|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On October 24 2024 03:29 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 02:21 WombaT wrote:On October 24 2024 01:25 Introvert wrote:On October 24 2024 01:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 24 2024 00:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2024 00:17 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 14:46 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 23 2024 13:11 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 10:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 23 2024 10:08 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
Oh great so we agree they shouldnt be allowed to wear these giant fake bazookas. So I guess my criticism of the school board that allowed this is totally valid and not just an “attack on trans people.” We just needed it to come through Mohdoo’s keyboard.
Maybe if you had posted an article or the full context like we had asked you, or communicated things more clearly, or avoided bringing this up right as you were providing cover for that other poster's anti-trans rhetoric, we would have eventually agreed with you. I think that if there was consensus here you would have gladly argued the case that there’s nothing wrong with Kayla wearing giant prosthetic tits to school if that’s how they chose to identify. Mohdoo’s point was the same as mine: it doesn’t matter if they are trans or a troll, the prosthetic boobs are inappropriate either way. He didn’t offer anything materially different. You already had access to the nypost article when you were questioning me about what exactly I found inappropriate about what that person was wearing. I think Mohdoo just offered another dissent that you couldn’t dismiss as a right-wing bigot so your position came crumbling down like a house of cards. Just to recenter ourselves, let's run the discussion back: On October 22 2024 12:05 BlackJack wrote:
As dogmeat said, they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits. This prompted Manifesto to respond, and you to respond to Manifesto with On October 23 2024 02:15 BlackJack wrote:
I don't know what the media machine is, but I would argue that since it would be considered inappropriate any other time in history for a man to show up to teach kids with Size Z prosthetic tits, and now we have a school board that was willing to defend it then they are the ones that are ideologically captured by some kind of machine. Later, in response to DPB, you add On October 23 2024 02:36 BlackJack wrote:To be clear, your ideology dictates that you accept that teacher as a woman simply for saying he is a woman. The wig and prosthetic breasts aren't even a necessary component of my post. Eventually, RenSC2 posts an actual source for the story you're referencing Your ending statement is this: On October 23 2024 13:11 BlackJack wrote:
I think that if there was consensus here you would have gladly argued the case that there’s nothing wrong with Kayla wearing giant prosthetic tits to school if that’s how they chose to identify.
Mohdoo’s point was the same as mine: it doesn’t matter if they are trans or a troll, the prosthetic boobs are inappropriate either way. He didn’t offer anything materially different. You already had access to the nypost article when you were questioning me about what exactly I found inappropriate about what that person was wearing. I think Mohdoo just offered another dissent that you couldn’t dismiss as a right-wing bigot so your position came crumbling down like a house of cards. Where I take issue is specifically with the start being different than the end. You're being critical of the school board, and imo that makes sense. People have a right to identify how they want to identify, to a point. In this particular case, it was a man identifying as a woman with a medical condition. Identifying as a woman? Fine. Identifying as having a medical condition she doesn't actually have? Questionable. The school board accepting the 'identifying as having a medical condition' and allowing size Z prosthetic breasts is the issue. You opened with "they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits." and are trying to end with "it doesn’t matter if they are trans or a troll, the prosthetic boobs are inappropriate either way.". You literally state "...believing a man is a woman because..." and later try walk it back to being about the tits. You also stated "The wig and prosthetic breasts aren't even a necessary component of my post", but are now trying to claim the prosthetic breasts ARE the necessary part and are inappropriate either way. You can't be critical of the school board and claim they're delusional for believing a man is a woman, and then say it has nothing to do with gender it's about the tits. Also, let's not forget that our source is an american conservative tabloid's article about an extreme edge case happening in a different country. That's not a terribly robust footing to make any kind of substantial point from. My take has always been, for example, transgender men are not the same as biological men but I will happily identify them as such and used their preferred name and pronouns because that's the kind and courteous thing to do. The woke take is "a transgender man is literally the same as a biological man and if you disagree you're committing violence against trans people." Honestly I have little interest in a debate of whether a man can be a woman or vice versa. It's inevitably going to turn in a semantic debate where I insist that a man is a biological male and everyone else insists a man is "anyone that claims to be a man." I would much rather have a discussion on what happens when woke ideology is applied in the real world, such as the case with the school board defending the teacher with the giant prosthetic breasts. Can you please define "a biological male"? I'm not sure what that means, insofar as which criteria you believe are necessary for a person to be considered biologically male. In my experience this normally refers to chromosomes, and trans people to my knowledge overwhelmingly have the chromosome pattern matching their 'biological' sex. Genitalia can be altered but chromosomes cannot. And yeah a very small group of people are something else than xx or xy but those people aren't necessarily related to trans people in any way. Biologically it's gametes. We have either sperm or eggs, there is no third type (it's "binary"). In many animals chromosomes can determine the sex but they don't define it. Famously, in alligators incubation temperature determines sex. Edit: so chromosomes are a useful shorthand but edge cases don't make the whole exercise arbitrary. I’m unsure what the term is, it does exist. Where it’s by population de facto binary, but isn’t quite strictly binary. There are at least some outliers More broadly, I personally agree with the Blackest of Jacks post up the thread. On the other hand I don’t think some of his framing or rhetoric isn’t exactly denotative of great respect to that community Was actually having this exact conversation with my partner last night, possibly too many drinks were had in belated birthday celebration but I was bemoaning why folks just can’t go with what I was calling the ‘trans Copenhagen Interpretation’. Ya got your brain’s conception of gender, you’ve got your other physical biology and they’re not always going to be in alignment. Obviously some people do make those distinctions, it’s not some unique idea but it doesn’t always permeate into the discourse. You got a ‘female brain’ while being born in a male shell? So fuck? It’s fine why worry about it? Outside of some very edge niche circumstances where maybe there are issues. Woman’s sport is one, for example. This absolutely goes in both directions for me for the record. I find much of the right’s approach to these issues as hysterical, hyperbolic and frankly morally repugnant. But the left can be fucking idiots on it as well. 'Trans women are women' isn't some axiom that always stands up to all scrutiny whenever it's invoked. For example. It precludes actual discussion, understanding and sensible policy, be it a more informal cultural convention level or at an actual legislative one For example I mean, I’ll absolutely respect their current identity, but if you’re a trans man you likely have extremely different formative experiences than I have as a cis male. Even if you transitioned relatively early, I’ve had a decade+ of my formative years being a dude, and subject to the various cultural expectations and interactions that that brings. I’ve had pretty angry pushback on this, IMO pretty reasonable observation. I’d go as far as to say, correct observation. Just one example To my mind the only reason trans people exist is because of genderised cultural and social expectations. Or if not the only reason, a huge reason. But if you point out your formative years were very different, in the main, for that reason some may call you transphobic It can become very incoherent, very quickly and indeed I think can be actively harmful to the trans community itself IMO. Enough bad, vitriolic pushback on earnest discussion is one way to lose allies Gender is a topic I really find fascinating, I’ve put a lot of time into it over the moons. Outside of like, StarCraft, alcohol, the flaws of capitalism and computer science it’s right up there with things that fascinate me. I think it’s also the only topic I ever engage with where I have zero issues on various forums or subreddits, unless I reveal I’m actually a cis bloke Hm, post went a bit more rambly than I’d have liked, very unlike me I hate to write a short post in repsonse but I didn't intend to get into the larger discussion taking place, I mostly wanted to clarify. Sex is, in humans, determined all or almost entirely by chromosomes (hedging because I'm not super well studied here), but it IS binary. There are only two gamate types, and even so far as I'm aware we know of no human who has ever produced both. I do agree with BlackJack that hard-to-classify anomalies don't (and wouldn't) disprove the rule. There's probably a good reason what we now call "gender expression" so closely tracks biological sex, often probably evolutionary reasons. On the one hand looking at this way is entirely unhelpful, since some people are de-linking sex entirely from gender. But given human history and the overwhelming overlap seen today I would say the burden on those making that argument, rather than calling someone a bigot and walking away. Imo the human body is a complicated and interlinked organism, I don't see how it's possible to escape. On this topic, there was a story in the NYT about how the authors of a study showing puberty blockers had no helpful effects suppressed their own study due to politics. This whole topic I hesitate to say is a proxy fight over other things, not about what's best for people suffering from dysphoria.
There are some documented cases of this rare condition (often called "true hermaphroditism"), where both gametes - reproductive cells as either sperm or ova - actually are present and even create both kinds of tissue (testicular tissue and ovarian tissue) within the same person:
+ Show Spoiler +"True hermaphroditism is a disorder of gonadal differentiation characterized by the presence in the same individual of both testicular and ovarian tissue. This condition is rare and usually difficult to diagnose, so only 25% of male hermaphrodites are diagnosed before age 20. [672] Failure to recognize this disorder may lead to surgical intervention for hernia repair or orchidopexy. Most hermaphrodites raised as males display symptoms for the first time at puberty because of breast development [673] (95% of hermaphrodites have some degree of gynecomastia), periodic hematuria [674] (if they have a uterus ending in the urinary tract), or cryptorchidism. [675] Hermaphrodites raised as females initially present with irregular menstruation or clitoromegaly." (p.655) "The most frequent karyotype is 46XX (60%), followed by several mosaicisms (33%) which, in decreasing order of frequency, are 46XX/46XY, 46XY/47XXY, 45X0/46XY, 46XX/47XXY. The 46XY karyotype is the least common (7%). There is variation in the incidence of some karyotypes around the world. Mosaicism is found in 40.5% of European cases, but in only 21% of North America cases. Conversely, most African true hermaphrodites (97%) have 46XX karyotype. The karyotype 46XY is rare and its frequency is similar in Europe, Asia, and North America. [678],[679]" (p.656) Source as a PDF link: https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/281110/3-s2.0-B9780323019705X50015/3-s2.0-B9780323019705500142/main.pdf?X-Amz-Security-Token=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&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20241023T184008Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAQ3PHCVTYXYWHMA5C/20241023/us-east-1/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=9ec514a77a9d93dc26057fa26a3a3d7851e06c9e5f940cbe3860c7c069c1f5ea&hash=9c2438d8135fe86dd14ccb720b20a9018ac73cb714febd07bf697dc91ea463b8&host=68042c943591013ac2b2430a89b270f6af2c76d8dfd086a07176afe7c76c2c61&pii=B9780323019705500142&tid=spdf-5b0fcdc1-af13-414a-a91a-a0fca649b839&sid=f6034a4c5fd50243c07a4db37315bca076cegxrqa&type=client&tsoh=d3d3LnNjaWVuY2VkaXJlY3QuY29t&ua=13115f02585404055d57&rr=8d73da91bbd243b6&cc=us
I know you're not stating that such people can't exist (you just noted that you weren't aware of any, and I thought it might help to drop a resource that talks about some cases and their characteristics). I'm not posting this in an attempt to change your mind about anything, but just to add more context 
|
On October 24 2024 03:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 03:12 Acrofales wrote:On October 24 2024 03:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2024 02:56 BlackJack wrote:On October 24 2024 02:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2024 02:19 BlackJack wrote:On October 24 2024 01:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2024 01:36 BlackJack wrote:On October 24 2024 00:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2024 00:17 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
My take has always been, for example, transgender men are not the same as biological men but I will happily identify them as such and used their preferred name and pronouns because that's the kind and courteous thing to do.
The woke take is "a transgender man is literally the same as a biological man and if you disagree you're committing violence against trans people."
Honestly I have little interest in a debate of whether a man can be a woman or vice versa. It's inevitably going to turn in a semantic debate where I insist that a man is a biological male and everyone else insists a man is "anyone that claims to be a man." I would much rather have a discussion on what happens when woke ideology is applied in the real world, such as the case with the school board defending the teacher with the giant prosthetic breasts. Can you please define "a biological male"? I'm not sure what that means, insofar as which criteria you believe are necessary for a person to be considered biologically male. I’m happy with Introverts definition Okay thanks Would you agree that sex is bimodal, based on chromosomes and gametes (most people have either XX or XY; most people produce either sperm or eggs; there are rare exceptions where an individual falls into neither category, so it's not "binary" but it's actually "bimodal", because XX and XY are much more common than any third/other options, and being able to produce sperm or eggs are much more common than any third/other options, but there do exist third/other options such as XYY or an inability to produce any sperm/eggs at all)? Having a genetic anomaly that causes someone to be born in a way that doesn’t fit neatly into the binary of sexes doesn’t negate the binary of sexes any more than someone being born with no legs negates that humans are bipedal. I never see anyone arguing that there must be some 2nd/“other option” of humans that have a different amount of legs than the rest of us. Honestly it sounds dehumanizing to refer to intersex people as a “3rd option” of human just so you can try to win the argument that there’s not a binary of sexes. A person without two legs is obviously not bipedal (yet they are still a human), but let's stay on topic.. I didn’t say that person was bipedal. I said humans are bipedal. I said the existence of a person with no legs does not disprove that humans are bipedal any more than an intersex person disproves the binary of sexes. My point about bipedal people is not off-topic if you understood how it relates to the conversation. You’re just choosing to ignore it because it’s not convenient for you to have to explain why you want to invent more sexes to account for genetic anomalies but you don’t want to create more classifications for people born with other types of genetic anomalies. I'm being unbelievably patient with you. Please stay on topic. He stayed on-topic, answered your question quite exhaustively. He agreed with a pretty satisfactory definition of sex, and I think you'll just have to agree to disagree on the idea that sex does not determine a person's gender. This isn't the first time this argument has come up, and it won't be the last. If you don't really have much more to add, you can just bow out, BJ will still be transphobic the next time he brings the topic up. We didn't talk about whether or not sex determines gender, and I suspect that if we eventually got to gender, he would change the subject to arms instead of legs, or something else that distracts from the actual topic. I asked for additional clarification because now he's willing to acknowledge intersex people, yet he still apparently maintains that everyone's sex can be described in one of two ways - man or woman (XY or XX, producing sperm or producing egg). He can't have it both ways. A binary necessarily has two options, and not a third option. If we're writing code in binary, there are only 0s and 1s, but BlackJack apparently thinks that it's still binary if a 2 appears every once in a while, as long as most of the numbers are 0s and 1s. But that's no longer binary; that's bimodal. I don't even think his position loses any ground by agreeing that sex is technically bimodal instead of binary. I'm not attempting to trap him, yet he's still super defensive and changes the subject immediately. He's just unwilling to engage in good faith about sex classification, and that's fine, but then he wonders why everyone somehow misunderstands him or ridicules him. I'm happy to leave it alone for now, but holy crap did he fail at an exercise in basic conversation.
I don't think this is a good angle. He's right that the difference between "binary" and "bimodal" is the same as the difference between "bipedal" and "an average of 1.99 legs" His point is that your insistence that he drops "binary" in favor of "bimodal" is not done out of concern for technical precision but due to current affairs.
As in, if you were to describe human biology in detail to an alien or a classroom, it wouldn't have crossed your mind to mention that on average a human has 1.99 legs, you'd just say they have 2. But despite biological sex having the same or a lower deviation, it might have crossed your mind to mention that there's more than two human sexes, because it's culturally topical subject at the moment while mono-legged people are currently culturally irrelevant.
He's fine with combining "he" and "transgendered he" into simply "he" out of courtesy but he's not fine with combining "man" and "transgendered man" into just "man". He seems to think the latter is different, that the courtesy in that case would cost some kind of betrayal of objective reality. That's the part you should have explored, why he finds it important that "man" be reserved for biological sex rather than gender.
Anyway, the fact that he had to use "male" and "biological" a bunch of times to avoid being misunderstood shows that "man" is no longer enough when you want to strictly refer to biology, he's clinging to a losing battle. In language prescription is shaped by usage and "transgendered man" is too cumbersome for day-to-day life. The scenarios in which the distinction is relevant will get the more cumbersome terms.
|
On October 24 2024 03:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 03:29 Introvert wrote:On October 24 2024 02:21 WombaT wrote:On October 24 2024 01:25 Introvert wrote:On October 24 2024 01:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 24 2024 00:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2024 00:17 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 14:46 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 23 2024 13:11 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 10:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Maybe if you had posted an article or the full context like we had asked you, or communicated things more clearly, or avoided bringing this up right as you were providing cover for that other poster's anti-trans rhetoric, we would have eventually agreed with you. I think that if there was consensus here you would have gladly argued the case that there’s nothing wrong with Kayla wearing giant prosthetic tits to school if that’s how they chose to identify. Mohdoo’s point was the same as mine: it doesn’t matter if they are trans or a troll, the prosthetic boobs are inappropriate either way. He didn’t offer anything materially different. You already had access to the nypost article when you were questioning me about what exactly I found inappropriate about what that person was wearing. I think Mohdoo just offered another dissent that you couldn’t dismiss as a right-wing bigot so your position came crumbling down like a house of cards. Just to recenter ourselves, let's run the discussion back: On October 22 2024 12:05 BlackJack wrote:
As dogmeat said, they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits. This prompted Manifesto to respond, and you to respond to Manifesto with On October 23 2024 02:15 BlackJack wrote:
I don't know what the media machine is, but I would argue that since it would be considered inappropriate any other time in history for a man to show up to teach kids with Size Z prosthetic tits, and now we have a school board that was willing to defend it then they are the ones that are ideologically captured by some kind of machine. Later, in response to DPB, you add On October 23 2024 02:36 BlackJack wrote:To be clear, your ideology dictates that you accept that teacher as a woman simply for saying he is a woman. The wig and prosthetic breasts aren't even a necessary component of my post. Eventually, RenSC2 posts an actual source for the story you're referencing Your ending statement is this: On October 23 2024 13:11 BlackJack wrote:
I think that if there was consensus here you would have gladly argued the case that there’s nothing wrong with Kayla wearing giant prosthetic tits to school if that’s how they chose to identify.
Mohdoo’s point was the same as mine: it doesn’t matter if they are trans or a troll, the prosthetic boobs are inappropriate either way. He didn’t offer anything materially different. You already had access to the nypost article when you were questioning me about what exactly I found inappropriate about what that person was wearing. I think Mohdoo just offered another dissent that you couldn’t dismiss as a right-wing bigot so your position came crumbling down like a house of cards. Where I take issue is specifically with the start being different than the end. You're being critical of the school board, and imo that makes sense. People have a right to identify how they want to identify, to a point. In this particular case, it was a man identifying as a woman with a medical condition. Identifying as a woman? Fine. Identifying as having a medical condition she doesn't actually have? Questionable. The school board accepting the 'identifying as having a medical condition' and allowing size Z prosthetic breasts is the issue. You opened with "they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits." and are trying to end with "it doesn’t matter if they are trans or a troll, the prosthetic boobs are inappropriate either way.". You literally state "...believing a man is a woman because..." and later try walk it back to being about the tits. You also stated "The wig and prosthetic breasts aren't even a necessary component of my post", but are now trying to claim the prosthetic breasts ARE the necessary part and are inappropriate either way. You can't be critical of the school board and claim they're delusional for believing a man is a woman, and then say it has nothing to do with gender it's about the tits. Also, let's not forget that our source is an american conservative tabloid's article about an extreme edge case happening in a different country. That's not a terribly robust footing to make any kind of substantial point from. My take has always been, for example, transgender men are not the same as biological men but I will happily identify them as such and used their preferred name and pronouns because that's the kind and courteous thing to do. The woke take is "a transgender man is literally the same as a biological man and if you disagree you're committing violence against trans people." Honestly I have little interest in a debate of whether a man can be a woman or vice versa. It's inevitably going to turn in a semantic debate where I insist that a man is a biological male and everyone else insists a man is "anyone that claims to be a man." I would much rather have a discussion on what happens when woke ideology is applied in the real world, such as the case with the school board defending the teacher with the giant prosthetic breasts. Can you please define "a biological male"? I'm not sure what that means, insofar as which criteria you believe are necessary for a person to be considered biologically male. In my experience this normally refers to chromosomes, and trans people to my knowledge overwhelmingly have the chromosome pattern matching their 'biological' sex. Genitalia can be altered but chromosomes cannot. And yeah a very small group of people are something else than xx or xy but those people aren't necessarily related to trans people in any way. Biologically it's gametes. We have either sperm or eggs, there is no third type (it's "binary"). In many animals chromosomes can determine the sex but they don't define it. Famously, in alligators incubation temperature determines sex. Edit: so chromosomes are a useful shorthand but edge cases don't make the whole exercise arbitrary. I’m unsure what the term is, it does exist. Where it’s by population de facto binary, but isn’t quite strictly binary. There are at least some outliers More broadly, I personally agree with the Blackest of Jacks post up the thread. On the other hand I don’t think some of his framing or rhetoric isn’t exactly denotative of great respect to that community Was actually having this exact conversation with my partner last night, possibly too many drinks were had in belated birthday celebration but I was bemoaning why folks just can’t go with what I was calling the ‘trans Copenhagen Interpretation’. Ya got your brain’s conception of gender, you’ve got your other physical biology and they’re not always going to be in alignment. Obviously some people do make those distinctions, it’s not some unique idea but it doesn’t always permeate into the discourse. You got a ‘female brain’ while being born in a male shell? So fuck? It’s fine why worry about it? Outside of some very edge niche circumstances where maybe there are issues. Woman’s sport is one, for example. This absolutely goes in both directions for me for the record. I find much of the right’s approach to these issues as hysterical, hyperbolic and frankly morally repugnant. But the left can be fucking idiots on it as well. 'Trans women are women' isn't some axiom that always stands up to all scrutiny whenever it's invoked. For example. It precludes actual discussion, understanding and sensible policy, be it a more informal cultural convention level or at an actual legislative one For example I mean, I’ll absolutely respect their current identity, but if you’re a trans man you likely have extremely different formative experiences than I have as a cis male. Even if you transitioned relatively early, I’ve had a decade+ of my formative years being a dude, and subject to the various cultural expectations and interactions that that brings. I’ve had pretty angry pushback on this, IMO pretty reasonable observation. I’d go as far as to say, correct observation. Just one example To my mind the only reason trans people exist is because of genderised cultural and social expectations. Or if not the only reason, a huge reason. But if you point out your formative years were very different, in the main, for that reason some may call you transphobic It can become very incoherent, very quickly and indeed I think can be actively harmful to the trans community itself IMO. Enough bad, vitriolic pushback on earnest discussion is one way to lose allies Gender is a topic I really find fascinating, I’ve put a lot of time into it over the moons. Outside of like, StarCraft, alcohol, the flaws of capitalism and computer science it’s right up there with things that fascinate me. I think it’s also the only topic I ever engage with where I have zero issues on various forums or subreddits, unless I reveal I’m actually a cis bloke Hm, post went a bit more rambly than I’d have liked, very unlike me I hate to write a short post in repsonse but I didn't intend to get into the larger discussion taking place, I mostly wanted to clarify. Sex is, in humans, determined all or almost entirely by chromosomes (hedging because I'm not super well studied here), but it IS binary. There are only two gamate types, and even so far as I'm aware we know of no human who has ever produced both. I do agree with BlackJack that hard-to-classify anomalies don't (and wouldn't) disprove the rule. There's probably a good reason what we now call "gender expression" so closely tracks biological sex, often probably evolutionary reasons. On the one hand looking at this way is entirely unhelpful, since some people are de-linking sex entirely from gender. But given human history and the overwhelming overlap seen today I would say the burden on those making that argument, rather than calling someone a bigot and walking away. Imo the human body is a complicated and interlinked organism, I don't see how it's possible to escape. On this topic, there was a story in the NYT about how the authors of a study showing puberty blockers had no helpful effects suppressed their own study due to politics. This whole topic I hesitate to say is a proxy fight over other things, not about what's best for people suffering from dysphoria. There are some documented cases of this rare condition (often called "true hermaphroditism"), where both gametes - reproductive cells as either sperm or ova - actually are present and even create both kinds of tissue (testicular tissue and ovarian tissue) within the same person: + Show Spoiler +"True hermaphroditism is a disorder of gonadal differentiation characterized by the presence in the same individual of both testicular and ovarian tissue. This condition is rare and usually difficult to diagnose, so only 25% of male hermaphrodites are diagnosed before age 20. [672] Failure to recognize this disorder may lead to surgical intervention for hernia repair or orchidopexy. Most hermaphrodites raised as males display symptoms for the first time at puberty because of breast development [673] (95% of hermaphrodites have some degree of gynecomastia), periodic hematuria [674] (if they have a uterus ending in the urinary tract), or cryptorchidism. [675] Hermaphrodites raised as females initially present with irregular menstruation or clitoromegaly." (p.655) "The most frequent karyotype is 46XX (60%), followed by several mosaicisms (33%) which, in decreasing order of frequency, are 46XX/46XY, 46XY/47XXY, 45X0/46XY, 46XX/47XXY. The 46XY karyotype is the least common (7%). There is variation in the incidence of some karyotypes around the world. Mosaicism is found in 40.5% of European cases, but in only 21% of North America cases. Conversely, most African true hermaphrodites (97%) have 46XX karyotype. The karyotype 46XY is rare and its frequency is similar in Europe, Asia, and North America. [678],[679]" (p.656) Source as a PDF link: https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/281110/3-s2.0-B9780323019705X50015/3-s2.0-B9780323019705500142/main.pdf?X-Amz-Security-Token=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&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20241023T184008Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAQ3PHCVTYXYWHMA5C/20241023/us-east-1/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=9ec514a77a9d93dc26057fa26a3a3d7851e06c9e5f940cbe3860c7c069c1f5ea&hash=9c2438d8135fe86dd14ccb720b20a9018ac73cb714febd07bf697dc91ea463b8&host=68042c943591013ac2b2430a89b270f6af2c76d8dfd086a07176afe7c76c2c61&pii=B9780323019705500142&tid=spdf-5b0fcdc1-af13-414a-a91a-a0fca649b839&sid=f6034a4c5fd50243c07a4db37315bca076cegxrqa&type=client&tsoh=d3d3LnNjaWVuY2VkaXJlY3QuY29t&ua=13115f02585404055d57&rr=8d73da91bbd243b6&cc=us I know you're not stating that such people can't exist (you just noted that you weren't aware of any, and I thought it might help to drop a resource that talks about some cases and their characteristics). I'm not posting this in an attempt to change your mind about anything, but just to add more context
Not to be nitpicky but it says "tissue" which I don't think is unusual. I'm talking actual eggs and sperm. Some animals can switch sexes I think, but humans AFAIK are more...locked in. Again could be wrong on other animals, but you and WombaT are using the formulation "chromosomes and gamates" but in truth that's a category error. The former determines the latter, it doesn't define it. Though see my reply to WombaT, people are disputing the premise but some are denying it even matters.
|
It makes so much sense, given our knowledge about statistics, that with a sample size of >8 billion people we will more or less have a "normal bimodal distribution" where everything and everything in between pure male and pure female - and this is just purely biologically speaking - can and will exist. Some deviations from the norm might not be viable actually so there might be an initiation to exist, but the zygote just terminates due to innate cellular mechanisms deeming itself not feasible, or some terminally incompatible genetic expression system driving it to unfeasibility.
In any case, crazy fringe things exist in nature. Hyper ultra high testosteron men, to Guevedoces, a subset of men where, due to a genetic mutation seem to develop as female who "flower" as men in puberty because during then the hormone dihydrotestosterone is produced which is like 3x stronger than testosterone. All this to say: even in biological men we have a huge variation in the physical expression of the sex.
The extra layer we call gender, as a social construct, or metaphysical idea is simply how the mind latches on to that biological expression. For ~99% of people that's how we align, for 1% they reject the physical manifestation of your given body. How to deal with that? Let the person express themselves how they want, or force to accept them how they are? It would be very nice if we'd be able to peacefully and have a foolproof way to let people accept their given body, because surgeries etc cost so much money, but we usually - when the person decides to physically transition - let them do so because we have no better alternative.
The "trans-issue" is always a very difficult societal thing to tackle because you have all these things that can go wrong. People who regret having transitioned, surgeries that were botched, where healing didn't go well, ... it's always a risk. This is no easy thing to attempt. I highly admire people who have the guts to actually transition completely.
But, just like for biological physical expression having some type of distribution, so is it the case for the gender expression. That's where the non-binary or gender fluidity terms come in. It opens up people to express themselves the way they want. That doesn't mean they get to dictate the communal space of free speech to tell you how you should speak, they do (and should and this can go wrong with a vocal activist minority) address how they would like to be addressed themselves because that makes them most comfortable and confident. I hope that minding someone's preferences for fluid interaction isn't too much to ask for a fellow human being?
|
On October 24 2024 04:28 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 03:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2024 03:12 Acrofales wrote:On October 24 2024 03:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2024 02:56 BlackJack wrote:On October 24 2024 02:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2024 02:19 BlackJack wrote:On October 24 2024 01:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2024 01:36 BlackJack wrote:On October 24 2024 00:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Can you please define "a biological male"? I'm not sure what that means, insofar as which criteria you believe are necessary for a person to be considered biologically male. I’m happy with Introverts definition Okay thanks Would you agree that sex is bimodal, based on chromosomes and gametes (most people have either XX or XY; most people produce either sperm or eggs; there are rare exceptions where an individual falls into neither category, so it's not "binary" but it's actually "bimodal", because XX and XY are much more common than any third/other options, and being able to produce sperm or eggs are much more common than any third/other options, but there do exist third/other options such as XYY or an inability to produce any sperm/eggs at all)? Having a genetic anomaly that causes someone to be born in a way that doesn’t fit neatly into the binary of sexes doesn’t negate the binary of sexes any more than someone being born with no legs negates that humans are bipedal. I never see anyone arguing that there must be some 2nd/“other option” of humans that have a different amount of legs than the rest of us. Honestly it sounds dehumanizing to refer to intersex people as a “3rd option” of human just so you can try to win the argument that there’s not a binary of sexes. A person without two legs is obviously not bipedal (yet they are still a human), but let's stay on topic.. I didn’t say that person was bipedal. I said humans are bipedal. I said the existence of a person with no legs does not disprove that humans are bipedal any more than an intersex person disproves the binary of sexes. My point about bipedal people is not off-topic if you understood how it relates to the conversation. You’re just choosing to ignore it because it’s not convenient for you to have to explain why you want to invent more sexes to account for genetic anomalies but you don’t want to create more classifications for people born with other types of genetic anomalies. I'm being unbelievably patient with you. Please stay on topic. He stayed on-topic, answered your question quite exhaustively. He agreed with a pretty satisfactory definition of sex, and I think you'll just have to agree to disagree on the idea that sex does not determine a person's gender. This isn't the first time this argument has come up, and it won't be the last. If you don't really have much more to add, you can just bow out, BJ will still be transphobic the next time he brings the topic up. We didn't talk about whether or not sex determines gender, and I suspect that if we eventually got to gender, he would change the subject to arms instead of legs, or something else that distracts from the actual topic. I asked for additional clarification because now he's willing to acknowledge intersex people, yet he still apparently maintains that everyone's sex can be described in one of two ways - man or woman (XY or XX, producing sperm or producing egg). He can't have it both ways. A binary necessarily has two options, and not a third option. If we're writing code in binary, there are only 0s and 1s, but BlackJack apparently thinks that it's still binary if a 2 appears every once in a while, as long as most of the numbers are 0s and 1s. But that's no longer binary; that's bimodal. I don't even think his position loses any ground by agreeing that sex is technically bimodal instead of binary. I'm not attempting to trap him, yet he's still super defensive and changes the subject immediately. He's just unwilling to engage in good faith about sex classification, and that's fine, but then he wonders why everyone somehow misunderstands him or ridicules him. I'm happy to leave it alone for now, but holy crap did he fail at an exercise in basic conversation. I don't think this is a good angle. He's right that the difference between "binary" and "bimodal" is the same as the difference between "bipedal" and "an average of 1.99 legs" His point is that your insistence that he drops "binary" in favor of "bimodal" is not done out of concern for technical precision but due to current affairs.
Except it is being done for technical precision, which is why I've been focusing on the actual definitions of the words, and not anything related to "current affairs". If he's so obsessed with "current affairs" to the point where he can't even define words that he still insists on using, then that's on him. It's pretty clear I was trying to have an academic, fact-based discussion with him.
As in, if you were to describe human biology in detail to an alien or a classroom, it wouldn't have crossed your mind to mention that on average a human has 1.99 legs, you'd just say they have 2. But despite biological sex having the same or a lower deviation, it might have crossed your mind to mention that there's more than two human sexes, because it's culturally topical subject at the moment while mono-legged people are currently culturally irrelevant.
I appreciate your attempt to clarify the bipedal remark, but I understood what he was getting at. If the original topic was about the number of legs humans have, then of course I would be willing to talk about people with one leg (or zero legs, etc.), but clearly BlackJack wouldn't want to engage with those exceptions to the norm, and he'd instead pivot to some other part of the body. It's not a good analogy, it's a clear red herring, and I wasn't going to be distracted by it, when trying to actually have a constructive conversation with him about something else.
To address your leg/alien scenario with you: I would never say that humans are unary when it comes to legs, because they're not. They're unimodal. I can easily be consistent with my correct use of these kinds of terms. The vast majority of humans have two legs, but there are exceptions, just like how the vast majority of humans fall into two different sex categories, but there are exceptions. I know that I'm being precise with my language - admittedly maybe it's because I come from a math and statistics background where I use these terms in more academic settings and with small children - but that doesn't mean that people should be using binary to mean "mostly two" instead of "two". (If I were to do what BlackJack was doing - being preemptively aggressive and not willing to engage in good faith - I would have brought up that many social conservatives call sex "binary" simply to deny the existence of intersex people. Now that would be an attack based on "current affairs". But I didn't do that; I was trying to speak earnestly with BlackJack.)
One other point, from a math and stats background: saying "humans have, on average, 2 legs" can be correct, based on which average you're referring to. Median? Correct. Mode? Correct. Mean? Not perfectly correct if you're unwilling to round, but if you're willing to round to the nearest whole number, then it's also correct. I don't bring this up to suddenly be nitpicky with you, but because I tried my best to be extremely careful and specific with wording and definitions for BlackJack's case, yet he's suddenly uninterested in that.
He's fine with combining "he" and "transgendered he" into simply "he" out of courtesy but he's not fine with combining "man" and "transgendered man" into just "man". He seems to think the latter is different, that the courtesy in that case would cost some kind of betrayal of objective reality. That's the part you should have explored, why he finds it important that "man" be reserved for biological sex rather than gender.
Anyway, the fact that he had to use "male" and "biological" a bunch of times to avoid being misunderstood shows that "man" is no longer enough when you want to strictly refer to biology, he's clinging to a losing battle. In language prescription is shaped by usage and "transgendered man" is too cumbersome for day-to-day life. The scenarios in which the distinction is relevant will get the more cumbersome terms.
You may be right with all these descriptions of what BlackJack prefers and how he views things, but he prefers hostility and defensiveness over transparently explaining these things himself.
|
On October 24 2024 04:41 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 03:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2024 03:29 Introvert wrote:On October 24 2024 02:21 WombaT wrote:On October 24 2024 01:25 Introvert wrote:On October 24 2024 01:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 24 2024 00:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2024 00:17 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 14:46 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 23 2024 13:11 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
I think that if there was consensus here you would have gladly argued the case that there’s nothing wrong with Kayla wearing giant prosthetic tits to school if that’s how they chose to identify.
Mohdoo’s point was the same as mine: it doesn’t matter if they are trans or a troll, the prosthetic boobs are inappropriate either way. He didn’t offer anything materially different. You already had access to the nypost article when you were questioning me about what exactly I found inappropriate about what that person was wearing. I think Mohdoo just offered another dissent that you couldn’t dismiss as a right-wing bigot so your position came crumbling down like a house of cards. Just to recenter ourselves, let's run the discussion back: On October 22 2024 12:05 BlackJack wrote:
As dogmeat said, they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits. This prompted Manifesto to respond, and you to respond to Manifesto with On October 23 2024 02:15 BlackJack wrote:
I don't know what the media machine is, but I would argue that since it would be considered inappropriate any other time in history for a man to show up to teach kids with Size Z prosthetic tits, and now we have a school board that was willing to defend it then they are the ones that are ideologically captured by some kind of machine. Later, in response to DPB, you add On October 23 2024 02:36 BlackJack wrote:To be clear, your ideology dictates that you accept that teacher as a woman simply for saying he is a woman. The wig and prosthetic breasts aren't even a necessary component of my post. Eventually, RenSC2 posts an actual source for the story you're referencing Your ending statement is this: On October 23 2024 13:11 BlackJack wrote:
I think that if there was consensus here you would have gladly argued the case that there’s nothing wrong with Kayla wearing giant prosthetic tits to school if that’s how they chose to identify.
Mohdoo’s point was the same as mine: it doesn’t matter if they are trans or a troll, the prosthetic boobs are inappropriate either way. He didn’t offer anything materially different. You already had access to the nypost article when you were questioning me about what exactly I found inappropriate about what that person was wearing. I think Mohdoo just offered another dissent that you couldn’t dismiss as a right-wing bigot so your position came crumbling down like a house of cards. Where I take issue is specifically with the start being different than the end. You're being critical of the school board, and imo that makes sense. People have a right to identify how they want to identify, to a point. In this particular case, it was a man identifying as a woman with a medical condition. Identifying as a woman? Fine. Identifying as having a medical condition she doesn't actually have? Questionable. The school board accepting the 'identifying as having a medical condition' and allowing size Z prosthetic breasts is the issue. You opened with "they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits." and are trying to end with "it doesn’t matter if they are trans or a troll, the prosthetic boobs are inappropriate either way.". You literally state "...believing a man is a woman because..." and later try walk it back to being about the tits. You also stated "The wig and prosthetic breasts aren't even a necessary component of my post", but are now trying to claim the prosthetic breasts ARE the necessary part and are inappropriate either way. You can't be critical of the school board and claim they're delusional for believing a man is a woman, and then say it has nothing to do with gender it's about the tits. Also, let's not forget that our source is an american conservative tabloid's article about an extreme edge case happening in a different country. That's not a terribly robust footing to make any kind of substantial point from. My take has always been, for example, transgender men are not the same as biological men but I will happily identify them as such and used their preferred name and pronouns because that's the kind and courteous thing to do. The woke take is "a transgender man is literally the same as a biological man and if you disagree you're committing violence against trans people." Honestly I have little interest in a debate of whether a man can be a woman or vice versa. It's inevitably going to turn in a semantic debate where I insist that a man is a biological male and everyone else insists a man is "anyone that claims to be a man." I would much rather have a discussion on what happens when woke ideology is applied in the real world, such as the case with the school board defending the teacher with the giant prosthetic breasts. Can you please define "a biological male"? I'm not sure what that means, insofar as which criteria you believe are necessary for a person to be considered biologically male. In my experience this normally refers to chromosomes, and trans people to my knowledge overwhelmingly have the chromosome pattern matching their 'biological' sex. Genitalia can be altered but chromosomes cannot. And yeah a very small group of people are something else than xx or xy but those people aren't necessarily related to trans people in any way. Biologically it's gametes. We have either sperm or eggs, there is no third type (it's "binary"). In many animals chromosomes can determine the sex but they don't define it. Famously, in alligators incubation temperature determines sex. Edit: so chromosomes are a useful shorthand but edge cases don't make the whole exercise arbitrary. I’m unsure what the term is, it does exist. Where it’s by population de facto binary, but isn’t quite strictly binary. There are at least some outliers More broadly, I personally agree with the Blackest of Jacks post up the thread. On the other hand I don’t think some of his framing or rhetoric isn’t exactly denotative of great respect to that community Was actually having this exact conversation with my partner last night, possibly too many drinks were had in belated birthday celebration but I was bemoaning why folks just can’t go with what I was calling the ‘trans Copenhagen Interpretation’. Ya got your brain’s conception of gender, you’ve got your other physical biology and they’re not always going to be in alignment. Obviously some people do make those distinctions, it’s not some unique idea but it doesn’t always permeate into the discourse. You got a ‘female brain’ while being born in a male shell? So fuck? It’s fine why worry about it? Outside of some very edge niche circumstances where maybe there are issues. Woman’s sport is one, for example. This absolutely goes in both directions for me for the record. I find much of the right’s approach to these issues as hysterical, hyperbolic and frankly morally repugnant. But the left can be fucking idiots on it as well. 'Trans women are women' isn't some axiom that always stands up to all scrutiny whenever it's invoked. For example. It precludes actual discussion, understanding and sensible policy, be it a more informal cultural convention level or at an actual legislative one For example I mean, I’ll absolutely respect their current identity, but if you’re a trans man you likely have extremely different formative experiences than I have as a cis male. Even if you transitioned relatively early, I’ve had a decade+ of my formative years being a dude, and subject to the various cultural expectations and interactions that that brings. I’ve had pretty angry pushback on this, IMO pretty reasonable observation. I’d go as far as to say, correct observation. Just one example To my mind the only reason trans people exist is because of genderised cultural and social expectations. Or if not the only reason, a huge reason. But if you point out your formative years were very different, in the main, for that reason some may call you transphobic It can become very incoherent, very quickly and indeed I think can be actively harmful to the trans community itself IMO. Enough bad, vitriolic pushback on earnest discussion is one way to lose allies Gender is a topic I really find fascinating, I’ve put a lot of time into it over the moons. Outside of like, StarCraft, alcohol, the flaws of capitalism and computer science it’s right up there with things that fascinate me. I think it’s also the only topic I ever engage with where I have zero issues on various forums or subreddits, unless I reveal I’m actually a cis bloke Hm, post went a bit more rambly than I’d have liked, very unlike me I hate to write a short post in repsonse but I didn't intend to get into the larger discussion taking place, I mostly wanted to clarify. Sex is, in humans, determined all or almost entirely by chromosomes (hedging because I'm not super well studied here), but it IS binary. There are only two gamate types, and even so far as I'm aware we know of no human who has ever produced both. I do agree with BlackJack that hard-to-classify anomalies don't (and wouldn't) disprove the rule. There's probably a good reason what we now call "gender expression" so closely tracks biological sex, often probably evolutionary reasons. On the one hand looking at this way is entirely unhelpful, since some people are de-linking sex entirely from gender. But given human history and the overwhelming overlap seen today I would say the burden on those making that argument, rather than calling someone a bigot and walking away. Imo the human body is a complicated and interlinked organism, I don't see how it's possible to escape. On this topic, there was a story in the NYT about how the authors of a study showing puberty blockers had no helpful effects suppressed their own study due to politics. This whole topic I hesitate to say is a proxy fight over other things, not about what's best for people suffering from dysphoria. There are some documented cases of this rare condition (often called "true hermaphroditism"), where both gametes - reproductive cells as either sperm or ova - actually are present and even create both kinds of tissue (testicular tissue and ovarian tissue) within the same person: + Show Spoiler +"True hermaphroditism is a disorder of gonadal differentiation characterized by the presence in the same individual of both testicular and ovarian tissue. This condition is rare and usually difficult to diagnose, so only 25% of male hermaphrodites are diagnosed before age 20. [672] Failure to recognize this disorder may lead to surgical intervention for hernia repair or orchidopexy. Most hermaphrodites raised as males display symptoms for the first time at puberty because of breast development [673] (95% of hermaphrodites have some degree of gynecomastia), periodic hematuria [674] (if they have a uterus ending in the urinary tract), or cryptorchidism. [675] Hermaphrodites raised as females initially present with irregular menstruation or clitoromegaly." (p.655) "The most frequent karyotype is 46XX (60%), followed by several mosaicisms (33%) which, in decreasing order of frequency, are 46XX/46XY, 46XY/47XXY, 45X0/46XY, 46XX/47XXY. The 46XY karyotype is the least common (7%). There is variation in the incidence of some karyotypes around the world. Mosaicism is found in 40.5% of European cases, but in only 21% of North America cases. Conversely, most African true hermaphrodites (97%) have 46XX karyotype. The karyotype 46XY is rare and its frequency is similar in Europe, Asia, and North America. [678],[679]" (p.656) Source as a PDF link: https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/281110/3-s2.0-B9780323019705X50015/3-s2.0-B9780323019705500142/main.pdf?X-Amz-Security-Token=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&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20241023T184008Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAQ3PHCVTYXYWHMA5C/20241023/us-east-1/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=9ec514a77a9d93dc26057fa26a3a3d7851e06c9e5f940cbe3860c7c069c1f5ea&hash=9c2438d8135fe86dd14ccb720b20a9018ac73cb714febd07bf697dc91ea463b8&host=68042c943591013ac2b2430a89b270f6af2c76d8dfd086a07176afe7c76c2c61&pii=B9780323019705500142&tid=spdf-5b0fcdc1-af13-414a-a91a-a0fca649b839&sid=f6034a4c5fd50243c07a4db37315bca076cegxrqa&type=client&tsoh=d3d3LnNjaWVuY2VkaXJlY3QuY29t&ua=13115f02585404055d57&rr=8d73da91bbd243b6&cc=us I know you're not stating that such people can't exist (you just noted that you weren't aware of any, and I thought it might help to drop a resource that talks about some cases and their characteristics). I'm not posting this in an attempt to change your mind about anything, but just to add more context Not to be nitpicky but it says "tissue" which I don't think is unusual. I'm talking actual eggs and sperm. Some animals can switch sexes I think, but humans AFAIK are more...locked in. Again could be wrong on other animals, but you and WombaT are using the formulation "chromosomes and gamates" but in truth that's a category error. The former determines the latter, it doesn't define it. Though see my reply to WombaT, people are disputing the premise but some are denying it even matters.
Ah okay; I may have misunderstood you then! I used chromosomes and gametes because BlackJack said that he was okay with using those to define sex, because you had mentioned them earlier.
|
On October 24 2024 04:28 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 03:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2024 03:12 Acrofales wrote:On October 24 2024 03:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2024 02:56 BlackJack wrote:On October 24 2024 02:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2024 02:19 BlackJack wrote:On October 24 2024 01:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2024 01:36 BlackJack wrote:On October 24 2024 00:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Can you please define "a biological male"? I'm not sure what that means, insofar as which criteria you believe are necessary for a person to be considered biologically male. I’m happy with Introverts definition Okay thanks Would you agree that sex is bimodal, based on chromosomes and gametes (most people have either XX or XY; most people produce either sperm or eggs; there are rare exceptions where an individual falls into neither category, so it's not "binary" but it's actually "bimodal", because XX and XY are much more common than any third/other options, and being able to produce sperm or eggs are much more common than any third/other options, but there do exist third/other options such as XYY or an inability to produce any sperm/eggs at all)? Having a genetic anomaly that causes someone to be born in a way that doesn’t fit neatly into the binary of sexes doesn’t negate the binary of sexes any more than someone being born with no legs negates that humans are bipedal. I never see anyone arguing that there must be some 2nd/“other option” of humans that have a different amount of legs than the rest of us. Honestly it sounds dehumanizing to refer to intersex people as a “3rd option” of human just so you can try to win the argument that there’s not a binary of sexes. A person without two legs is obviously not bipedal (yet they are still a human), but let's stay on topic.. I didn’t say that person was bipedal. I said humans are bipedal. I said the existence of a person with no legs does not disprove that humans are bipedal any more than an intersex person disproves the binary of sexes. My point about bipedal people is not off-topic if you understood how it relates to the conversation. You’re just choosing to ignore it because it’s not convenient for you to have to explain why you want to invent more sexes to account for genetic anomalies but you don’t want to create more classifications for people born with other types of genetic anomalies. I'm being unbelievably patient with you. Please stay on topic. He stayed on-topic, answered your question quite exhaustively. He agreed with a pretty satisfactory definition of sex, and I think you'll just have to agree to disagree on the idea that sex does not determine a person's gender. This isn't the first time this argument has come up, and it won't be the last. If you don't really have much more to add, you can just bow out, BJ will still be transphobic the next time he brings the topic up. We didn't talk about whether or not sex determines gender, and I suspect that if we eventually got to gender, he would change the subject to arms instead of legs, or something else that distracts from the actual topic. I asked for additional clarification because now he's willing to acknowledge intersex people, yet he still apparently maintains that everyone's sex can be described in one of two ways - man or woman (XY or XX, producing sperm or producing egg). He can't have it both ways. A binary necessarily has two options, and not a third option. If we're writing code in binary, there are only 0s and 1s, but BlackJack apparently thinks that it's still binary if a 2 appears every once in a while, as long as most of the numbers are 0s and 1s. But that's no longer binary; that's bimodal. I don't even think his position loses any ground by agreeing that sex is technically bimodal instead of binary. I'm not attempting to trap him, yet he's still super defensive and changes the subject immediately. He's just unwilling to engage in good faith about sex classification, and that's fine, but then he wonders why everyone somehow misunderstands him or ridicules him. I'm happy to leave it alone for now, but holy crap did he fail at an exercise in basic conversation. He's fine with combining "he" and "transgendered he" into simply "he" out of courtesy but he's not fine with combining "man" and "transgendered man" into just "man". He seems to think the latter is different, that the courtesy in that case would cost some kind of betrayal of objective reality. That's the part you should have explored, why he finds it important that "man" be reserved for biological sex rather than gender. Anyway, the fact that he had to use "male" and "biological" a bunch of times to avoid being misunderstood shows that "man" is no longer enough when you want to strictly refer to biology, he's clinging to a losing battle. In language prescription is shaped by usage and "transgendered man" is too cumbersome for day-to-day life. The scenarios in which the distinction is relevant will get the more cumbersome terms.
To clarify, since my “original” post on this line of discussion only specified that I would use preferred names and pronouns to address a trans person, that also extends to the terms “man” and “woman.” I have no issue calling a FTM transgendered person a man and vice versa because that’s also the courteous thing to do.
But I also think it’s important to have some word we use to distinguish between biological men and women. There seems to be a perjorative treadmill where no matter what word we choose it’s going to cause some distress in people that see it as a reminder that obviously a trans man is different than a biological man. Even “biological male” is a bit dated. I think the most current term is “AMAB” or “Assigned Male At Birth.” At some point we’re going to have to pick a word and stick with it and I don’t see the issue with drawing the line in the sand with “man” and “woman.” But as I said at the outset it’s going to become a semantics argument and getting labeled a transphobe to police definitions that people choose is not worth my effort.
I think the bigger issue is that people demand acceptance that a transgendered woman and a biological woman are one in the same so they can they say transgendered women should be allowed to dominate women’s sports because they are, in fact, women. I don’t know if that little sleight of hand trick is done intentionally to bolster their argument but it’s instances like these where I disagree with people’s demands to define words in the way they want.
@DPB I don’t know what you’re looking for. Acrofales and Dan HH both have agreed that I’ve answered your question and I doubt either of them have done that out of an abundance of love for me. Do you think if you just keep repeating the question at me I will relent and say okay it’s initial, not binary. It seems to me there are only 2 sexes. There are also intersex people that have both of the 2 sexes or neither of the 2 sexes or maybe mostly 1 of the 2 sexes and a little of the other of the 2 sexes. All signs point to there being 2 sexes in my opinion. Was there supposed to be some follow-up gotcha that you were going to deploy but it’s only good if I go along with part 1 and you’re frustrated I won’t play along? If that’s the case then yes, I agree, sex is bimodal.
|
DarkPlasmaBall, just FYI, you and BlackJack do not appear to disagree on anything right now. He tends to communicate in a way that disregards the sensitivities of his audience, which is likely why I have a uniquely good ability to understand him. I think that often leads to situations where people misinterpret his positions. I think it might make sense to think of him as someone with 0 loyalty to left wing ideology rather than someone who is sympathetic to right wing ideology.
|
On October 24 2024 07:13 BlackJack wrote:
Was there supposed to be some follow-up gotcha that you were going to deploy but it’s only good if I go along with part 1 and you’re frustrated I won’t play along?
I'm not sure how many times I have to say "no":
On October 24 2024 02:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I'm not trying to set you up. On October 24 2024 03:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I'm not attempting to trap him
I was trying to have a good-faith conversation with you, understand your rationale, and have clear definitions and terminology with you. In the past, you've frequently complained about how people misunderstand you and misquote you, and yet when offered an opportunity for a conversation with a blank slate, you assume the worst. Blank slate:
On October 24 2024 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:That's also my general understanding of how it's often used, but I don't want to strawman or misunderstand BlackJack, so I'm going to patiently wait for him to answer in his own words
And yet you continue to view things through the lens of confrontation or competition:
On October 24 2024 02:19 BlackJack wrote:
just so you can try to win the argument
You are entitled to your argumentative perspective on things, but I think your distrust and defensiveness might help explain why you have so many issues when talking to other people here.
On October 24 2024 07:35 Mohdoo wrote:
DarkPlasmaBall, just FYI, you and BlackJack do not appear to disagree on anything right now. He tends to communicate in a way that disregards the sensitivities of his audience, which is likely why I have a uniquely good ability to understand him. I think that often leads to situations where people misinterpret his positions. I think it might make sense to think of him as someone with 0 loyalty to left wing ideology rather than someone who is sympathetic to right wing ideology.
I agree. I was hoping to begin another long-form conversation where two people who may disagree on something can still have a reasonable discussion and share ideas and points of view - like the really enlightening (for me, at least) dialogue I had with Introvert about the economy and spending and liberal vs. conservative priorities. I don't think I can do that with BlackJack.
|
We do have a term for biological men and women. It's "cis gender" or just "cis" for short. We can further specify "cis hetero" if we want, but "cis" by itself encompasses various sexual orientations including gay/lesbian etc.
Of course this upsets Elon Musk. And we can't upset Elon Musk. He has to get his way.
|
On October 24 2024 08:28 Magic Powers wrote:
We do have a term for biological men and women. It's "cis gender" or just "cis" for short. We can further specify "cis hetero" if we want, but "cis" by itself encompasses various sexual orientations including gay/lesbian etc.
Of course this upsets Elon Musk. And we can't upset Elon Musk. He has to get his way.
Yeah I think cis-men vs. trans-men, for example, get the point across pretty clearly, if there's a discussion that warrants differentiating between those two groups. There are probably other terms too, and one could always describe a specific group if they can't come up with an ideal label for it anyway.
|
On October 24 2024 08:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 08:28 Magic Powers wrote:
We do have a term for biological men and women. It's "cis gender" or just "cis" for short. We can further specify "cis hetero" if we want, but "cis" by itself encompasses various sexual orientations including gay/lesbian etc.
Of course this upsets Elon Musk. And we can't upset Elon Musk. He has to get his way. Yeah I think cis-men vs. trans-men, for example, get the point across pretty clearly, if there's a discussion that warrants differentiating between those two groups. There are probably other terms too, and one could always describe a specific group if they can't come up with an ideal label for it anyway.
Men vs trans-men works pretty well too.
|
On October 24 2024 10:40 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 08:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2024 08:28 Magic Powers wrote:
We do have a term for biological men and women. It's "cis gender" or just "cis" for short. We can further specify "cis hetero" if we want, but "cis" by itself encompasses various sexual orientations including gay/lesbian etc.
Of course this upsets Elon Musk. And we can't upset Elon Musk. He has to get his way. Yeah I think cis-men vs. trans-men, for example, get the point across pretty clearly, if there's a discussion that warrants differentiating between those two groups. There are probably other terms too, and one could always describe a specific group if they can't come up with an ideal label for it anyway. Men vs trans-men works pretty well too.
Its not as accurate though.
Both trans-men and cis-men are subsets of 'men'.
Men could mean either.
I assume people aren't so ridiculously insecure as to need the term 'men' to apply to only cis-men because they want the word for themselves?
|
John Kelly, one of Trump's chiefs of staff during his presidency, recently called Trump an authoritarian and a person who meets the definition of fascist.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/john-kelly-says-donald-trump-meets-definition-fascist-rcna176706
I'm assuming that voters have already made up their mind about whether or not Trump being a fascist matters to them, so I can't imagine that what John Kelly says will suddenly sway public opinion.
That does lead me to this question though: Are there *any* public figures or politicians or celebrities or family members or friends, who - if they were to suddenly reject Trump and publicly announce that he shouldn't be reelected - could actually persuade a decent number of undecided or barely-Trump voters? Who would hypothetically be the most likely to influence people against voting for Trump? Maybe Melania? Elon Musk? Someone else?
|
On October 24 2024 12:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:John Kelly, one of Trump's chiefs of staff during his presidency, recently called Trump an authoritarian and a person who meets the definition of fascist. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/john-kelly-says-donald-trump-meets-definition-fascist-rcna176706 I'm assuming that voters have already made up their mind about whether or not Trump being a fascist matters to them, so I can't imagine that what John Kelly says will suddenly sway public opinion. That does lead me to this question though: Are there *any* public figures or politicians or celebrities or family members or friends, who - if they were to suddenly reject Trump and publicly announce that he shouldn't be reelected - could actually persuade a decent number of undecided or barely-Trump voters? Who would hypothetically be the most likely to influence people against voting for Trump? Maybe Melania? Elon Musk? Someone else?
Elon Musk has some cultists of his own, so he could sway a decent chunk of people. Perhaps Rogan could push some of the libertarian or conspiracy crowd away. It would need to be someone with a cult-like following. T Swift cultists, but I doubt too many swifties were with Trump in the first place. Her more casual fans who are Trumpists will just chalk her up as a singer who doesn’t know politics.
Any Republican politician going against Trump is basically worthless, he has already captured the whole party and the never Trumpers are already out.
|
On October 24 2024 03:57 Billyboy wrote:US based biological labs in Ukraine. Show nested quote +Republican Senator Mitt Romney gave some of the harshest condemnation of the former Hawaii Democratic Congresswoman, tweeting that she is "parroting false Russian propaganda" and that her "treasonous lies may well cost lives."
The US has or had biolabs in Ukraine, you have posted a quote from Mitt Romney who is not Tulsi Gabbard.
On October 24 2024 03:57 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +Here is another quote from her “I’ve been thinking about how infinitely greater the death and suffering will be if we allow the mainstream media, the military-industrial complex, self-serving politicians – if we allow them to lead us now into the apocalypse of World War III,” Gabbard said. “So, now is the time for anyone who cares for their loved ones, who cares for our fellow Americans, who cares for all human beings and wildlife; now is the time to be reminded of the grim reality that we all face if we don’t stop them.”
No info on "how" or who exactly the "them" is.
You don't know who the mainstream media, military industrial, and self serving politicians are? I don't personally like WW3 or the idea of proxy wars between nuclear powers escalating due to hawkish retards in the pocket of the defense industry who know nothing about the world. Seems reasonable and sane to me.
On October 24 2024 03:57 Billyboy wrote:That Russia's invasion is Ukraine's fault. Show nested quote +“This war and suffering could have easily been avoided if Biden Admin/NATO had simply acknowledged Russia’s legitimate security concerns regarding Ukraine’s becoming a member of NATO, which would mean US/NATO forces right on Russia’s border.” I mean is there a Russia propaganda point she doesn't love?
Looks like she said it's Biden's fault which you took to mean is Ukraine's fault somehow. This is not exactly Alex Jones level stuff that you made it out to be.
On October 24 2024 12:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:John Kelly, one of Trump's chiefs of staff during his presidency, recently called Trump an authoritarian and a person who meets the definition of fascist. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/john-kelly-says-donald-trump-meets-definition-fascist-rcna176706 I'm assuming that voters have already made up their mind about whether or not Trump being a fascist matters to them, so I can't imagine that what John Kelly says will suddenly sway public opinion. That does lead me to this question though: Are there *any* public figures or politicians or celebrities or family members or friends, who - if they were to suddenly reject Trump and publicly announce that he shouldn't be reelected - could actually persuade a decent number of undecided or barely-Trump voters? Who would hypothetically be the most likely to influence people against voting for Trump? Maybe Melania? Elon Musk? Someone else?
Why didn't you mention Hitler? You know Drumpf is a racist so why do you shy away from Kelly saying he liked Hitler?
On October 24 2024 12:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:John Kelly, one of Trump's chiefs of staff during his presidency, recently called Trump an authoritarian and a person who meets the definition of fascist. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/john-kelly-says-donald-trump-meets-definition-fascist-rcna176706 I'm assuming that voters have already made up their mind about whether or not Trump being a fascist matters to them, so I can't imagine that what John Kelly says will suddenly sway public opinion. That does lead me to this question though: Are there *any* public figures or politicians or celebrities or family members or friends, who - if they were to suddenly reject Trump and publicly announce that he shouldn't be reelected - could actually persuade a decent number of undecided or barely-Trump voters? Who would hypothetically be the most likely to influence people against voting for Trump? Maybe Melania? Elon Musk? Someone else?
Why didn't you mention Hitler? You know Drumpf is a rapist so why do you shy away from Kelly saying he liked Hitler? John Kelly is just an appointee. Him remembering 2 weeks before an election that Drumpf said he liked Hitler's generals stretches John Kelly's already nonexistent credibility. Musk is not likely to immediately switch back to supporting Democrats. Nor is Melania going to come out despite whatever sick people fantasize about their marriage. If you really wanted to sway people, you'd need a turncoat who's widely respected among elected Republicans, like Mitt Romney or Dick Cheney. Someone principled like that.
Maybe it's not the question of "muh fascism" itself that's not swaying people but the fact that nobody cares what John Kelly or any other wolf criers have to say.
|
On October 24 2024 12:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
That does lead me to this question though: Are there *any* public figures or politicians or celebrities or family members or friends, who - if they were to suddenly reject Trump and publicly announce that he shouldn't be reelected - could actually persuade a decent number of undecided or barely-Trump voters? Who would hypothetically be the most likely to influence people against voting for Trump? Maybe Melania? Elon Musk? Someone else?
Surely the onus here is on Harris to be better than what she has shown so far.The further this goes on the more polls are shifting toward Trump, RCP polling average map is currently 2016 result + Nevada for Trump so she really needs to do something.
So Trump is going on Joe Rogan Friday, theoretically she could go on next week and debunk whatever he said, fact check, etc.You think she's up to a 2 hour Rogan gig? Likely to be far less scripted than what she is used to? You have to admit it'd be laughable to skip Rogan (she said she wanted to appear) but show up for the 'Call Her Daddy' podcast.What is the audience size comparison? Maybe she could have got some press from a few witty lines at the Al Smith dinner a week ago, if she had bothered to attend? She is running a terrible campaign, thats why she's tanking.
|
On October 24 2024 13:22 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 12:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:John Kelly, one of Trump's chiefs of staff during his presidency, recently called Trump an authoritarian and a person who meets the definition of fascist. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/john-kelly-says-donald-trump-meets-definition-fascist-rcna176706 I'm assuming that voters have already made up their mind about whether or not Trump being a fascist matters to them, so I can't imagine that what John Kelly says will suddenly sway public opinion. That does lead me to this question though: Are there *any* public figures or politicians or celebrities or family members or friends, who - if they were to suddenly reject Trump and publicly announce that he shouldn't be reelected - could actually persuade a decent number of undecided or barely-Trump voters? Who would hypothetically be the most likely to influence people against voting for Trump? Maybe Melania? Elon Musk? Someone else? Elon Musk has some cultists of his own, so he could sway a decent chunk of people. Perhaps Rogan could push some of the libertarian or conspiracy crowd away. It would need to be someone with a cult-like following. T Swift cultists, but I doubt too many swifties were with Trump in the first place. Her more casual fans who are Trumpists will just chalk her up as a singer who doesn’t know politics. Any Republican politician going against Trump is basically worthless, he has already captured the whole party and the never Trumpers are already out.
True, Joe Rogan certainly has a large enough following that a hypothetical major endorsement could be effective. A lot of them would likely be impacted by what Joe Rogan has to say.
On October 24 2024 13:44 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 12:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:John Kelly, one of Trump's chiefs of staff during his presidency, recently called Trump an authoritarian and a person who meets the definition of fascist. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/john-kelly-says-donald-trump-meets-definition-fascist-rcna176706 I'm assuming that voters have already made up their mind about whether or not Trump being a fascist matters to them, so I can't imagine that what John Kelly says will suddenly sway public opinion. That does lead me to this question though: Are there *any* public figures or politicians or celebrities or family members or friends, who - if they were to suddenly reject Trump and publicly announce that he shouldn't be reelected - could actually persuade a decent number of undecided or barely-Trump voters? Who would hypothetically be the most likely to influence people against voting for Trump? Maybe Melania? Elon Musk? Someone else? Why didn't you mention Hitler? You know Drumpf is a racist so why do you shy away from Kelly saying he liked Hitler? Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 12:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:John Kelly, one of Trump's chiefs of staff during his presidency, recently called Trump an authoritarian and a person who meets the definition of fascist. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/john-kelly-says-donald-trump-meets-definition-fascist-rcna176706 I'm assuming that voters have already made up their mind about whether or not Trump being a fascist matters to them, so I can't imagine that what John Kelly says will suddenly sway public opinion. That does lead me to this question though: Are there *any* public figures or politicians or celebrities or family members or friends, who - if they were to suddenly reject Trump and publicly announce that he shouldn't be reelected - could actually persuade a decent number of undecided or barely-Trump voters? Who would hypothetically be the most likely to influence people against voting for Trump? Maybe Melania? Elon Musk? Someone else? Why didn't you mention Hitler? You know Drumpf is a rapist so why do you shy away from Kelly saying he liked Hitler? John Kelly is just an appointee. Him remembering 2 weeks before an election that Drumpf said he liked Hitler's generals stretches John Kelly's already nonexistent credibility. Musk is not likely to immediately switch back to supporting Democrats. Nor is Melania going to come out despite whatever sick people fantasize about their marriage. If you really wanted to sway people, you'd need a turncoat who's widely respected among elected Republicans, like Mitt Romney or Dick Cheney. Someone principled like that.
We've mentioned Hitler, Trump's racism, and Trump's history of sexual assault plenty of times. We could certainly talk more about those things, if you'd like, but my question was about a different topic, and it was a hypothetical. I agree with you that I couldn't see Melania actually endorsing Harris and telling people not to vote for her husband, but that wasn't my question. I think Mitt Romney and Dick Cheney have already publicly denounced Trump and endorsed Harris (I was looking for people who haven't yet), but I see your broader point about how it could be useful coming from a more traditional, old school, non-MAGA Republican (to show that they still exist - that there's a conservative resistance still alive within Trump's party). Who would those people be, though, who are similar to Romney and Cheney but haven't yet said anything?
On October 24 2024 18:34 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 12:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
That does lead me to this question though: Are there *any* public figures or politicians or celebrities or family members or friends, who - if they were to suddenly reject Trump and publicly announce that he shouldn't be reelected - could actually persuade a decent number of undecided or barely-Trump voters? Who would hypothetically be the most likely to influence people against voting for Trump? Maybe Melania? Elon Musk? Someone else? Surely the onus here is on Harris to be better than what she has shown so far.
Of course Harris needs to do everything she can to earn more votes. That wasn't my question though. Suppose there was some October surprise where two or three key individuals spoke up against Trump - and in favor of Harris - and those two or three people were influential enough to actually have an impact on the election. Who would those two or three people be? As RenSC2 said above, one example could be Joe Rogan.
|
I think these are Motivations to vote for Trump:
1. It's the name next to an (R). You are from an (R) familiy. You go to work. You go to Church. And you Vote the guy with the (R).
2. You actually fall for all the Doomercrap. Everybody will be Trans and get raped by insane asylum immigrants, God now hates america, America needs to care for itself.. but also needs to stay importanter than tschina! China will pay for the wall, and mexico will pay tariffs on iphones..or something. Putin only wants peace, it's the damn Ukrainians who attackd and now ...get Billions and billions of military aid! And where the heck is your personal F16 ?
3. In a "sane" world you are less important than you think you should be, so you want a "trump world" where you can make everything up and force people to believe it. In Camp trump you get applauded for driving the truck that is always 1-2 days away from repo. In the sane world they say you can't afford a six figure car on a 2 figure interest rate. Sad.
Motivations to vote for Harris:
1. I't's the name next to (D)...
2. She seems to be the sane candidate at least trying to do sane politics.
3. You are actually afraid of Project2025, the nutjob stacked courts up to SCOTUS and the implications of the removal of chevron
|
On October 24 2024 19:36 KT_Elwood wrote:
I think these are Motivations to vote for Trump:
1. It's the name next to an (R). You are from an (R) familiy. You go to work. You go to Church. And you Vote the guy with the (R).
2. You actually fall for all the Doomercrap. Everybody will be Trans and get raped by insane asylum immigrants, God now hates america, America needs to care for itself.. but also needs to stay importanter than tschina! China will pay for the wall, and mexico will pay tariffs on iphones..or something. Putin only wants peace, it's the damn Ukrainians who attackd and now ...get Billions and billions of military aid! And where the heck is your personal F16 ?
3. In a "sane" world you are less important than you think you should be, so you want a "trump world" where you can make everything up and force people to believe it. In Camp trump you get applauded for driving the truck that is always 1-2 days away from repo. In the sane world they say you can't afford a six figure car on a 2 figure interest rate. Sad.
Motivations to vote for Harris:
1. I't's the name next to (D)...
2. She seems to be the sane candidate at least trying to do sane politics.
3. You are actually afraid of Project2025, the nutjob stacked courts up to SCOTUS and the implications of the removal of chevron
It doesn't have to be that hyperbolic. Plenty of people think that Trump's better for the economy than Harris. The idea that de-regulation coupled with a 'bring jobs back to America' attitude can be a net-benefit for all Americans is an argument that certainly can be made.
EDIT: I should point out that that is not my stance. At all. All that 'de-regulation' accomplishes is entrench wealth inequalities and fuck up the planet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
