanatic is that if you ask them if they'd rather have a live daughter or a dead son, they'll pick a dead son.

 

[LibertyKid]

Obviously, it isn't a "functioning" body if every morning, you feel alienated from it.

Yes, the body does function correctly.

Your argument against GAC is that because sometimes it doesn't work, and sometimes doctors make mistakes like Chloe Brockman, we should deny GAC care to everyone or make it harder to get.

No, you're mischaracterizing my stance, by grossly oversimplifying the complications. which is illogical. I'd expect nothing less from you.

Fine. Since Chemo fails or makes things worse 27% of the time, let's get rid of Chemo.

Again, illogical. Cancer isn't a choice that someone wants to have.

See how that works.

Or, maybe, maybe we just let patients and doctors figure it out for themselves and not listen to bigots like Elon Musk and J.K. Rowlings.

Rowling isn't a bigot, Tool. She is the one that made Dumbledore gay. What she doesn't want to happen is that actual biological females are socially dismissed because a man wants to say he is a women, or that the idea that men can become pregnant is normalized, diminishing biological females.

Nope, not reading any Transphobic reports from other countries.

Of course not, which only displays your bigotry. But why not read something that is from a Trans Advocacy group? That's what SEGM is and Europe is very Pro LGBT.

I will listen to Columbia University..

Gender-affirming Care Saves Lives

Growing legislative attempts to limit, ban, or criminalize access to this critical model of medical care endangers the health and well-being of transgender and nonbinary youth.

www.columbiapsychiatry.org

or the University of Massachusetts.

Gender-affirming Care ‘Can Save Lives’ of Transgender Youth | UMass Amherst

New research co-authored by UMass economist Duc Hien Nguyen shows hormone therapy is associated with a 14.4% decrease in suicide risk if treatment is started between the ages of 14 and 17.

www.umass.edu

or the American Medical Association

What’s Wrong With Criminalizing Gender-Affirming Care of Transgender Adolescents?

This article canvasses states’ legal prohibitions and challenges to them and considers consequences for clinicians and patients.

journalofethics.ama-assn.org

If you won't read, then I won't. But guess what, the data is isn't there despite what the headlines say.

The problem with Religious Fanatic is that if you ask them if they'd rather have a live daughter or a dead son, they'll pick a dead son.

And you keep going there you dumb ******* ****. I am not a religious fanatic and I have no idea where you get this from. But keep trying gaslight.

 

[JoeB131]

No, you're mischaracterizing my stance, by grossly oversimplifying the complications. which is illogical. I'd expect nothing less from you.

I think your stance is clear. You'd ban GAC entirely if you could. Probably send the Gender Dysphoric to the booby-hatch.

Again, illogical. Cancer isn't a choice that someone wants to have.

Neither is Gender Dysphoria. You think people choose to be abused by bigots like you?

Rowling isn't a bigot, Tool. She is the one that made Dumbledore gay. What she doesn't want to happen is that actual biological females are socially dismissed because a man wants to say he is a women, or that the idea that men can become pregnant is normalized, diminishing biological females.

She said he was gay after she published the last book and the character was dead.

Look, any bigot can make her hate "seem" rational. But this idea that even the silliest thing said by trans-rights people somehow diminishes cisgendered women is kind of silly.

If you won't read, then I won't. But guess what, the data is isn't there despite what the headlines say.

Yeah, you might learn something. Oh, the Data is there in that GAC improves the quality of life and reduces suicidal ideation.

And you keep going there you dumb ******* ****. I am not a religious fanatic and I have no idea where you get this from. But keep trying gaslight.

I was talking about religious fanatics in the third person, but if the shoe fits...

 

[LibertyKid]

I think your stance is clear. You'd ban GAC entirely if you could. Probably send the Gender Dysphoric to the booby-hatch.

Nope, I haven't said that all. Tells me your comprehension skills are that of a 1st grader.

Neither is Gender Dysphoria. You think people choose to be abused by bigots like you?

But you don't get it, GAC is something they don't have to do. As for bigot, maybe you should look in the mirror as you are the very definition of it.

She said he was gay after she published the last book and the character was dead.

Okay. How does that change anything.

Look, any bigot can make her hate "seem" rational. But this idea that even the silliest thing said by trans-rights people somehow diminishes cisgendered women is kind of silly.

No, stop. Using 'hate' or 'phobic' has a become a tired trope, that you and you woke bigots latch onto to try and feel morally superior. And speaking of diminishing, anyone that has a counter argument to trans, you and the left feel it is diminishing. Do you not see the cyclical conversation?

Yeah, you might learn something. Oh, the Data is there in that GAC improves the quality of life and reduces suicidal ideation.

No, recent studies has stated that the data is sparse and skewed based on the source of the data.

I was talking about religious fanatics in the third person, but if the shoe fits...

No, don't try and shift. You are talking about me. Not the first time you have tried to label me as such. If not me, the statement is null and void then, so why even bring it up. God you're a narcissistic troll.

If you try and respond, I won't. I'm done with you and you're continual bigoted, left wing, racist, speculation, rhetoric, propaganda and rants. You're just a reverberating missed tuned gong that provides no harmonic or melodic value to any conversation. In fact, you're like the flutist in "Red Dragon", that's how you contribute to most conversations. Respond if you want, but you won't find me responding to you anymore.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Sure. I think most anything is worth of debate as long as you have two sides bringing facts and conversing in good faith

Climatology Is a Major for Those Who Flunked the Hard Sciences

Greenies are not conversing in good faith; their faith is an emotional superstition based on jealousy of creative scientists. Their facts are cherry-picked. Besides, like words or even letters, facts are meaningless; it's the way they're put together to come to a conclusion that is their only meaningful content.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Nope, I haven't said that all. Tells me your comprehension skills are that of a 1st grader.

But you don't get it, GAC is something they don't have to do. As for bigot, maybe you should look in the mirror as you are the very definition of it.

Okay. How does that change anything.

No, stop. Using 'hate' or 'phobic' has a become a tired trope, that you and you woke bigots latch onto to try and feel morally superior. And speaking of diminishing, anyone that has a counter argument to trans, you and the left feel it is diminishing. Do you not see the cyclical conversation?

No, recent studies has stated that the data is sparse and skewed based on the source of the data.

No, don't try and shift. You are talking about me. Not the first time you have tried to label me as such. If not me, the statement is null and void then, so why even bring it up. God you're a narcissistic troll.

If you try and respond, I won't. I'm done with you and you're continual bigoted, left wing, racist, speculation, rhetoric, propaganda and rants. You're just a reverberating missed tuned gong that provides no harmonic or melodic value to any conversation. In fact, you're like the flutist in "Red Dragon", that's how you contribute to most conversations. Respond if you want, but you won't find me responding to you anymore.

Harpoon Tang

When Joby Dick found out that the Left wanted to save the whales, he adopted their whole agenda.

He supported Kamala because every time she's around, people say, "Thar she blows!"

 

[JoeB131]

But you don't get it, GAC is something they don't have to do.

Neither do cancer patients. They can accept their fate and die. See how that works.

Okay. How does that change anything.

That she wasn't really taking any chances, was she? Now, if she made him a gay in the first book, you'd have accused J.K. of endorsing "Grooming". Instead, she retroactively made him gay after she wrote the last book in the Potter series.

No, stop. Using 'hate' or 'phobic' has a become a tired trope, that you and you woke bigots latch onto to try and feel morally superior. And speaking of diminishing, anyone that has a counter argument to trans, you and the left feel it is diminishing. Do you not see the cyclical conversation?

No, I am sure that some people like Maher who have no backbone for doing what is right will self-flagellete that 49.9% voted on the trans issue, when most of them were just upset about inflation.

No, recent studies has stated that the data is sparse and skewed based on the source of the data.

Recent studies by religious nuts?

No, don't try and shift. You are talking about me. Not the first time you have tried to label me as such. If not me, the statement is null and void then, so why even bring it up. God you're a narcissistic troll.

If it walks like a zealot and talks like a zealot, it's a zealot.

If you try and respond, I won't. I'm done with you and you're continual bigoted, left wing, racist, speculation, rhetoric, propaganda and rants. You're just a reverberating missed tuned gong that provides no harmonic or melodic value to any conversation. In fact, you're like the flutist in "Red Dragon", that's how you contribute to most conversations. Respond if you want, but you won't find me responding to you anymore.

Yes, I get it... I don't let you get away with your bullshit, "Kid".

 

[Mr. Friscus]

1. Intersex Conditions: There are individuals who are born with variations in sex characteristics that do not fit typical definitions of male or female. These intersex conditions can involve differences in chromosomes, gonads, or hormone levels. For example, some individuals may have XXY chromosomes (Klinefelter syndrome) or other chromosomal variations that result in physical traits that are not strictly male or female.

This has nothing to do with the topic. There is no third sex. There are genetic deformities, And they either have functioning male or functioning female genital systems… or, overall non-functional.

But, not a third sex. Just male or female with an unfortunate condition. You ought to be ashamed for trying to exploit them for such a radical ideological cause

 

[Mr. Friscus]

2. Hormonal Influences: Hormones play a significant role in the development of secondary sexual characteristics, and variations in hormone levels can result in a variety of physical traits. Conditions such as androgen insensitivity syndrome can lead to individuals with XY chromosomes developing female characteristics.

But still with XY chromosomes, and plenty of the massive number of traditional markers. Physical traits aren’t the underlying engine.. it’s the DNA.

Many scientists and researchers argue that biological sex exists on a spectrum rather than as a strict binary.

They would be crazy people. there are 2 sexes. No amount of mental gymnastics hidden in their hermit ivory college tower changes that. Every culture throughout time has known this. We just have a weird radical sect that is oddly gaining traction in the media/academic/Hollywood/DNC bottleneck, but it makes no sense, and is harming people.

We’ll look back on this and be shocked by how popular it got (Much like smoking, lobotomies, and giving children whiskey when they were sick)

You’re on the wrong side of history with your radical irrational non-scientific theories and mysticism

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Gender identity and expression can differ from biological sex

Nope, it can’t. That’s the discrepancy. “Gender” isn’t even really a thing, it was made up like 5 minutes ago.

Some scientific academic perverts in the 1950’s and 60’s suggested it, but they were clearly immoral, running experiments which had children have orgasms and ejaculate. And here you are, supporting their work.

and these aspects are increasingly recognized in discussions about sex and gender.

You are reducing being a “woman” to cosplaying in heels, dresses, higher voices, and makeup. It’s insulting to women, you ought to be ashamed.