Why The Redefinition Of The Word 'Woman' Matters
By: David Harsanyi (The Federalist)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Samuel Johnson's "Dictionary of the English Language," first published in 1755, defines the word "woman" as, "The female of the human race." And until October of 2022, the word "woman" was still defined as, "An adult female human being" in the Cambridge Dictionary. What transpired on the topic during the intervening 267 years? Not much. Science confirmed what men and women have known since Adam and Eve began talking past each other — not only do the sexes have immutable physiological differences, down to their genetic matter, but they observe, act, and think differently as well.
Yet Cambridge now says the definition of woman is, "An adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth" (and the definition of a "man" is someone who "identifies as male though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth.") How does one use "woman" in a sentence? One of Cambridge's examples is, "Mary is a woman who was assigned male at birth." Who assigned Mary's sex? Her parents? God? Evolution? The SRY gene? And what other human characteristics does Cambridge believe can be altered according to one's feelings? Lexicographers have a responsibility to offer clarity and accuracy — which is, of course, impossible in this case.
When asked about the change, Sophie White, a spokeswoman from Cambridge University Press, told The Washington Post that the editors had "carefully studied usage patterns of the word woman and concluded that this definition is one that learners of English should be aware of to support their understanding of how the language is used." This is tautological gibberish. Though, in fairness to White, "Wokeish" is a relatively new language.
The Post, for instance, claims Cambridge updated its definitions for "woman" and "man" "to include transgender people." (Incredulous italics mine.) This also makes zero sense. If Cambridge changed the definition of "black" or "Caucasian" to incorporate "Asian people," it would not be including a new group, it would be altering the fundamental facts of what makes someone black or white or Asian. "Woman" is not a neologism. Our understanding of "woman" hasn't been altered by new scientific discoveries. Nothing has changed.
As hard as I try, it is difficult not to bring up Orwell these days. In "Politics and the English Language," Orwell notes that the "struggle against the abuse of language" is often treated as a "sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes." But how can we deny that ideas are corrupting language, and language is corrupting thought?
At first, these liturgic declarations of one's "pronouns" seemed relatively harmless to me. And, not that it matters much, but I've been perfectly willing to refer to adults in whatever manner they desire. It's a free country. Pursue your happiness. It's not like gender-bending is some new idea. In my real-world experience, I find that most people try to be courteous.
It's one thing to be considerate and another to be bullied into an alternative reality. But that's where we are right now. Placating the mob has led to the rise in dangerous euphemisms like "gender-affirming care," a phrase that means the exact opposite of what it claims. In today's world, "gender-affirming therapy" means telling a girl she can be transformed into a boy, but "conversion therapy" means telling a girl she's a girl. The corruption of reality has led to the rise of a pseudoscientific cult that performs irreparable mutilation on kids, with puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones and life-altering surgeries.
And in their never-ending campaign to smear political opponents, Democrats have latched onto this idea as if it were a universal truth. If a person contends that gender is an unalterable feature of human life these days — a belief shared by all of civilization until about five minutes ago — they might as well be Bull Connor holding a firehose. Only this week, after signing the same-sex marriage bill, our octogenarian president claimed:
We need to challenge the hundreds of callous and cynical laws introduced in the states targeting transgender children, terrifying families and criminalizing doctors who give children the care they need. And we have to protect these children so they know they are loved and that we will stand up for them and so they can seek for themselves.
Speaking of cynical. Does the president really believe these troubled teenagers "need" mastectomies, facial surgery, and genital removal to feel loved? Or would it be more prudent to let them wait for adulthood to make life-altering surgical decisions? Has anyone ever asked him? Biden is, of course, right that Americans should be free from threats of violence. That includes kids who are now subjected to abuse at the hands of people who have adopted this trendy quackery.
I simply refuse to accept that most Americans, or even more than a small percentage, believe children or should be empowered to "choose" their sex. Rather, in their well-intentioned effort to embrace inclusivity — and avoid being called bigots — they've allowed extremists to, among many other things, circumvent debate by corroding fundamental truths about the world. And that's what these dictionaries — once a place we collectively went for definitions and etymologies — have shamefully helped them do.
Tags
Who is online
47 visitors
Even the Cambridge Dictionary has bowed to the radical left.
It is an age of insanity.
sane folks, normal folks, chose to evolve and move forward instead of regressing
Not one thing regressive about calling males males or females females!
It's amazing what lengths these nimrods go to in order to force others to play a role in their mental illness.
“Not one thing regressive about calling males males or females females!”
Again, how does one (total strangers mind you) looking for their own identity, pronoun and more importantly, acceptance, affect you in any way?
Unless, of course, you choose to relate it to your misguided proprietary societal concerns. That being the case, you’ve already lost… for that kind of thinking (rather opinion) is indeed nothing but regressive.
I didn't say it affected me in any way. Pay attention. Me calling people what they are shouldn't be a problem, but it sure seems like it is for some!
“Me calling people what they are shouldn't be a problem,”
None of your business. None of your concern. Case closed.
Sorry if calling a male a male is offensive to you. [deleted]
For the most part we are talking about children being nudged along by progressives, often without the knowledge or consent of parents. Later it is they who pay the consequences for a rash immature decision.
One of the (many) steps toward Marxism is for school radicals to slowly brainwash their students into believing that they are smarter and more caring than the students' parents/guardians, thereby destroying the family structure.
Marx babbled on about the persistence of oppression in the bourgeois family and the need to work out a new form of the family.
[DELETED]
Pretty sure that these kids are also being sold by democrats in the basement of a pizza shop that doesn't have a basement.
Progressives aren't grooming anyone but it is medically impossible to change a person's gender identity, by any means. This has been known by the medical community for over 50 years. A person's psychological gender identity is nature and not nurture, so it's determined before we are born and cannot be changed, ever. if you would understand what John Money did to David Reimer when he unethically experimented on a child to prove his nature vs. nurture theory, you would know this but you don't{deleted}.
If grooming were possible then it would be equally possible to change someone who is trans to being cisgender but that is also impossible and very dangerous to even attempt because of the long-term mental health problems that are often created by doing so. Medical science also knows that it is equally impossible to change a person's sexual orientation from gay or bi to heterosexual because that is also innate from birth.
The fact that drag queens are not transgender also seems to be lost on the idiots who believe this right-wing tripe. The fact that you may agree with this dangerous nonsense being spread by Tucker Carlson and Matt Walsh doesnt mean that it is objectively true. {deleted} It's very predictable about you.
Merry Christmas, so you don't start whining about that too.
This liberal is pretty sure that a female and a male are in for trouble.
Most marriages end in divorce.
The Federalist Society has bowed to its radical inner deviant.
Character assassination doesn't lead to mature discussion of the topic.
Do disreputable far rightwing think tanks have character?
The Federalists has no problem mischaracterizing liberals.
Look at the comments here. What has been mischaracterized?
I won’t speak to the comments here - that’s too much to analyze. But the seeded article misrepresents both the Cambridge Dictionary and dictionaries in general. First the Cambridge Dictionary misrepresentation:
Not “until October of 2022,” but still . It still has that definition. “Woman,” like most words in any dictionary has had multiple definitions in the Cambridge Dictionary. Three, in fact.
And now, a fourth:
Other dictionaries list further definitions.
As to misrepresenting dictionaries, in general, we have this:
.
Cambridge is not the one doing the defining. Cambridge is not saying anything about what the editors believe. That’s not how dictionaries function. They don’t define words and impose them on the populace. They catalog common usage of a word. People , through their ever-evolving use of the language, reveal to dictionary publishers what they think words mean. Common usage also prompts dictionaries to change their listings of spellings, pronunciation, and other aspects of language.
Our language and vocabulary are not static. Every year, dictionaries add words. Merriam-Webster, for example, added 370 words to its dictionary this year . These aren’t words invented by the editors of dictionaries. They are words regular people invented. The dictionary is just listing them because they get used a lot.
” Woman ” was also Dictionary.com’s Word of the Year precisely because there has been so much discussion on the topic.
Some Tories were born a few hundred years too late.
Dictionary.com has woman defined as "an adult female person" so the world isn't quite spinning north over south quite yet.
Is this what is called a nothingburger?
Is it "insanity" to believe that a woman can be defined by more than just genitalia? I suppose some Neanderthal minded conservatives only see women as vaginas and are apparently incapable of seeing them as complex human beings made up of both physical attributes, hormones, individual personalities, likes, dislikes, emotions and convictions.
It seems conservatives are so desperate to define the world according to their religious beliefs they forget that they still haven't proven their brand of deity even exists. They loudly proclaim that their narrowly defined male and female roles and male dominated hierarchy were created by God and thus inviolate, but cover their eyes and ears to the reality that not all humans are born into their narrowly defined conservative Christian boxes and the attempt to shove, force, smash and contort those who don't fit through their prescribed holes has done and is still doing irreparable harm to innocent people whose only sin was daring to be born different.
The decision to update the definition of 'woman' just kicks sand in the eyes of the prejudiced deplorable clingers who gnash their teeth and spit venom in their impotent rage when the world around them refuses to submit to their every demand. No one is forcing any conservative Christian to transition or to marry someone who has, so perhaps they should just shut the fuck up and mind their own business. Either that or prove their God exists and that their religious definitions are sacrosanct and should be enforced on all humanity.
Next, Is it "insanity" to believe that worms can be defined as human?
Let's all just live in a world with no objective reality. Everyone just makes shit up as they go along. Men with penises are women, Racheal Dolezal is an African American. Ward Churchill is a Cherokee. Chris Farley was skinny. The earth is flat. A progressive can never be wrong about anything. Conservatives are just too narrow minded to understand that words don't have any actual meaning.
Have you ever heard of genetics and sex chromosomes? A woman has XX sex chromosome pair and a man has XY chromosome pair. Understand?
That is the apparent desire of rightwing conservative Christians. The reality was that their useless shit bag of a candidate lost the 2020 election yet 60+% are still crying foul without a lick of evidence.
Does having a penis make you a "man"? Can a person with a penis be feminine? Or do the genitals mandate that a human with a penis be "manly"? Does having a vagina make one feminine?
" Femininity is a set of attributes, behaviors, and roles generally associated with women and girls. Femininity can be understood as socially constructed , and there is also some evidence that some behaviors considered feminine are influenced by both cultural factors and biological factors ."
Femininity - Wikipedia
I get that having a penis is "generally associated" with men and boys, but does that make one "manly"?
"Masculinity (also called manhood or manliness ) is a set of attributes, behaviors , and roles associated with men and boys . Masculinity can be theoretically understood as socially constructed , and there is also evidence that some behaviors considered masculine are influenced by both cultural factors and biological factors . To what extent masculinity is biologically or socially influenced is subject to debate"
Masculinity - Wikipedia
But besides all the definitions and debate, the question remains, why the FUCK does anyone think they get to make those decisions for others around them? And why the FUCK should some dip shit conservative Christian get to label and define those around them and call anyone stupid or mental if they disagree with the narrow shit filled optics of some useless asshole who thinks they know the mind of an imaginary fucking God?
The reality is that if conservative Christians believe they have the right to set male/female roles for everyone around them and declare the lgtbq community as 'invalid', everyone else has the right to do the same to the sorry worthless piece of shit conservatives who believe themselves the arbiters of some imaginary Gods will.
It is insanity to try to defy science. There are only 2 genders.
One is either born male or born female.
Lets see. 200 years from now, a body will be dug up (for what ever reason). They will look at the skeletal remains, specifically the pelvis, and based on that pelvis they will declare they are either male or female.
So you're right, it's more than just genitalia. Its skeletal, genetics and it's DNA. Just because Shamus the shithead wants to be called a woman, doesn't make him a woman. And it doesn't mean everybody has to take part in the Shamus' fantasy.
This is hilarious. Some of the very people that were screaming to believe the science when it come to COVID are ignoring the science when it comes to this.
"Sex is just as complicated as humans are. What seems a rather straightforward concept—with an unequivocal answer to the proverbial delivery room question, “Is it a boy or a girl?”—is in reality full of nuances and complexities, just like any human trait. From a biological standpoint, the appearance of the external genitalia is only one parameter among many, including chromosomal constitution, the sequence of sex-determining genes, gonadal structure, the profile of gonadal hormones, and the internal reproductive structures .
One of the pillars of the modern scientific method is to test models and try to prove them wrong. 1 However, sex and sexuality have long been an exception to modern standards of science because of the perceived consequences of scientific findings on controversial social debates. Human sexual anatomy was categorized into five types in the 19th century. An individual could be a female or a male (with typical feminine or masculine external genitalia, respectively), a female or male pseudohermaphrodite, or a true hermaphrodite. Male or female pseudohermaphrodite—terms no longer appropriate—referred to individuals with ambiguous external genitalia, a blurring between masculine and feminine features, and the presence of either testes or ovaries. True hermaphrodites have both testicular and ovarian tissue. As noted by Dreger, 2 this model, centered on the gonadal anatomy, was adopted by clinicians, and all patients born with ambiguous genitalia were traditionally classified into one of these categories. For example, individuals born with Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia have been categorized as female pseudohermaphrodites.
However, scientific advances of the past half century have shown that this model, taking into consideration exclusively the type of gonads, is inaccurate. The early embryological experiments of Jost in 1947 suggested that sex development can be viewed as a two-phase process: sex determination (the orientation of an originally undifferentiated and bipotential gonad into either testis or ovary) and sex differentiation (the development of external and internal genitalia) . It took a little more than 40 years to identify the main molecular trigger of sex determination, the Y-linked, DNA-binding and -bending transcription factor SRY. 3 , 4 Mutations in SRY in XY individuals cause gonadal dysgenesis and a female phenotype, providing strong genetic evidence that it is a major sex-determining gene . However, few patients with disorders of sex determination can be explained by mutations in SRY, indicating the existence of other sex-determining genes that have been progressively identified since 1990. 5 As for sex differentiation, most genes that have been well characterized code either for hormonal biosynthetic enzymes or hormone receptors. The sheer number of genes involved in sex development, the variety of their products, and the diversity of their function has led to the notion of sex as a complex trait in which “molecular sex” influences the various steps of sex determination and sex differentiation.
The spectacular molecular advances in our understanding of sex now warrant a reevaluation of the standard classification , which has become too vague to be efficient for the accurate analysis of outcomes data . From a patient's perspective, the nomenclature has two main issues. One is gender labeling, which is often psychologically harmful to the patient. For instance, a woman with androgen insensitivity syndrome would find herself being called a male pseudohermaphrodite, in complete contradiction to her phenotypic sex and, most probably, gender identity. In addition, inclusion of gender in a diagnostic label increases confusion for the parents and even the medical team at the time of gender assignment decisions."
We used to call them hermaphrodites | Genetics in Medicine (nature.com)
So it seems science, facts and reality disagree with your layman opinion.
One is either born male or born female.
That statement stands like a rock. Thanks for the article.
INCORRECT
These things are not so black and white as you proclaim
It's all about sex to some when there is so much more to male and female and sex and love and relationships
And no one elses' business or concern. Shit or get off the pot
Wait a minute....where have I heard that before?
Don't say anything....It's coming back to me.....I'm in a Dentist office.....
So you're claiming hermaphrodites do not exist? You should probably let the biologists know about such supposedly sturdy "facts" that fly in the face of science, biology and reality. I'm sure they'll just accept it when you explain that you know this to be true because your pappy or your preacher told you so.
The fact is that hermaphrodites do exist, as do varying degrees of male and female pseudohermaphrodites. This means the moronic notion that humans are only born male or female is clearly total unadulterated bullshit. It also means that the ridiculous moronic conservative Christian rhetoric about sexuality is not only flawed, it's dangerous and harmful to those who are not born into their worthless bigoted dipshit defined narrow gender roles.
We can see some from the right say that they are not prejudiced against trans, they just want to follow biology, in that one is born with either female or male genitalia.
In a vacuum this makes some sense. Certainly virtually all people are one or the other biologically at birth.
Where the thing goes sideways is when a person feels they are opposite sex living in the wrong body, and so they seek to make some sort of "change" in order to look more like they feel.
I think the best way for others to deal with this predicament (for others) is to mind their own business.
But many of them cant, for the reason you laid out - their religious (or political) beliefs wont let them mind their own business.
Actually, what do you call a person who carries XXY or XYY or XYXY, or XXXY chromosomes, because all these people exist?
So gender as we understand it, it is a bit more complicated
call a person who carries XXY or XYY or XYXY, or XXXY chromosomes, because all these people exist?
do those people carry working male and female sex organs?
That is more complicated than many people want to understand or acknowledge. XX = female and XY = male is simple and easy to remember. Never mind that, as often happens with, well, everything, simple and easy is often wrong or at least inadequate to describe reality.
Sex and gender are determined by so much more than one pair of chromosomes. Extra chromosomes. Mutations in SRY. 5 a- Reductase deficiency.
Maternal sex hormone levels during gestation.
It's complicated. More complicated than can be covered in most high school biology courses.
Since when?
Only facts are real. This is another progressive novelty that should have been stopped in its tracks.
This is what happens when people do not stand up immediately against the absurd. We eventually have people who try to normalize this shit.
Who would that be?
A child who got nudged by a leftist teacher?
What do you say to a child who wants to make an irreversable life altering physical change?
Better still, what do you tell them when they become very unhappy adults who then claim that they made a terrible mistake?
All of this is happening because of the woke left!
Do you deny these variations of chromosomes in human beings?
Biology is extremely complicated. Do you deny that too?
We continue to learn more about the human body (and that includes the brain). Do you deny that?
How many of those people actually exist? How many of them consider themselves a different sex than the one they presented when born?
Do you deny that there are only 2 genders?
Are you unaware of hermaphroditism? After all, Vic, this has been well known for your and my entire lifetimes.
There are two extremes in the continuum: male and female. But there are complexities in-between these extremes.
It is silly to refuse to recognize the continuum and stubbornly insist that only the extremes exist.
That said, society is currently expanding gender-speak to a silly stage. This is natural in society — we oscillate and tend to take things to the limit before stabilizing. Eventually the gender variation explosion will settle down and we will have consistent, well-founded labels across the continuum. But the labels will not be limited to two: male or female.
Are you aware that they make up an estimated less than one tenth of one percent of the population and in reality there have only been about 525 known cases.
Are we to be expected to change a whole language that has managed perfectly fine for centuries for so few people most of whom probably don't give a damn?
Yes I know it is rare. Irrelevant. The point is that the continuum exists.
Language evolves regardless of what you personally want. My advice is to adapt because there is nothing you can do to stop it.
I think I will call males males and females females and not worry about a chance meeting with an infinitely small sector of the human population.
So instead we have to do what you or some mental Ill person wants?
You can fight the evolution of natural language but it is futile. So knock yourself out arkpdx and get all bent out of shape over cultural dynamics.
I, personally, do not let these transient fluctuations bother me. And I do not care if you want to deem everyone either male or female. But if you insist on denying biology then I will correct you.
It is amusing (almost) how angry and agitated a few old poops, who probably hardly ever encounter any transexuals, get when implored to please have some compassion and not cruelly abuse them...
They say how dare society ask them to merely be respectful of fragile vulnerable children at huge risk of suicide because of the cruelty they live with and how difficult their lives are.
No Sir! They are entitled to be as boorish as they can to be!
By God, in the unlikely event they ever encounter a sexually ambiguous person then they are entitled to ridicule them as cruelty and as viciously as is humanly possible. By Golly!
SMH...
I am not denying anything I accept reality.
Then what are you whining about? My post noted that gender is a continuum and that this is based on biology. My post also noted that society oscillates and language is affected by same.
If you have a problem with reality as I described it then make an argument. And, as I noted, I personally do not care if you want to categorize everyone as male or female in your own little world. Knock yourself out. So don’t play the pathetic victim and pretend I am trying to impose on you simply by explaining reality.
If you encountered these young people would you really make a big deal about any gender ambiguity regarding how they represent?
It would never occur to me that they were not being authentic...
“…insist on denying biology…”
Not just biology, but denying identity.
Whether it be the friends one shares, the team one roots for, the food one enjoys, or even the political party which one aligns, et al….they all define a personal identity.
Emphasis on personal…
And I gave you facts. There are people who carry XXY, XYY, XYXY, and XXXY chromosomes. Their genotype says they are neither male nor female. That is not progressivism. That is a scientific fact.
Additional copies of the X chromosone do not make anyone something different, only something less sexually.
Again there are only 2 genders: male or female.
First of all, gender is not a scientific word. It is a word to assign a designation.
And how is someone, "something less sexually"? Please explain.
Chromosomes are everything we are. Those extra copies affect the body both in chemistry and sexually. These people are affected in many different ways, and some of those ways are their brain chemistry. And as many scientists will tell you, is that the brain is the biggest sexual organ there is.
Here:
These people are affected in many different ways, and some of those ways are their brain chemistry. And as many scientists will tell you, is that the brain is the biggest sexual organ there is.
How come we didn't have sexual confusion befor the arrival of the woke?
[DELETED]
Having XX chromosomes makes you a female and having XY chromosome s makes you make. It doesn't matter how many surgeries you have or how much of one hormone or another you take , nothing can change that. Are men and woman impersonating each other with an real elaborate costume
Bullshit! In pre-woke 1952 George Jorgensen became Christine Jorgensen
Hormonal therapy, surgeries, wigs, and cosmetics cannot alter Jorgensen's, or anyone's, DNA.
"Glen or Glenda" a 1953 film about a transvestite and pseudohermaphrodite.
This topic is not new but the advances in surgery are making these things possible.
Was he the first?
She was first to go public after it became medically possible!
Transexuals existed forever. Transexualism is not a new thing.
So he was the first to go public in all of those centuries before 1952?
BTW, in the old neighborhood of that time, he wouldn't heve been able to walk 1 block.
Vic asked how come we didn't have transexuals pre-woke in comment #1.3.37 which was dumb as they are not related!
Transexualism was already around in ancient Mesopotamia!
What is beyond dumb and beyond reason is trying to sell this insidious poison to the American public and especially our young children.
So Transexualism took a few centuries off?
No Vic, sex change surgery did not exist before the 1950s but transexuals have existing forever. Surgery does not make a person a transexual. Surgery only make their outside match with their inners selves. There were transexuals in ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome. Transexualism is not a modern phenomenon...
There will always be fetishes and alternate life styles, but there was never an attempt to normalize them until now.
Now that the left has used science they even try to deny it.
Male and Female. That's all there is.
No, but the suicide rate for transexual youth has always been off the charts [DELETED]
Yes, bigotry has been around for a long time, too. And violence as a result of bigotry.
I had to read that twice. I accidently flagged it.
Yes, Sandy, in my old neighborhood we dared not even wear white socks.
True that but the suicide rate does not change much after transition either.
Sex change operations are life altering.
A heavy price to pay for someone who is confused about their identity.
Yes, after years of therapy and surgeries, most can finally sleep at night very satisfied with what they have fixed and accomplished.
The confusion appears to be the problem of those who have appointed themselves as some sort of higher moral authority who are in fact themselves confused about their judgmental self-righteousness.
Pride is at the heart of prejudice.
Except for the higher rate of suicide after surgery, you've got a point.
Many have deep regrets
The confusion appears to be the problem of those who have appointed themselves as some sort of higher moral authority who are in fact themselves confused about their judgmental self-righteousness.
It always comes down to what feels good.
Pride is at the heart of prejudice.
You should reserve that for the appropriate people
The NIH, National Library of Medicine and the National Center for Biotechnology Information disagree.
Of course you can find statistics from questionable sources all over the internet concerning 30 year old studies from Sweden. (The Heritage Foundation)
The Mental Health Commission of Canada disagrees.
Pre surgery 67% of all patients considered suicide as opposed to 3% post surgery.
Transgender people and suicide fact sheet - Mental Health Commission of Canada
A life time of discrimination may not be reversable by gender reassignment.
Teenaged LGBTQ people are 4 times as likely to commit suicide than their peers.
The most recent study, ironically from Boston, disagrees.
An old HuffPost article expresses it best.
Then of course we could talk about other groups with higher suicide rates,
but that's no easier to discuss if you haven't walked in those shoes either.
Veterans are 52% more likely to commit suicide than non veterans.
True about many things, as to this topic, if you cannot document it with context,
its a fairly meaningless opinion generated by prejudice.
For whom? If it were illegal or against the Constitution, you would have a case.
It isn't, all you have is opinions about your own preferences. The world doesn't care.
I do. Perhaps a little self reflection is in order every Thursday?
You accept your own small slice of far right-wing reality.
There is no “fetish” involved and it’s not a lifestyle, either. Unfortunately, people whose minds are closed to things they don’t understand have long demonized LGBTQ people by proclaiming, without proof, that such people are sexual beasts who cannot control their lusts and prey on the “innocent” straights of the world. It’s a twisted and destructive kind of bigotry. You should reject it.
On the contrary, there is now substantial scientific research revealing that both our physical and mental sexuality are far more complex and nuanced than many people understand.
My friend, I know you mean what you say, but don't ever be fooled. This discussion is not about anybody's rights.
This is about the coruption of young children.
Better and saner than you far left wing woke fantasy.
This is a false claim people keep making because they think that invoking “the children” as hysterically as possible will end all debate. After all, no one wants to be accused of not caring about children.
But the children are doing just fine. A new entry in the Cambridge Dictionary isn’t going to change that.
Exactly. It's only the old, close minded, well past their expiration date bigots whose heads are exploding over the simple fact that " physical and mental sexuality are far more complex and nuanced than many people understand".
And not only do these old useless bigots not understand, they shake their heads and close their eyes while throwing a screaming tantrum when anyone dares challenge their long held indoctrinated religious fictions about human sexuality and human origins.
What they apparently don't realize is that their own kids are laughing at them behind their backs and those with more than half a brain are getting as far away from their decayed dying trees of prejudice as they can. Rational young folk continue to move further from their roots of prejudice and the support for the lgtbq community continues to grow while the useless prejudiced deadwood is thankfully dying off without being replaced in any significant numbers.
Growing Support for Gay Marriage: Changed Minds and Changing Demographics | Pew Research Center
This has all followed a familiar patern: Radical theories soon gain credence within academia, then the democratic party and soon become political agendas for the ruling elite. Let us all note the immediate legal recognition of multiple genders without any popular consensus.
But the children are doing just fine. A new entry in the Cambridge Dictionary isn’t going to change that.
You are being very naive.
I know I will always call a man a man, a woman a woman, and if some choose to call them something they aren't, that is their prerogative.
We can't be forced into participating in idiocy.
The destruction of role models played a part in this nonsense
Conservatives seem determined to force everyone to participate in their idiocy. Their biology class consists of teaching children that humans with dangly bits are male and those without are female and that both MUST conform to their religious conservative ideals for the two religiously defined genders. Who cares if science shows that some people are born with different chromosomes, differing amounts of gonadal tissue or ovarian tissue with the wrong corresponding genital's, true hermaphrodites with both sex organs or pseudohermaphrodites, along with the people who are born with genitals that don't match their mental sexuality.
But of course it would be "idiocy" to recognize the complexity of such a topic when the religious conservatives have already declared the answer as certified by their invisible wizard in the sky, that there are only two genders and the one with the penis should always be in charge and always be the head of the family. How can anyone doubt religious conservatives, many of whom believe the universe is only 9,000 years old, they always know what is truth and what is best for humans, right? /s
I stopped playing make believe when I was a child. I'm damn sure not going to play it as an adult.
Look, if you want to call a man something he isn't, feel free, as previously stated.
I will continue to call males males and females females.
I won't participate in lunacy to satisfy some weird whims of idiots.
Only in the conspiracy theory handbook.
You are acting like chicken little.
Exactly. You are entitled to exercise your free will
just as "they" are.
Too funny. Pot, Kettle. The irony is that you don't realize it.
So, being educated is a bad thing?
Radical theories tend to gain credence with academia,because critical analysis reveals those theories to be true. There is a long, distinguished list of such radical theories: Round Earth, heliocentrism, germ theory, gravity, magnetism, evolution, atomic theory, plate tectonics, quantum mechanics, and last but not least: seat belts save lives.
All of the above - and many many more - were once considered radical theories and rejected by closed-minded conservatives who grow uncomfortable whenever anyone tries to teach them something new about their world.
There was nothing “immediate” about it.
Popular consensus is a pretty useless method for getting at scientific truth. It is also historically slow at providing justice to minority groups. In other words, it’s nothing to be particularly proud of in this context.
So glad you agree with me.
I sure am sorry my words befuddled you so.
“I sure am sorry my words befuddled you so.”
Too funny, tex…your words are a constant, consistent source of befuddlement…
I can't understand them for you.
Tell me which ones you didn't understand and I'll see what I can do to explain them to you.
Not befuddled at all.
You call people things they are not very frequently here, hence the irony.
Quote me.
Being indoctrinated is a terrible thing.
How does that happen? Someone tells a student a thing and they turn off their brain? Parents are no longer able to have a conversation with their own children? What goes on in a classroom is secret?
There's so much hysteria right now about classrooms whether it's K-12 or college, and almost none of it is based in reason or actual observation.
“Being indoctrinated is a terrible thing”
Being intolerant is just that.
And that would be your side of the aisle, starting with calling white Cubans "hateful."
That happens when one goes to college and places all of their trust in a professor.
Someone tells a student a thing and they turn off their brain?
Have you ever listened to some of the lectures? They are very convincing.
Parents are no longer able to have a conversation with their own children?
A lot of this has been hidden from parents.
What goes on in a classroom is secret?
Wasn't that the lesson of the pandemic and stay at home teaching?
There's so much hysteria right now about classrooms whether it's K-12 or college, and almost none of it is based in reason or actual observation.
I appreciate that you try to be open minded. The left does not repect you for that. Don't ever forget it.
There's this whole multi billion dollar industry called advertising...
But of course, everyone believes they are immune to it.
How often does that happen?
BS. You go to class, learn the topics and regurgitate what gets you the best grade.
College turns out skeptics not robots.
More conspiracies?
No.
So do I.
Poor you, so divisive.
More like Elmer Fuddlement...
"Shhhhhh! I'm here to hunt some wiberals!..."
A person can be influenced or persuaded by anyone or anything. Professors, pastors, music, literature, poetry, movies. The list is probably endless. That’s life.
Except when it's done by conservative Christian parents and peers?
Teaching a young and impressionable child that there is an invisible spirit being that watches their every move and knows their every thought and demands worship and obedience with absolutely zero evidence of said spirit being is indoctrination.
Teaching a young and impressionable child about how science has estimated the actual age of the earth, about climate science, about biology and the facts and evidence of evolution, teaching what we humans have discovered about physics and the universe, that's called being educated.
Science says that humans are born in an innumerable variety of shapes, sizes, colors, genetic pre-dispositions, sexual orientations, physical abilities and disabilities and chromosomes. Science teaches how complex and unique every human is but that every human is valuable and perfectly normal just the way they are because nature doesn't give a fuck about religious doctrines and definitions.
It takes indoctrination to begin to believe something unproven and often counter to all visible evidence. It takes indoctrination to believe the earth was actually created in 6 days and is only 9,000 years old. It takes indoctrination to believe that male and female are the only variety of humans and that "righteous" humans must treat anything outside of those narrowly defined genders and gender roles as a perversion that must be attacked and maligned. It takes indoctrination to believe that treating others with disrespect, violence and discrimination is okay simply because they refuse to kneel down and accept conservative Christians religious beliefs on gender and sexuality.
You've got to be taught to hate and fear
You've got to be taught from year to year
It's got to be drummed in your dear little ear
You've got to be carefully taught
You've got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made
And people whose skin is a different shade
You've got to be carefully taught
That's my point. The idea that minors or young adults aren't going to be influenced by teachers, with the power and authority of the state as dispensors of behind them, is simply naïve and contrary to all human experience. The whole point of education is to indoctrinate students, it just a question of upon what subjects and with what messaging.
Sure, but the idea that parents, friends, pastors, doctors, etc. are helpless in the face of this alleged rhetorical onslaught is ridiculous. However, that requires building a relationship with the kids we care about. We have to listen to what they say, and have real conversations with them. Parents are responsible, not helpless.
But if people want to turn over the job of parenting to teachers, then yeah: you’ll get the kid the teacher wants to raise.
I think the reason those parties, especially in some rural and bible-belt areas, are angry at public schools that occasionally teach something that is contrary to their 'parents, friends, pastors, doctors, etc.' views is because they see the schools as preventing, 'cock-blocking', their own attempted indoctrination of the children. If they get everyone in the orbit of their children to agree and repeat the same religious conservative messages, they hope to isolate the child and never really give them a chance to make up their own minds based on a broad knowledge base before they're an adult.
This, entirely. Evangelical churches, in particular, are obsessed with shielding their congregations (adult and child alike) from all sorts of influences that make them uncomfortable. It might be TV, movies, music, or the public school system. They have shockingly feeble faith in their own professed beliefs and the strength of their personal relationships. Thus, they live in perpetual fear that exposure to other ideas and influences will cause either themselves or their loved ones to became Satan worshipers.
So teachers should have carte blanche to teach kids whatever they want (today's lesson is from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion!) just because there are other people who can also influence a student? Seems to me the more rational plan is to avoid teaching garbage in the first place and just assume the students will be taught otherwise.
you’ll get the kid the teacher wants to raise
Kids friends group are at least as important as parents, if you believe the science. And if a kids peers all are taught the same garbage, the effect multiplies.
Or maybe its because they are dealing with their kids and know them best and know what they are ready to handle. Every sane person agrees kids should be shielded from some things. I don't think anyone believes showing 6 year old gruesome videos of people being killed is a good idea. So it becomes a question of where one draws the line, and everyone will probably have a different one, which is okay.
As you said, unless ,want to turn over the job of parenting to teachers, then yeah, parents should be involved in what their kids are exposed to.
Who said that? And where is that happening? Schools have curricula prescribed by state law, school boards, and principals. Teachers follow that with some mix of their own personal style. They are subject to review by those same authorities and their lesson plans are not secret.
Gosh! How did we end up with you, then? Just lucky?
Is that happening somewhere?
But the panic mongering from the Evangelical sector would have us believe that such parental involvement would be futile. The teachers are too powerful!
No it is not because sensible people passed laws and regulations and policies and ordinances to keep young children away from such things just as they want to keep young children from learning about sexual things.
Your side is not virtuous.
Exhibit A: Calling white Cubans "hateful."
You keep repeating that sweeping generalization as if you have scored some kind of point.
You keep repeating that without a citation.
Don't worry though, I know enough Cubans in Miami to realize that they are very
racial among themselves and their own families, much like my older Mexican relatives in TX and CA.
Spanish culture in Cuba and Mexico was very stratified until slavery was ceased
only 138 years ago but prejudice doesn't die because of some words on paper.
The darker you were, the more the lighter skin toned ones talk negatively about you, it's just another form of racial prejudice.
"Hateful" may or may not apply equally in all cases but it conveys a degree of the truth.
Shall I post it or simply direct you to the member who wrote it?
Either way is fine, however I will always caution you not to make sweeping generalizations about how a particular comment by an individual is or is not representative of a whole group of people.
Being offended by such behavior and emulating the same behavior
is not a good look.
Here:
You did that vic
So a remark about a publicly self-avowed racist who happens to be a white Cuban,
( both true facts)
by a different member, (not present on this seed),
on a different article three weeks ago
is somehow in your world applicable to "Your side".
Besides being a sweeping generalization, it is a CoC on several levels.
Try staying in your lane and start worrying about what's going on in this article.
Thanks
What if Ye and Fuentes are about to be hit by a train. You can only save one, what do you do?
Waiter, I’d like a sublime Sazerac, please.
LMAO !
Do you even know what "woke" means?
And the calling out of white Cubans as hateful? Is that a true fact?
[deleted]
Still not sure what woke means.
According to the dictionary.com website
In any case most of wokeness if not all is pure unadulterated bullshit.
I explained myself in comment 1.3.102...
On the other hand, we can compare the comment your so obviously bothered by, quite fairly to how many times you get away with saying "liberals and progressives are vile evil scum" and just leave it at that.
Happy Holidays.
Which is never when you are around. However, I have borrowed a tactic from your friends and now I always submit the word "most" before progressives.
Merry Christmas.
Meta, but I appreciate the attention to detail.
The clues have always been in the CoC, are you suggesting that "my friends" are just smarter than the average member?
That was so yesterday Vic, literally.
Happy New Year
So is most religion and religious beliefs, but hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.
That's why you keep coming back for one more shot.
The clues have always been in the CoC, are you suggesting that "my friends" are just smarter than the average member?
If they were smart they wouldn't take on so many losing arguments. No, let's just say they've been lucky to have you as a friend.
That was so yesterday Vic, literally.
Oh, You're so clever!
Happy New Year
Don't forget the big day in May.
Just so you know I am not a particularly religious person and none of my beliefs come because of any religion.
I just don't care that someone's ancestors were held in slavery over 150 years ago before my ancestors were even in this country and in never owned any slaves. It is really too bad that other black people sold there fellow Africans into slavery to the Portuguese and Spanish 400 years ago. Again me my family had nothing to do with that.
I don't care if someone hundreds of years ago had slaves because back then it was a accepted practice back then and I don't hold it against their descendents because they did.
A male that has his penis removed and grows or has tits implanted is not now or ever going to be woman just as a female that has her boobs removed and uses hormones to grow a beard will never be a man. The biology. And there are only two genders and I don't give a shit about what pronoun one prefers to use. If you are male they are he and him an if you are a female they are she and her. Unless one walks around with a very small person in their pocket one person can never be a they or them.
Too funny, some of "your friends" think that is "debating".
Mirror, mirror on the wall...
The only two important days in May are Mother's Day & Memorial Day. The rest are just global or international nonsense except for Cinco de Mayo.
Thanks for the reminder when you are obviously so very busy this week!
Look around you, there are religious signs everywhere, even our laws are based in religious beliefs.
I don't care about your opinions, we live in a society that believes in pooling risk.
My insurance premiums go up for insurance companies' losses that had nothing to do with me. My taxes go up for crimes and damages I was not party to. Laws are enacted daily that have zero to do with my reality but here we are.
Again, your opinions are your own and have nothing to do with the souls of other people and what they believe. Biology doesn't always align with the soul. Chances are very very high that you have had some sort of interaction with one of these people and it didn't change your life at all. The world simply doesn't care about your anger over issues that don't affect you.
Biology is reality and science. I thought all you lefties believed in science or is it only the parts of science that agree with your opinions. I also didn't think liberals believed in the soul since it was a religious concept.
Yes I know it is only your opinions and those of liberals that count and mine and those of other conservatives are to be ignored. I just wonder who made you all decider of all things.
One other thing. I and others alive today can not be punished for the actions of those in the past. It is in the Constitution. So reparations for slavery would be unconstitutional.
Do you believe that men and women think alike or differently? Do you believe that human emotion and thought processes are the exact same regardless of gender and thus if you could swap the brains between a male and female, the female brain in a male body now be "male" and think like a male and vice versus? If so then it would make sense that gender is only determined by the genitals. Whatever the genitals, a persons thinking, emotions, feelings, self-awareness, likes, dislikes, etc. will always match their genitals.
Of course any rational person with more than half a brain knows that's complete bullshit. Women and men think very differently, to the point where some joked they're from different planets. The reality, the biology, the science and the facts all show that there is a wide mix of effeminate males and masculine females, masculine males, feminine females as well as those who don't feel they fit in either feminine or masculine and those who feel they are both. These are facts. Just because some conservative half wits are apparently too stupid to understand that there can be more than just the two gender definitions they were indoctrinated to believe in doesn't mean that the wide variety of gender identities that have proclaimed their own existence don't actually exist.
You claim that conservatives opinions are ignored, but the reality is that it's conservatives who are ignoring the voices of millions and denying the very existence of those people who don't "fit" the conservatives narrow doctrinal definition of "male" and "female". Many of these conservatives proclaim its their God that defines such things which is of course them passing on the blame for being monumental morons incapable of understanding the fact that gender throughout what they see as "creation" is full of gender fluidity, thousands of creatures that flip back and forth between whichever gender is needed for their species survival and thousands of creatures that display homosexual or bisexual behaviors.
That's rich coming from the side that is demanding there are only two genders and that it's decided at birth by the genitals most prominent, to hell with chromosomes, gonadal or ovarian tissue existing together, varying hormone levels, hermaphrodites and pseudohermaphrodites. The only difference is that conservatives made themselves the "deciders of all things" a long time ago and are now just pissed off that their bronze age archaic useless opinions are now being challenged.
That is absolutely factual whether you like it or not. (Look it up. It science)
It is the chromosomes that determine what type of genitals one has. (Look it up. It science)
Abnormalities and not frequent occurrences in any case. There have only been less than 1000 case of hermaphroditism ever recorded.
Yes. There are masculine males. Or less masculine males. Or feminine females. etc. So they're either male or female. That's biology, BTW.
Now, you can bitch all you want to about the concept of "real men" or "barbie dolls" or whatever and talk about the social stigmas that tend to follow people who deviate from those classical norms, fine. But that doesn't change biology. It doesn't change DNA or skeletal structures or any of the other actual science.
So I take it that because they are a small group we should deny their existence and treat them like freaks? Only indoctrinated self-righteous assholes could be so heartless.
First, that clearly doesn't represent that actual numbers of it happening throughout human history. But even if true hermaphroditism, with both fully formed genitals, is extremely rare, pseudohermaphrodites exist in much larger numbers.
Define pseudohermaphrodite
Pseudohermaphrodite refers to someone whose external genitalia are not consistent with his or her gonadal sex. A male pseudohermaphrodite, for example, has a 46XY karyotype and testes but has either ambiguous genitalia or a complete female phenotype. Most often this results from genetic disorders of testosterone biosynthetic enzymes, the androgen receptor or the 5-a-reductase enzyme; the severity of the phenotype depends on the severity of the genetic defect. A female pseudohermaphrodite, in contrast, has a 46XX karyotype and ovaries but has ambiguous external genitalia. The most common cause of this is congenital adrenal hyperplasia, which results in virilization of the female fetus in utero.
Guevedoces
Suppose you were a 12-year-old girl living in an isolated village in the Dominican Republic. You had been worried for a while that your breasts had not begun to grow and you had not shown any signs of menstruating like some of your friends. Still more frightening were the two lumps appearing under your partially fused labia majora, along with the noticeable increase in the size of your clitoris. Another revelation was that you began to be interested sexually in girls. You are then told that you belong to a group of similar people in your village that have been called Guevedoces (penis at 12). The Guevedoces syndrome is relatively common in several isolated, remote villages in the Dominican Republic and a few other places in the world. These children, most often raised as girls, are actually male!
Pseudohermaphroditism
A pseudohermaphrodite is a person whose gonads are consistent with the chromosomal sex but who has external genitalia of the opposite sex. Male pseudohermaphrodites have normal testes but incomplete masculinization of the wolffian duct system and external genitalia. One form of this condition is the inherited disorder androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS), also called testicular feminization syndrome ( Figure 5.9 ). These individuals have normal testes and male chromosomes (46:XY), and their testes secrete normal amounts of testosterone. However, they have a genetic absence of the receptors for androgens in target tissues. Thus, they develop female-like external genitalia, the testes are not descended, and wolffian duct structures (epididymis, vas deferens, and seminal vesicles) do not develop.
These individuals show a range of incomplete masculinization of the reproductive ducts and external genitalia. Often they are born with ambiguous genitalia (a very small penis and empty scrotum). Their urethra may fail to close during development, resulting in an opening on the lower surface of the penis, a condition called hypospadias.
Pseudohermaphroditism - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
There are so many variations of genetic receptors, chromosomes, hypospadias, testosterone, testicular atrophy, hypogonadism and more that determine what a persons gender is and who they are as a human. Trying to claim otherwise is just sad intentional stupidity.
Not XX and not XY one in 1,666 births
Klinefelter ( XXY ) one in 1,000 births
Androgen insensitivity syndrome one in 13,000 births
Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome one in 130,000 births
Classical congenital adrenal hyperplasia one in 13,000 births
Late onset adrenal hyperplasia one in 66 individuals
Vaginal agenesis one in 6,000 births
Ovotestes one in 83,000 births
Idiopathic (no discernable medical cause) one in 110,000 births
Iatrogenic (caused by medical treatment, for instance progestin administered to pregnant mother) no estimate
5 alpha reductase deficiency no estimate
Mixed gonadal dysgenesis no estimate
Complete gonadal dysgenesis one in 150,000 births
Hypospadias (urethral opening in perineum or along penile shaft) one in 2,000 births
Hypospadias (urethral opening between corona and tip of glans penis) one in 770 births
Total number of people whose bodies differ from standard male or female one in 100 births
Total number of people receiving surgery to “normalize” genital appearance one or two in 1,000 births
How common is intersex? | Intersex Society of North America (isna.org)
Seems there is far more ambiguity with human gender than conservatives are willing to admit, but then they've always shown themselves to be sore losers unwilling to admit when they are wrong, they just keep their big lies going and act as if no one notices.
So are psychology & psychiatry.
There you go thinking out loud again... do you deny the existence of souls?
Well wrong again, that's just another ignorant sweeping generalization that defies the participation of several religious liberal members here. Let's just call it consciousness and leave it to be a fact that every consciousness is unique.
If that were true you wouldn't be allowed to comment here, would you?
The same one that made you the decider of all things?
So you don't believe in original sin either? You aren't paying your taxes?
Yawn. The Constitution, the Bible, more words on paper like the Terms of Service here.
You agree with them to get by but you realize they can be stretched depending on the balance of power in SCOTUS or the other powers to be. 27 Amendments and counting. You know, the same SCOTUS that is now making public health and immigration policy.
Shall we go through and talk about the more famous tranies who were neither hermaphrodites nor were they pseudohermaphrodites. Like Bruce Jenner, Jerrod Jennings, William Thomas.
The definition of prejudice is to unfairly assign negative traits to whole groups of people based on dislike of individuals...
So you don't believe in the Constitution or the Bible. I didn't think so.
And I know you only like and respect SCOTUS when they uphold your rules. When they actually follow the Constitution you butch
Would you like to hear of liberal prejudices?
Well yours are on full display
so go for it,
you appear to be "on a roll",
maybe you will feel better...
The government of the United States has been a continuing enterprise for 245 years. Slavery was sanctioned by the government of the United States of America.
But how about this - many conservatives are sure that we are burdening future generations with the national debt. But why should the generation a hundred years from now care about what happened before they were born? After all, thats what you say.
Enlighten me since you are the woke one!
Liberals have been saying all Christians are like those belonging to westboro baptist. They claim all Republicans are Nazis or white supremacists even though that is not true. I have been falsely accused as have other conservatives of being homophobic or transphobic which could not be further from the truth. I do not dear either group in fact I feel sorry for them that they have such a mental illness. I have been accused of being anti woman because I support the right to life for unborn babies..
So, liberals are intolerant of intolerance?
Tell me why I should owe anyone today for what happened 150 years ago. Not to the government but to an individual person who was not alive then and has never been a slave. Should you be arrested and placed in prison because your great grandfather robed a bank and got away with it? No? Then why should I pay a price for someone being a slave that not only I had nothing to do with but none of my family did either.
I will tell you what though if you can find someone that was born into slavery when it was legal and can prove it I will ok him or her getting reparations. The proof must be 100% verifiable
That is the biggest bullshit answer of the decade. [deleted.]
Deleted
Why should Americans 100 or 150 years from now pay off our debt?
Using your logic, the whole national debt thing is bullshit.
Unless the nation continues over centuries, which is exactly what happened with the issue of slavery.
I dont say that blacks are individually owed money, but they are owed something. The United States of America made them second class citizens , along with the American Indians, from the beginning.
Then you pay them out of your own pocket and leave mine alone if you feel that guilty for the actions of others. I do not.
There is no guilt involved, nor is it necessary on your part. Or wanted.
Reparations to Native Americans have been on going and haven't hurt you or cost
you anything.
Where does the money come from?
The same place that $900 hammers and $600 toilet seats come from?
The Treasury.
Which is funded annually by 47% of the public who pay income taxes.
In short the government prints the money you have faith in.
Court case after case has determined that the "harm done to an individual taxpayer"
does not rise to "standing".
Don't like it? Join the Goldwater Institute which sues the US Government regularly
(increasing your taxes) in many similar cases.
That's right.
We pay for it and our children will be paying for a lot more for it!
Welcome to Post WWII America.
We just paid that debt off during the Clinton Admin.
You keep saying the Treasury. Whatever they do the taxpayers eventually have to pay the bill. That bill is enormous and will have to be paid by multiple generations.
Clinton benefited from Reagan's growing economy. Clinton got the unexpected revenue from all that growth which paid off the deficit.
As for WWII, under Eisenhower the wealth paid 90% of their income so that we paid off WWII debt. That is how we used to do it!
Skipping right over GHW Bush now are we?
He was a passenger, never a pilot.
Well don’t you skip over Bush also, fill us in JBB.
I have a delightful article/blog/rant/discussion that I wrote today to ring in 2023 with a twist of sour wisdom. If you get time, it's at:
Yes, I do.
So the fines and interest from Dept of Energy investments don't count?
All the drug busts and confiscated shit they auction off is meaningless.
The same as every other generation, especially worse since Reagan who believed the deficits and national debt were meaningless.
What Ronald Reagan Really Did to US Debt | Gold News (bullionvault.com)
and this blast from the past, makes one weepy for a dcent deficit.
The Reagan Budget: The Deficit that Didn't Have to Be | Cato Institute
Fines and interest?
Paying off the national debt?
It was Reagan's fault?
I don't think I even need to bother with that.
What percentage of federal revenue do these generate, that will determine the amount of meaning.
Not the same as our debt is growing exponentially. Reagan’s administration ended 34 years ago. Reagan didn’t approve any Budget that the Dem controlled House didn’t agree to.
Sorry Vic. Regan and GHW Bush combined to grow the national debt to 4 times what Carter left behind.
You remember GHW Bush don't you, the POTUS between Reagan and Clinton,
The guy that said "no new taxes".
Clinton inherited that debt.
The deficit is a different concept and while Clinton had a few months of flat or negative deficit, nothing was "paid off".
Ahh, the nostalgia for the 50's is palpable but our WWII debt wasn't paid off until the
Clinton Admin.
(Actually the debt never gets paid off until the last veteran of WWII
passes and China, Iran and Russia/USSR/Russia still owes us a trillion dollars for WWII)
Yes, US debt in 1992 was $5T. Today it is over $31T.
Where oh where are we headed with this?
From 1981 to 1992 ( REgan & Bush 41)the debt quadrupled. to$4T ( in todays dollars $8.4T )
Clinton "only " added $1T in 8 years.
Bush 43 added $6 T and didn't even account for the War on Terror; he was at the helm when the housing market crashed and then a global meltdown occurred causing Obama to add another $8T in 8 years.
Mr Trump managed to add $7T in 4 years.
Afghanistan is the gift that keeps on giving /S
( I answered from a laptop that froze up and now I see my answer is gone.)
To summarize; in 1934 corporate taxes and personal income taxes produced roughly the same amount of income to the Treasury but the excise tax and "other category" provided the lion's share of revenue.
That has completely flipped now starting with WWII.
Now individual income tax and employer payroll taxes produce 82% of our revenue, excise & misc is less than 7% now. Corporate income tax has been all over but now only 11%.
Table 2. Federal Government Receipts by Source, Percent of Total, 1934 – 2018
I remember the first new car I financed had a $300.00 Federal Excise tax.
Not sure which party did away with that but they are both guilty of passing annual budgets for even the worst of our recent Presidents.
Isn't that a wry attempt at whataboutism?
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the only or even the primary variable in our national debt was who is president.
An economist named Mason once pointed out the difference between
the "primary debt" and the "absolute debt" using a graph
where the difference in spread was the interest rate.
He was trying to help "fix" Reagans' legacy.
Instead, Congress, regardless of protests or self-protestations has seemed to have
resolved itself to view the debt as an interest only mortgage.
As long as we pay the interest, they seem fine with the status quo
regardless of the primary debt balance.
Any one with the balls to tackle the debt seriously will end up as a one term wonder.
Fix it? Didn’t President Obama identify Reagan as a transformational president, ending the Cold War, ended the Carter ‘malaise’ and set the stage for our growth in the 90’s.
In 1988, US debt was 50% of GDP, today it’s 138%.
Unfortunately, you are right, Americans are addicted to ‘free’ chicken.
You realize that they haven't changed the definition of woman right? They've simply added a new one based on how the word is being used. Languages are constantly evolving.
A new one wasn't needed. A woman is and always will be a female human being. One being female is determined by genetics and one having XX chromosomes and not by someone cutting a man's penis off.
And you realize we now have a Supreme Court Justice who can't even define what a woman is.
There was no need to add a "new" definition of a woman or man, since genetic science hasn't changed.
To a point, you're correct. However (again), biology of XX/XY has not changed. Someone's "feelings" are not scientific data.
That was a whopper!
Of course.
Of course.
They are to the psychologists and psychiatrists who have to evaluate the people
who are seeking to transition, in fact, many people spend more money on that
phase of their journey than hormone therapy or surgery.
The surgeon's job has now become the easiest part of the transition,
so much so, that many like Papillon seek to control the whole process,
like a general contractor.
As far as public approval is concerned, none is needed.
The Cambridge Dictionary is no different than Twitter.
Your right to be annoyed by the world outside your door is protected by the
same Amendments that allow the right to privacy to us all.
Taking issue with definitions and how people define themselves is somewhat hypocritical of believers
in the Abrahamic religions many of whom care too much about their soul's sinful travels to heaven.
These people who seek surgery to change their genders are trying to match their soul to their current
physical condition.
In the Dharmik tradition of reincarnation (Hindu, Sikh, Janis, Budha) a person's soul
can come back as a different gender or even a different species.
The soul has no DNA.
With Cheese!
American Cheese?
Just as I won't bow to being forced to use the metric system, I never accept or accommodate this gender identity fantasy some mixed up people have and call an obvious male "she" It's a mental and emotional problem with them.
“It's a mental and emotional problem with them.”
Too sad that some will not, can not comprehend that the ‘mental and emotional problem’ lies solely within themselves.
How does one choosing to identify oneself have any meaningful, substantive impact on your life?
Absolutely none, unless of course, your moral definitions must apply to all others. Not here.
The problem is not with their bodies or sexual characteristics, but their mental and emotional perception of said characteristics.
They feel they are in the wrong body and desire to change it. This small percentage of the population has been pretty consistent over the years.
So what's happened in the last few years. It seems like "transitioning" has become the latest fad of the left.
Thus, numbers of kids are being falsely instructed and groomed to go through with life changing procedures that are permanent, instead of being counseled to accept themselves as they are.
So yes, it's an emotional and mental problem, one which most children grow out of.
Do you ever consider why that might be?
Simply calling it a desire makes it sound like an insignificant choice - like which jeans to wear while doing yard work.
For every one I know who has gone through this, it has been the most difficult, complicated, and challenging process of their lives. I think it’s kind of shitty for other people - strangers, really - to dismiss it as some kind of trendy choice or judge it as a moral perversion.
Aww, what’s the matter? Are you afraid you might get something on you?
Me personally? It doesn't.... until batshit angry leftists start yelling at everybody for "misgendering" or some other such bullshit.
But I'm not a female athlete.
In real life do batshit leftist often yell at you for misgendering?
No problem! Let me know your general location, I would RATHER AVOID YOU THAN "THEM"
NO GROOMING GOING ON AS YOU ALLUDE TO
SIMPLY THE WORLD IS NOT SO BLACK AND WHITE AS THE NARROW MINDED FOLKS WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE
WHAT IS WRONG WITH PROMOTING TOLERANCE AND DIVERSITY AND ACCEPTANCE?
SORRY FOR MY ALL CAPS OR ALL LOWER CASE COMMENTS
NOT USED TO USING A LAPTOP. I AM A TYPIST AND THIS KEYBOARD DOES NOT AGREE WITH ME
What do you think would happen if you identified yourself as a Navy admiral. Would you expect everyone else to accept that? What do you think happens when you self identify as a police officer and act on it when you are not?
Wrong a million times over.
There, fixed it for you.
Wonderful attitude /s
You probably would not even be aware if you met one.
No, it’s actually an honest question based on your own words. You, very emotionally, insisted that people be kept away from you. So, serious question: What are you so afraid of?
I assume you never plan on leaving this country on vacation or anything then.
[deleted]
Too bad. You'll miss out on a lot of amazing sites to see and history to enjoy.
There are more than enough sites and history to see in this country to occupy a lifetime and more.
You are not incorrect, but remember our ancestors migrated to America, so our history includes parts outside our borders.
[deleted]
You already do. In lots of ways. If you buy a 2-liter bottle of soda. If you take medicine measured in milligrams or cubic centimeters. If you ever run in a 10K. If you buy booze. If you consume electricity by the kilowatt. Dental floss is sold by the meter. Car engines - even in American cars - are most commonly marketed by their liter displacement.
The metric system is all around you, and you are hip deep in it (about a meter) whether you like it or not.
Interesting. What do you think makes it obvious? And why is obviousness an important factor?
I would say most people pursue changes in their gendered lives because something about them is not obvious.
Wine and liquor products commonly sold in 750ml bottles, LOL...
Morning split...we changed to metric years ago and it's way easier to work out than imperial...you soon get use to it and think nothing of it..
Now we just need to educate you mob in spelling...meter is metre...liter is litre...heck you mob will be speaking and spelling like us Aussies in no time ..🦘
Hope you are not snowed in..blue sky, sun and time to hit the waves here..🦈🦈
Texas, 3 days ago 80 degrees, blown away by a southern storm system that brought several tornados and dropped the temps to low 60's during the day, but 30's overnight.
Tonight was the first time I had to disconnect hoses and dump vulnerable water bowls for the critters.
Ummm why do you have to dump water bowls??
We have Ducks and outside cats in addition to the birds squirrels and occasional
turtle who expects strawberries. Some of the Mexican bowls and birdbaths are pricey
Talavera clay and break if the water freezes. Stainless and plastic usually fare well.
Morning Shona. Don't forget you folks say aluminium while we say aluminum.
Morning Ed...yes I use to work for Alcoa..we soon educated the Americans that came over here..
Had them spelling the same way as us and filing the same way...none of this year first then the month etc.. it's always month then the year eg 19/12/22.
And we converted them to Vegemite.. our greatest achievement..
We saved England with Spam, Lol !!!
Tried Vegemite when I lived in Christchurch, New Zealand and could never get used to the taste. Kiwis told me it was just like peanut butter. Not even close! Got to a acquired taste one is raised with.😏
Yep.
Morning split..that's quite funny actually. You have to tip out the water to stop it freezing and breaking the bowls.
We have to fill up the water bowls and dishes so birds and animals have something to drink and survive the heat..
I have four birdbaths etc and have to fill them every day as all the water sources dry up now.
The Kiwi's lied..
They certainly did!
Just had toasted muffin with butter and Vegemite... bliss..🐨
To each their own.
Good grief, what a pointless objection. We all must use systems that we did not invent for natural language, weights, measurements, time, counting, typing, .... Big deal. The more fluent one is in these systems, the more personally capable one is as an individual. In contrast, stubborn refusal of systems that are in effect and widely used simply makes an individual less capable (more backward) relative to others.
You are used to our English base 12 system for time and measurements yet you also use our decimal system for arithmetic which is based on 10. The metric system is base 10; it is a natural for a base 10 arithmetic system.
But you proudly and stubbornly declare that you "will not bow to being forced" to use a well-established system that works much better with the other systems you already know and use.
Are people all over the world who reject Christ or Budha mental?
Does it affect the quality of your life, no, not a single bit.
So ranting about the metric system or the British Imperial system makes not a whit of difference to you
(unless you owned an old British car which American socket sets never quite fit in which case you can borrow mine, sometimes metric fits by accident, in which case you can borrow those also. I also have gold plated award tools which you cannot borrow)
The British call the hood of a car a bonnet and the deck lid a boot; who cares?
Who is harmed?
We do the same..boot and bonnet all the way..
Actually have to clean my car..got cat paw prints all over the wind screen, thanks for the reminder...
Deck lid that's a good one, that had me stumped...
I had an Austin Healy and a couple of other pre 1970 fine British iron horses with
demisters
( triangular vent windows )
which were crucial to defogging the inside of the windscreen in bad weather.
Not a one had a blower motor worth a darn that could clear the windscreen or heat the car interior.
Ahh, youth.
Had a friend in the early 70's who owned a 1960 Austin Healy "Bug Eyed" Sprite. He had the same complaints you mentioned. It was a fun car to work on though. I recall he had the engine rebuilt after he got it and had to pull the head off the engine. He laughed when he stood right over the front of the engine and lifted the head right off by himself bare handed and unassisted!
Wuz one of those Brit car owners - '58 Healey Bug-Eyed Sprite, 60 Healey 100-6, 64 MGB, '68 MGB-GT, Triumph TR3/TR6, '60 XK-150 (damn, wish I had any of those cars now).
Like your friend, it was nothing unusual for a few friends and I, after a 6-pack of Schlitz each, to change/repair the engine or transmission starting at 9:00 pm and finishing at 3:00 am on any of our Brit cars - no hoists, hands on, using crescent wrenches/metric tools, laughing and thrilled when the motor just kicked over and out the garage we went.
One bud "tried" to fit a Camaro engine into a Healey 3000 - found out that the transmission was "too short" - but we did it by hand and kept the Healey engine instead.
67 Mark 3
Had to change the clutch, pulled the transmission out through the interior by myself.
Sold it in the 90's to put a downpayment on a house outside of PI
Saw it 2o years later, basically untouched except for a new power brake booster
and the same guy who bought it for $8K wanted $70K
A friend from the car club reminded me that "no one NEEDS an Austin Healy"
LMAO, Man I miss that piece of ....
they were always breaking, but very easy to work on.
Lol really? The metric system is your hill? That’s dumb, the metric system is far superior to the “standard” system (and we are like the only country that still uses that idiotic system). Seriously, what do you have against the metric system? It is based upon factors of 10, makes complete sense, and is easy to remember. Even the country that created the standard system decided it was retarded and went metric.
Not to mention you use the metric system all the time even in the us. Take a look at your drink and medication labels. I am only okay with the standard system because I have had to memorize it and am just familiar with it, but I would be totally cool with dumping it and going metric.
FFS 12 inches in a foot? 3 feet in a yard? And my absolute favorite, 5,280 feet in a mile? What the fuck kinda Mickey Mouse shit is that?
Sorry mam didn't mean to annoy you.
I never accept or accommodate this gender identity fantasy some mixed up people have
Too funny. 90% of the time you probably wouldn’t even recognize it if you saw it.
exactly!
Oh, thank you for that blistering "clarification," I am now converting to the GOP (Government of Putin).
Great, now we don't have to call anyone what they want to be called. I can call anyone on here whatever I want to and not by their screen name.
Boy is this misleading. Cambridge has added a new definition. They did not replace the old one. As any grade school child knows, dictionaries include multiple definitions for a given word. The primary - and therefore, most used and preferred - definition of “woman” in the Cambridge Dictionary can be found online here , and reads as follows:
See? There is no great gender crisis in English dictionaries. Nevertheless, as I have observed elsewhere on this site, political partisans will exaggerate anything to levels of cosmic bullshit if it gets people excited about voting for their party.
Um, yeah. People always say that about bringing up Hitler, too. In both cases, people should try harder.
Good. They are.
I don’t believe you because every other sentiment expressed in this article is the very opposite of a “live and let live” philosophy.
Dangerous to whom? If you don’t want gender-affirming care, don’t get it. If someone else does, that’s not your business.
. . . Says the person who has already misrepresented his source; referred to people he disagrees with as “dangerous,” a “mob,” and bullies; and felt compelled to cite Orwell.
Where are they empowered to choose their own sex? What doctor is performing sex reassignment surgery on a child based solely on the choice that kid expressed? This claim is often repeated without evidence, as if 8 year olds routinely wake up in a mood to get surgery and are in recovery by dinner. Because doctors hand out surgery the way the guy at 7-11 hands out Doritos and a Big Gulp.
You still can. Just bring your brain with you.
By the way, it might also help to understand how dictionaries develop their definitions. Definitions do not come from God or some other high authority, get printed in a dictionary, and then disseminate to a compliant populace. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Dictionaries don’t direct and control the language, they reflect common usage. As common usage evolves and changes the meanings, spellings, or pronunciations of words, dictionary editors change their holy books in response.
"Different Strokes for Different Folks" was, and, is a well-meaning song. It is similar to "Live and Let Die" which is, I am told by one of my hallucinations, a Republican MAGA phrase used to justify exclusivity.
He and others warned readers about Marxism and Communism. We, in a still-free USA, are seeing many aspects of Marxism taking root in 2022 and should start paying attention. This playbook was written long ago....
I recommend that anyone who is interested read the article below, because it contains descriptions of the 4 stages of Marxism that are visible in today's USA.
Marxism is not taking root at all. The US is so far from what Karl Marx envisioned that you really cannot even out the two in the same sentence and have it make sense.
Just throwing shit at the wall, as usual
Especially in the USA, the terms socialism, communism, Marxism are so overloaded and screwed up that it is a litmus test for conspiracy theory / fear-mongering if anyone uses them.
How utterly ridiculous to think that the USA is in danger of a 'Marxist revolution'. Marxist theory was based on 19th century European realities, not the complex, interrelated socio-economic/political system in place in the USA today. Capitalism in the USA is not in danger of collapsing under its own weight (at least not in the foreseeable future) and the proletariat is not even close to class consciousness with no realistic method to organize workers to take over industry. Not to mention, the idea of a revolution by the people would necessarily require overthrowing the US government.
People need to get a grip. The realistic concern is our continued irresponsible spending and borrowing and the perpetual growth (and intrusion) of the government. The problem is, in short, a continued growth in Big government and corruption of same.
Marxism in the USA is only a problem for irrational conspiracy theorists and those who have no real clue what they are talking about.
Was the poster, perhaps, referring to the Right-Wing, Extremists MAGA, Jan.6th Insurrectionists?
We must never judge a book by its cover, or a post by its grammatical mistakes, or spelling errors.
Round and round and round we go. And the majority of the world just looks upon the US and laughs at the country that doesn't know the difference between a man and a woman.
Is that a good thing? Humor is appreciated in most democracies and is verboten in Communist countries.
Having majored in English Literature in university, being Editor-in-Chief of my university newspaper, teaching English to Chinese students for 6 years at a private high school and teaching English privately thereafter until retiring when the covid pandemic happened, having read about those redefinitions, all I can say as I've said again and again: "Scotty, beam me back to the early 1950s", and if that doesn't work, "Stop the world, I want to get off." If Shakespeare had seen that shit, never mind Shakespeare, if Hemingway had seen that shit, he'd laugh his ass off.
Been thinking a bit about it. Since they're unique, sort of like hybrids, maybe they should be called something different, like "transale" and "transman".
Heminway certainly, but Shakespeare I am not certain. He after all used men to play the part of women in his plays and had a number of words that are seldom, if not ever used.
Like everything else, it is a "fad," a short one, I, too, hope.
What then do we call Miss Lindseed? Mister, Miss, MF-ers, Southern Racists, or Trump's Dirty Diaper Wiper.
Nice to hear from you.
I, too, was an English & Theater major, who attended a predominately black university in Wilberforce, Ohio where Ebonics was spoken by many of the students, but only a few of the professors.
I learned to speak a little of it.
Well, if not Shakespeare, how about Webster, who did a job shortening words to make them easier.
Changing the definition of a woman to capitulate to the trans activists is one of the most oppressive actions we have seen in the last century. Most men that support this nonsense have a fetish where they are attracted to men with cocks who dress like women. They are actually bicurious or gay and there is science to support this. They call you a bigot to hide their secret, they are attracted to it. The consequence is that a century of women's rights is being eroded because they have a fetish. Once again their is scientific evidence they are obsessed with it. 80% of the supporters of this unscientific nonsense are men. Hopefully their poor wives know they are obsessed with men with breasts and cocks. Ladies if your husband is defending this, he's likely in your panty drawer and thinking about cock instead of you. He needs to admit he's gay, nothing wrong with that but you need to let him go so he can pursue his dreams.
Ummmm, sounds like you have a lot of issues to work out.
Ahhh, I don’t know. I am pretty damn liberal on most issues, but this one is kinda pushing me. I guess my position is this, you can identify as whatever gender you want, but you cannot change your biological sex, and you also cannot expect everyone to just dump all long established social norms at the drop of a hat to accommodate you.
You really cannot expect us to change all of our established behaviors and even language all of a sudden.
Try telling that to my 15-year-old granddaughter, who came out when she was 13 much to the charging of my wife. I accepted it, had an intuition prior to her breaking the news, and accepted it.
The SHE/HE, THEY, PANGENDER is a bit much for me to learn at me ripe old age of nearly 81. She does not want to be called by her legal name. I understand that, I stopped calling myself, "Johnnie" in the 8th grade and changed it to John. In college, I changed it again to John K. Roberts, out of respect for John F. Kennedy.
However, today, I write under the nom de plume of Jonathan Livingston Pigeon-Poo, "Doctored". It gives more credence to my newest podcast site, "The Bird Droppings Institute - a Think Tank for Morons, No, Idiots, Please".