Bud Light: Clinic on how NOT to handle things

[Curried Goats]

A biological male has physical advantages over a biological female that give him superiority in sports and make competition with women unfair.
A biological male cannot become pregnant.
A biological female cannot impregnate anyone.
A biological male cannot truly think he feels like a woman because he has never been one.

I could go on.

These aren't rational counter points, they're strawmen for arguments that don't actually exist.

The question isn't whether or not biological males have some physical advantages over biological females. They do. The question is whether trans athletes on testosterone or estrogen have any biological advantages or disadvantages because the advantages males do have aren't due to magic, they're due to the hormones that influence mass and muscle growth.

No one is arguing cismales can get pregnant but transwomen can and do.

Likewise transwomen can and do occasionally impregnate people.

Everyone's sense of self comes from their own biology and their brain. Your sense of self isn't any more valid than anyone else's. The professional medical and scientific community do recognize trans identities as legitimate identities and studies of the brains of trans people have shown a shift in their brain physiology towards the sex they identify as and away from the sex we would normally associate with their chromosomes.

 

[hadit]

These aren't rational counter points, they're strawmen for arguments that don't actually exist.

The question isn't whether or not biological males have some physical advantages over biological females. They do. The question is whether trans athletes on testosterone or estrogen have any biological advantages or disadvantages because the advantages males do have aren't due to magic, they're due to the hormones that influence mass and muscle growth.

The argument we see is that a man who claims to be a woman is a complete woman with no differences between him and someone who came out of the womb female and should be allowed to compete against those women. That is patently false and unfair to the actual women.

No one is arguing cismales can get pregnant but transwomen can and do.

You mean women pretending to be men. They're not actual men, they don't have testicles that produce sperm. In fact, cannot no matter how many hormones they take or surgeries they get. When someone says that men can get pregnant, they are making an emotional argument and not an objective one.

Likewise transwomen can and do occasionally impregnate people.

You mean men pretending to be women. They're not actual women, they don't have ovaries that produce eggs. In fact, cannot no matter how many hormones they take or surgeries they get. When someone says a woman can get someone pregnant, they are making an emotional argument and not an objective one.

Everyone's sense of self comes from their own biology and their brain. Your sense of self isn't any more valid than anyone else's. The professional medical and scientific community do recognize trans identities as legitimate identities and studies of the brains of trans people have shown a shift in their brain physiology towards the sex they identify as and away from the sex we would normally associate with their chromosomes.

We argue science. You know, that stuff y'all insisted we hate? You said we don't give objective arguments when in fact, we do. Objectively, a man has a different set of chromosomes from a woman and vice versa. Feelings are not objective, and that's what you are arguing. A "sense of self" is not a fixed, measurable, objective measure of anything. Kids go through multiple phases of self-awareness as they mature and should not be given hormones or surgeries to accommodate them until they are fully formed adults and can make an informed decision on how they want to identify themselves. No child can understand what it means to be sterilized for the rest of their lives, for one example.

That's really not very controversial. Tell you what, how can a man actually say he feels like a woman when he's never experienced what a real woman actually feels? At best he can say he wants to be a woman.

 

[Ralph Norton]

No one is arguing cismales can get pregnant but transwomen can and do.

Do tell.

 

[Curried Goats]

The argument we see is that a man who claims to be a woman is a complete woman with no differences between him and someone who came out of the womb female and should be allowed to compete against those women. That is patently false and unfair to the actual women.

That's a strawman. I haven't seen that argument anywhere and you haven't presented any objective evidence of it actually existing. The argument I did present you didn't have the courage to address. Here's what objective arguments and evidence looks like. This is study that showed trans female athletes still retained advantages over cis women two years (headline says one but the study actually showed it persisted for at least two) after starting on testosterone blockers and estrogen. At the same time trans men showed comparable results to cis men and after a couple years on average did a little better than cis men.

Trans women retain athletic edge after a year of hormone therapy, study finds

You mean women pretending to be men.

No. Pretending in this context is a pejorative. You have presented no objective evidence that trans people are pretending. You do remember objective arguments were the premise of your complaint don't you?

They're not actual men, they don't have testicles that produce sperm. In fact, cannot no matter how many hormones they take or surgeries they get. When someone says that men can get pregnant, they are making an emotional argument and not an objective one.

Maybe you're emotional which is why you can't address the actual argument that trans men can get pregnant and trans women can impregnate people.

Transgender men can get pregnant. Here's what they wish more people understood.

You mean men pretending to be women.

That's an objective statement when you provide objective evidence for it.

They're not actual women, they don't have ovaries that produce eggs. In fact, cannot no matter how many hormones they take or surgeries they get. When someone says a woman can get someone pregnant, they are making an emotional argument and not an objective one.

Are women who don't have ovaries and can't produce eggs not real women? You do understand that some ciswomen are born missing these parts of missing a womb and are still real women right? I don't think you know what a real woman is. I think you've mistaken subjective categories for objective facts.

We argue science. You know, that stuff y'all insisted we hate?

Where? Any asshole can make a claim, whether or not what you'ee arguing is objective science is confirmed with objective evidence, which you are sorely lacking in.

You said we don't give objective arguments when in fact, we do.

Prove it. Pun intended.

Objectively, a man has a different set of chromosomes from a woman and vice versa.

Caster Semenya has XY chromosomes. She was born with them. She was also identified as a female at birth because she was born with a vagina. Biology doesn't put labels on things, we do. We subjectively assign people with a certain set of characteristics into one category and people with another set of charactersticks in another category but all these categories are subjective. Is Semenya a male because of her chromosomes? Female because of her vagina? Are women with XX chromosomes and vaginas but infertile because they don't have wombs or functioning ovaries real women? These are subjective questions, not objective observations.

Feelings are not objective, and that's what you are arguing. A "sense of self" is not a fixed, measurable, objective measure of anything.

In some ways yes and in some ways no. Objectively your feelings and your identity are emergent properties of your brain and bodies chemical functions. You have feelings and a sense of self, these are objective statements, we can measure your brain activity with MRIs and we can see how it responds objectively to stimuli. Take attraction for instance. Put a few homosexual men in a room and show them pictures of a bunch of other men and you'll get subjective answers for which of them men they find attractive but hook their brains up to MRIs and we can objectively see when they attracted by how their brain reacts to the pictures.

Kids go through multiple phases of self-awareness as they mature and should not be given hormones or surgeries to accommodate them until they are fully formed adults and can make an informed decision on how they want to identify themselves.

I think that should be left up to people with the medical training and knowledge to make thise recommendations. Not people online without any objective arguments to date.

No child can understand what it means to be sterilized for the rest of their lives, for one example.

Says you. Professional opinions may vary.

Adolescent Brain Development and Medical Decision-making

That's really not very controversial. Tell you what, how can a man actually say he feels like a woman when he's never experienced what a real woman actually feels? At best he can say he wants to be a woman.

Do your feelings not come from your brain and chemistry? Is there somewhere else they come from? Studies show the brains of trans people shifted towards the sex they identify with. If your feelings and identity originate in your brain and the brain of trans people are shifted towards the sex they identify as how can you say they don't know what that feels like? Rationally, it seems like you're making the argument that feelings come from somewhere else if that's the case.

Brain Sex in Transgender Women Is Shifted towards Gender Identity

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Actually, scientific studies have shown that severely homophobic men are more likely to closeted gays.

Homophobic people have a higher chance of being gay, according to science

Today marks 50 years since the decriminalisation of homosexuality in England and Wales. On 27 July 1967 the Sexual Offences Act was changed and legalised sex in private between two men. Despite this being a huge milestone for the LGBT community we still have an enormous way to go when it comes...

www.indy100.com

It is funny how the faggots went to all the trouble to falsify this “study” to justify their fucked-up sexual perversions, by trying to project it on sane, normal people.

Is anyone actually fooled by this bullshit?

You have a deep, burning hatred for anyone who has any standards of basic decency, morality, or reason. By the logic employed here, does that mean that deep down, you have some desire to actually be a human being instead of the fucked-up sociopathic lunatic that you present yourself as being, and with it, a self-loathing over that meager spark of humanity that you keep hidden shamefully within yourself?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Wait, so now that's "fucked up"? Is it not "fucked up" when a democrat does it?

I guess, by JoeB131 logic, it's seriously fucked-up when a delusional lunatic falsely makes an accusation, but not when it actually happens.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You can't make a straight person gay, or a gay person straight.

Your fucked-up kind are sure openly putting a lot of effort into trying to do exactly what it is that you claim cannot be done.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Maybe you're emotional which is why you can't address the actual argument that trans men can get pregnant and trans women can impregnate people.

Transgender men can get pregnant. Here's what they wish more people understood.

Because they're not men at all. They are women. The ability to become pregnant and bear children is proof, that in spite of all the bizarre quasi-medical Frankensteinery that has been done to try to make them look like men, they are still women, and not, in any rational sense, men.

Childbearing is one of the defining biological characteristics that distinguish women from men. That's a hard, undeniable, immutable, scientific fact.

Your attempt to argue that they are men and not women, on the basis of a superficial, artificially mutilated appearance, is pure bullshit.

 

[Curried Goats]

Because they're not men at all. They are women. The ability to become pregnant and bear children is proof, that in spite of all the bizarre quasi-medical Frankensteinery that has been done to try to make them look like men, they are still women, and not, in any rational sense, men.

If you think that you can produce an objective definition of what a woman is then let's go. I'd love to see you try. Just don't bitch away from questions you don't have answers to. Admit it, like a man.

Childbearing is one of the defining biological characteristics that distinguish women from men. That's a hard, undeniable, immutable, scientific fact.

What about people who are infertile? Are they not real men or women?

Your attempt to argue that they are men and not women, on the basis of a superficial, artificially mutilated appearance, is pure bullshit.

My arguments show clearly how empty your augments are. It's why you all shy away from producing objective arguments.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

If you think that you can produce an objective definition of what a woman is then let's go.

No sane person has any problem doing so.

An adult human, who is biologically female. That is what a woman is. That is what every sane person understands a woman to be.

It is only mentally- and morally-fucked-up freaks such as yourself that find this the least bit confusing.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

My arguments show clearly how empty your augments are.

No, it only shows what a fucked-up lunatic you are.

 

[Curried Goats]

No sane person has any problem doing so.

An adult human, who is biologically female. That is what a woman is. That is what every sane person understands a woman to be.

It is only mentally- and morally-fucked-up freaks such as yourself that find this the least bit confusing.

Is that the best you can do?

Okay. What's a biological female?

 

[hadit]

That's a strawman. I haven't seen that argument anywhere and you haven't presented any objective evidence of it actually existing. The argument I did present you didn't have the courage to address. Here's what objective arguments and evidence looks like. This is study that showed trans female athletes still retained advantages over cis women two years (headline says one but the study actually showed it persisted for at least two) after starting on testosterone blockers and estrogen. At the same time trans men showed comparable results to cis men and after a couple years on average did a little better than cis men.

Trans women retain athletic edge after a year of hormone therapy, study finds

No. Pretending in this context is a pejorative. You have presented no objective evidence that trans people are pretending. You do remember objective arguments were the premise of your complaint don't you?

Maybe you're emotional which is why you can't address the actual argument that trans men can get pregnant and trans women can impregnate people.

Transgender men can get pregnant. Here's what they wish more people understood.
View attachment 790711


That's an objective statement when you provide objective evidence for it.

Are women who don't have ovaries and can't produce eggs not real women? You do understand that some ciswomen are born missing these parts of missing a womb and are still real women right? I don't think you know what a real woman is. I think you've mistaken subjective categories for objective facts.

Where? Any asshole can make a claim, whether or not what you'ee arguing is objective science is confirmed with objective evidence, which you are sorely lacking in.

Prove it. Pun intended.

Caster Semenya has XY chromosomes. She was born with them. She was also identified as a female at birth because she was born with a vagina. Biology doesn't put labels on things, we do. We subjectively assign people with a certain set of characteristics into one category and people with another set of charactersticks in another category but all these categories are subjective. Is Semenya a male because of her chromosomes? Female because of her vagina? Are women with XX chromosomes and vaginas but infertile because they don't have wombs or functioning ovaries real women? These are subjective questions, not objective observations.

In some ways yes and in some ways no. Objectively your feelings and your identity are emergent properties of your brain and bodies chemical functions. You have feelings and a sense of self, these are objective statements, we can measure your brain activity with MRIs and we can see how it responds objectively to stimuli. Take attraction for instance. Put a few homosexual men in a room and show them pictures of a bunch of other men and you'll get subjective answers for which of them men they find attractive but hook their brains up to MRIs and we can objectively see when they attracted by how their brain reacts to the pictures.

I think that should be left up to people with the medical training and knowledge to make thise recommendations. Not people online without any objective arguments to date.

Says you. Professional opinions may vary.

Adolescent Brain Development and Medical Decision-making

Do your feelings not come from your brain and chemistry? Is there somewhere else they come from? Studies show the brains of trans people shifted towards the sex they identify with. If your feelings and identity originate in your brain and the brain of trans people are shifted towards the sex they identify as how can you say they don't know what that feels like? Rationally, it seems like you're making the argument that feelings come from somewhere else if that's the case.

Brain Sex in Transgender Women Is Shifted towards Gender Identity

Objective reality, people (with very rare exceptions, which are considered extremely abnormal) have either XX chromosomes or XY chromosomes, and that cannot be changed. That is basic biology. The only way a person can "become" the opposite gender is through hormones and surgeries designed to make their body APPEAR to be either more masculine or feminine, but in no case do such treatments change the chromosomal makeup of the person. Again, basic biology. These are objective arguments. The fact that you have to qualify a person as cis or trans underlines that reality. If a person could truly become either male or female, there would be no need for such a qualifier, but there is, because there are still significant differences between male and female and it is impossible to truly switch from one to the other.

 

[Curried Goats]

Objective reality, people (with very rare exceptions, which are considered extremely abnormal) have either XX chromosomes or XY chromosomes, and that cannot be changed. That is basic biology. The only way a person can "become" the opposite gender is through hormones and surgeries designed to make their body APPEAR to be either more masculine or feminine, but in no case do such treatments change the chromosomal makeup of the person. Again, basic biology. These are objective arguments. The fact that you have to qualify a person as cis or trans underlines that reality. If a person could truly become either male or female, there would be no need for such a qualifier, but there is, because there are still significant differences between male and female and it is impossible to truly switch from one to the other.

1. Aren't trans people also the rare exception?

2. You started your argument with another strawman by saying, Objective reality, people (with very rare exceptions, which are considered extremely abnormal) have either XX chromosomes or XY chromosomes, and that cannot be changed. I never argued chromosomes could be changed. You're not doing great as far as objective arguments are concerned. Certainly, objective arguments don't rest on argumentative fallacies.

What I argued was that biological categories are subjective. Is someone with XY chromosomes and a vagina a male or female? Let's see if you can even begin to answer this question.

 

[hadit]

1. Aren't trans people also the rare exception?

2. You started your argument with another strawman by saying, Objective reality, people (with very rare exceptions, which are considered extremely abnormal) have either XX chromosomes or XY chromosomes, and that cannot be changed. I never argued chromosomes could be changed. You're not doing great as far as objective arguments are concerned. Certainly, objective arguments don't rest on argumentative fallacies.

What I argued was that biological categories are subjective. Is someone with XY chromosomes and a vagina a male or female? Let's see if you can even begin to answer this question.

That Y chromosome makes the person male, and now you're getting into the rare cases where something goes wrong in development, but you knew that before you asked the question, right?

We're not talking about those who have birth defects, malformed genitals or XXY chromosomes, we're talking about otherwise healthy people with normal appearing and functioning genitals who get the idea that they should make drastic changes to their bodies to appear more masculine or feminine.

 

[Curried Goats]

That Y chromosome makes the person male, and now you're getting into the rare cases where something goes wrong in development, but you knew that before you asked the question, right?

1. Caster Semenya has one X chromosome and one Y chromosome. There intersexed born with XXY chromosomes but she isn't one of them.

2. What do you mean by something went wrong in development? Wrong in this context is a subjective statement. There is no right or wrong way for nature to be. There is only how nature objectively is determined by objective observation.

We're not talking about those who have birth defects, malformed genitals or XXY chromosomes, we're talking about otherwise healthy people with normal appearing and functioning genitals who get the idea that they should make drastic changes to their bodies to appear more masculine or feminine.

We're talking the difference between objective and subjective arguments. Aren't we?

 

[hadit]

1. Caster Semenya has one X chromosome and one Y chromosome. There intersexed born with XXY chromosomes but she isn't one of them.

She has a rare genetic condition. Again, we're not talking about rare, genetic conditions, but rather otherwise healthy people who decide they need to make drastic, irreversible changes to their bodies to appear more masculine or feminine. My statement still stands.

2. What do you mean by something went wrong in development? Wrong in this context is a subjective statement. There is no right or wrong way for nature to be. There is only how nature objectively is determined by objective observation.

We're talking the difference between objective and subjective arguments. Aren't we?

The nature of a human being is that they all have two legs. If a person presents him/herself with only one leg, we rightly ask the question, what went wrong? Did a disease or accident remove one of the legs or was the person born with a disorder that caused only one leg to grow?

The nature of a woman is that she can bear children. If a woman presents herself unable to bear children, we rightly ask the question, what went wrong? Is she too young, too old, or has her capability been taken away by disease or injury? Now, we've added a new category. Can she not bear children because she never had the ability to do so because in reality she is a man who wants to be a woman who never had a uterus and never will?

Likewise, the nature of a man is that he can father children. If a man presents himself unable to impregnate a woman, we rightly ask the question, what went wrong? Is he too young, or has his capability been taken away by disease or injury? Now, we've added a new category. Can he not father children because he never had the ability to do so because in reality he is a woman who wants to be a man who never had testicles and never will?

 

[Curried Goats]

She has a rare genetic condition.

Rare in this context simply means not statistically common. Other things that aren't statistically common are red heads and left handed people. Also my question wasn't is her condition rare or not. I asked you what category you'd put her in. Male or Female?

Again, we're not talking about rare, genetic conditions, but rather otherwise healthy people who decide they need to make drastic, irreversible changes to their bodies to appear more masculine or feminine. My statement still stands.

What is unhealthy about the intersexed? As far as I know Caster Semenya is perfectly healthy.

The nature of a human being is that they all have two legs.

Nope. That's not an objective statement. It ignores people born without legs or conjoined twins that might be sharing a pair of legs between the two of them. Objective arguments don't leave out data that is inconvenient to it.

If a person presents him/herself with only one leg, we rightly ask the question, what went wrong?

Which would be a metaphor, not an objective statement. Again, right and wrong in this instance are subjective determinations. In what way would the observation of a legless man be objectively wrong? The only objective question is is he legless or not. We could maybe try to figure out what about his biology resulted in the development of stumps rather than legs but saying his body is wrong for developing that way is clearly an emotional, subjective statement.

Did a disease or accident remove one of the legs or was the person born with a disorder that caused only one leg to grow?

Those are objective questions. They don't have anything to do with right or wrong.

The nature of a woman is that she can bear children.

Does this make infertile women unnatural women?

If a woman presents herself unable to bear children, we rightly ask the question, what went wrong? Is she too young, too old, or has her capability been taken away by disease or injury? Now, we've added a new category. Can she not bear children because she never had the ability to do so because in reality she is a man who wants to be a woman who never had a uterus and never will?

That sounds like emotional frustration not an objective argument.

Likewise, the nature of a man is that he can father children. If a man presents himself unable to impregnate a woman, we rightly ask the question, what went wrong? Is he too young, or has his capability been taken away by disease or injury? Now, we've added a new category. Can he not father children because he never had the ability to do so because in reality he is a woman who wants to be a man who never had testicles and never will?

Categories are inherently subjective since how we determine what to include in them is inherently subjective.

 

[JoeB131]

But you can make a non smoker smoke? That’s why we banned tobacco companies influence by advertising, right.

Well, they did a lot more than that...

Those advertisements were specifically aimed at kids, whether it be Fred Flintstone hawking Winstons or Joe Camel being a cute cartoon character.

Not quite the same as telling a kid who thinks they might be gay that there's nothing wrong with that.

Joe’s whole argument is based on a redefinition of “bigotry”.

Joe will point out, and rightfully so, that the denial of the right to marry interracially was bigoted. That bigotry was because of immutable characteristics of the couple. One cannot help that they were born with different colors than the one they wish to marry. It is demonstrably so. So that bigotry was wrong.

Bigotry is just that, hatred based on how you look.

Joe tries to change the meaning to include, bigotry based on actions or character. Which is not the meaning of the word at all.

Racism is wrong.
Homophobia is wrong.

This isn't complicated....

The thing is, those who used to preach against inter-racial marriages used the exact same arguments that the homophobes use today.

It's against' God's Will. Its against Nature.

Same shit, different assholes.

If you do something that is offensive, it is not bigoted to believe the other is an idiot and to make such a statement.

 

[JoeB131]

It is funny how the faggots went to all the trouble to falsify this “study” to justify their fucked-up sexual perversions, by trying to project it on sane, normal people.

Is anyone actually fooled by this bullshit?

Oh, really?
Then how come it is that whenever you scream about gays, it's almost always about gay men?

I never hear you go on about the Lesbians...

You have a deep, burning hatred for anyone who has any standards of basic decency, morality, or reason. By the logic employed here, does that mean that deep down, you have some desire to actually be a human being instead of the fucked-up sociopathic lunatic that you present yourself as being, and with it, a self-loathing over that meager spark of humanity that you keep hidden shamefully within yourself?

Not at all. Religion isn't morality, it's fear.
Since I know there is nothing beyond this life, that I am not going out raping, murdering or stealing is not because I fear an imaginary sky pixie, but because those things are wrong on the harm cased to other people.

It's called "Secular Humanism", and it's a superior form of morality.

On the other hand, you've expressed the desire to murder police officers and public officials enforcing laws you don't like, or women who practice forms of birth control you don't approve of... that's a sociopathic lunatic if I ever met one.