6th Circuit Reaches Conclusion on ‘Preferred Pronouns'

Lol @ the left claiming to be the party of science while pretending simple biology and girls are boys and boys are girls

 

I'm in a Phd program right now so... I do support science?

lol @ the 'right' who don't understand simple biology because trans people exist and it makes their head go hurty.

 

Here is the problem. You desire to set your political positions based on emotions rather than logic. It used to be, this ridiculous way of thinking would have the left supporting the homeless by enabling their poor decisions. We called them bleeding hearts.

Now, the left has advanced to denying biology and accepting other people's feelings of what they FEEL they are, rather than what they really are.

If this isn't ridiculous enough, these same people now want to COMPELE you through force to go along with their feelings and emotions, your own rights and freedoms be damned.

And this. This right here. Is the primary example of the failure and danger of progressive liberalism.

 

My post from earlier today:

That's a pretty serious logic oriented argument right there, thought to be fair I do support using emotions as a source of knowledge and wisdom. Reason is only one source of information, why not expand it to include other knowledge as well?

 

My answer is at :14

I'll take this as serious as you want it to be.

 

Your in a PhD program but don't understand the scientific process? Yeah right..

Just because trans people exist does not change simple biology.. that's the point

 

Uh... what? Trans people existing actually does change your simple biology. It's called new data that directly contrasts with your world view. Since other scientists have ruled it isn't a mental disorder, then we have to conclude there is something more complicated going on.

 

No it's not, because it's not testable and repeatable.. you can test my DNA and categorize me as human based on my DNA and every other human that has been tested. I can say I'm a dog but I'm still a human.. that's how science works.. just because you can find other people to say they are also dogs.. that does not hold up to observation and testing.

 

Don't worry, I knew you wouldn't answer the question that makes your perspective as ridiculous as it does.

Female transgender with chromosomal abnormalities: 11/481 = 2.3% of all transgendered

Males - 4/286 = 1.4%


Why are you trying to defend your ridiculous perspectives based on 2.3% and 1.4% factors and ignoring 97.7% and 98.6% of cases where transgendered people DONT have chromosomal abnormalities?

And these 2.3% and 1.4% of an EXTREMELY small subsection of our culture justifies forcing others to call people by their preferred pronouns and mandating it?

This is why most people look at the progressive perspectives and agendas and roll their eyes.

 

In more than 97% of all those that identify as transgender... it's absolutely a mental illness and contrary to biology.

 

The first step for science is observation. To observe you need an actualized concept of what it is you are observing. You see a flower blooming. How do you know that's a flower? What traits does it have that prove it's a flower and not something else? And how do you know those traits belong to the concept of 'flower'? I'm saying that your entire problem is that you haven't done a good job clarifying your concepts. You have a case of circular logic that you can't argue out of. Prove to me that a human isn't a dog without running into circular logic. Prove to me what a male is without running into circular logic. What proof are you going to use?

 

Why would I take your strawman seriously... when it's a strawman?

In less than 3% of what? Finish your sentence please.

 

Facts are a strawman? Lol. Quick Krane, bail on your argument!

Taken together, these studies indicate an overall rate of chromosomal abnormalities in 4/286 trans males (1.4%) and 11/481 trans females (2.3%), both of which are higher than the reported 0.5% prevalence of abnormalities within the general population using conventional karyotyping techniques.

https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1...ion using conventional karyotyping techniques.


It is absolutely 100% true that in 97% of all transgendered cases, natural abnormalities do NOT exist and these people are simply denying biology and science based on FEELINGS.

Further, you're trying to make the argument that because less than 3% of one group have a condition, the other 97% get to have feelings that support their denial of science when they have no such condition.

That's ridiculous.

 

So your only argument is to deny the whole scientific process? Lol

 

No

Just The Bought And Paid For Science​

Drug studies
Environmental Impact reports
etc.


Gimmie that ole fashioned
SCIENCE
Free thinking from finances.


Science.
Who got Science today without $ $ $


Please tell me

Moi

Remember
required an to
discover, isolate "insulin".
​

 

No it’s for you to crawl your way out of the logical problem that I posed. You can’t even start doing science if you can’t solve this problem. This is basic philosophy of the sciences.This is not a hard problem to solve. I’ve already solved it a long time ago. Now it’s your turn.

 

They’ve been good lately. They recently protected Ohio and its law saying one can’t engage in eugenics and abort a baby because he or she was diagnosed with Downs Syndrome. The court was right on regarding both cases.

 

I agreed with your post until the underlined (though Galileo in fact proved the earth rotates around the sun - deemed heretical by the Church at the time); inequality has many causes, suppression of free speech being the least of them.

 

I would be astounded if the SC would here it. It should never have been adjudicated in the first place. Who would want to work for an organization that tells you how speak?

 

That you say that its the "least" of them shows that, at least to you, it still leads to inequality, at least a little bit.

In point of fact though its lead to a lot of inequality. Galileo is actually the least of the examples that I could have given. Its just a more well known one, which is why I used it. Much of history is replete with examples though. Another example, again regarding the church (they did a lot of suppression) used to train serfs to write letters but would not teach them what those letters or words said and make them copy books. Why do you think that they did that? It was about control. They didn't want lowly serfs knowing what was said in the bible. They wanted them to have to depend upon the church for what it said. To come into churches and tithe, and many other reasons.

Reading is integral to learning. Learning allows new ideas and with that more convincing ways of communicating. And the cycle repeats. Writing has been around for thousands of years. Yet until the last few hundreds of years only a small portion of the population was able to read or write. And for those thousands of years all we humans ever used to travel was by horse. Advancement in technology was moving at a snails pace at best. Even today there are areas of the world were millions of people don't know how to read. Most of them living in third world countries. Example: Niger in Africa is at 15% literacy. It is also one of the most oppressed countries.

Now, I'm not tying reading into all of it. It was just an example. Another example for more modern days is North Korea. A place far more oppressed than even Niger...and NK has a 100% literacy rate. However what is said is HIGHLY regulated. So much so that they fully believe that most American's are blonde haired with big crooked noses and love to chop up children for fun and entertainment. (No lie or even exaggeration, I've listened to North Koreans that have escaped from NK)

 

Its not a hard problem to solve because there is no circular logic to deal with. You having a hard time wrapping your mind around the scientific process is not an argument. Its just showing you don't understand it.

 

Then explain the logic to get out of it. You can’t can you? I think your grandstanding is covering up for the fact you don’t know how to get out of this.

 

get out of what? to prove that a human is not a dog? are you serious with that? lol Thats your huge "GOTCHA" that you think I cant argue out of? really? or did I miss something that you asked?

 

The science is settled liberals. Your feelings don’t change that

 

You can't define a variable if you can't get out of this problem. It's the most basic problem of all sciences, how do you know the variable you're measuring is what you're measuring? The dog and human is a simple exercise to prep you for the bigger problem. If you can't weasel your way out of that, don't be surprised when I call you out on that.