Liberal media outlet skewered for blasting Rubio's mockery of 'pregnant men': 'you guys just failed biology' | Fox News
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Conservatives went after leftist video journalism outlet The Recount after it slammed Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., for denying the idea that men can get pregnant.
Conservatives went after liberal video journalism outlet The Recount after it slammed Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., for denying the idea that men can get pregnant.
On Monday, the outlet's Twitter account shared video of Rubio speaking during the Edmund Burke Foundation's recent National Conservatism conference. In the clip, the U.S. Senator criticized the transgender ideology, specifically the notion that anyone other than a biological woman can get pregnant.
"Today we are subjected to things like, there are such things as pregnant men," he stated, adding, "As of almost 10 o'clock today - as far as I know - every single human being that's ever been born was born of a biological woman."
Rubio then blasted health experts who have encouraged such ideas. "And yet we have, not just commentators, not just professors, we have the Centers for Disease Control, we have the most prominent public health agency in America, who insists on using the term pregnant people."
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., took heat from liberal outlet The Recount for mocking the idea that men can get pregnant. (Stephen M. Dowell/Orlando Sentinel/AP)
"Well I can assure you that's never happened," he added.
The Recount condemned Rubio's words in this clip, tweeting, "Locked in a tight race with Rep. Val Demings, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) trots out a transphobic attack on the CDC for using the term 'pregnant people.' 'Pregnant men ... I can assure you that's never happened,' Rubio says, which is factually inaccurate."
Though conservatives on Twitter were not sold on The Recount's shoddy biology lesson.
"You're a bunch of psychopaths for thinking men can get pregnant," tweeted NewsBusters managing editor Curtis Houck.
TownHall.com web editor Rebecca Downs claimed that the people at The Recount would've flunked biology class, tweeting, "Uh, no, it is indeed 'factually ACCURATE,' you guys just failed biology and/or would either promote wokeness rather than objective truth. It's also not even the much of a tight race."
Conservative write Kyle Becker pulled out the biology facts, tweeting, "Men generate spermatazoa and not ova, therefore they naturally cannot 'get pregnant'."
"As a woman, I can assure you, MEN cannot, NOR has one EVER, gotten pregnant. #ScienceMatters," wrote conservative commentator Kimberly Morin.
Author John Hawkins responded to The Recount, writing, "If you think biology 101 is transphobic, maybe you're just anti-science."
Sen. Rubio, R-Fla., slams transgender ideology during a recent conservative conference.
"Uhhh no, there has never been, nor will there ever be, a pregnant man. Anyone saying such is an unhinged, fanatical liar. This isn't 'transphobic')because there's no such word). It's science and a fact," tweeted The Washington Examiner's Christopher Tremoglie.
Conservative radio host Gerry Callahan tweeted, "Oh boy. Rubio really stepped in it now."
Radio host Hugh Hewitt asked, "What? Can we get a link @TheRecount?"
The Daily Wire co-founder Jeremy Boreing wrote, "No matter how many journalists insist otherwise, no matter how many social scientists insist the same, no matter how many social platforms, corporations, or schools force this lunacy upon you, men can not become pregnant and it is not transphobia to acknowledge as much."
"Come for the common sense from Rubio, stay for the ratio of the left-wing stupidity," quipped TownHall.com columnist Derek Hunter.
"'Transphobic attack.'" Lmao stop erasing women," urged conservative commentator Ian Miles Cheong.
The Recount accused Sen. Rubio, R-Fla., of running afoul of transgender ideology. (Jake Crandall/The Montgomery Advertiser via AP)
Gabriel Hays is an associate editor at Fox News. Follow him on Twitter at @gabrieljhays.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
425 visitors
Well, so much for "following the science", eh?
I guess when science isn't convenient, it is to be ignored.
Want to bet that most of the idiots supporting the crackpots have college degrees?
I believe most liberals actually believe the things they say.
There's no way the "birthing person" crowd actually believes that, is there? I refuse to believe that many people are that crazy.
They do, and will insist you are wrong for relying on science and facts.
I know it is hard to even think of something so insane, but this is what they have been reduced to.
Based on what has happened over the last 6 years, you may have to revisit that.
ased on what has happened over the last 6 years, you may have to revisit that.
Yo are probably right. Imagine telling the 1995 version of yourself that in 25 years, Democrats would mainly be concerned with making sure men got to play woman sports and claiming men can give birth.
It's impossible to satirize how crazy they are.
True, because what used to be satire is now fact.
If you want to be taken seriously, though, you have to approach the issue honestly. This sentence above, is a good example of how people don’t address the issue honestly.
I don’t know how many people understand this, but I am certain that Marco Rubio does. No one (that I know of) is going around saying that biological men can be pregnant.
A trans man identifies as male in spite of the fact that he was born with female parts. This self-identity usually has to do with how his brain is built and he perceives himself. He therefore chooses to live as a man. But if his female parts are still functional, then yeah, he could get pregnant.
It is an important distinction, and honestly, I don’t think it’s all that hard to comprehend if you’re just willing to be not bigoted.
I can tell that Marco Rubio understands the distinction because he changed phrasing in mid-sentence. First he says he is expected to believe “there are such things as pregnant men.” He doesn’t mention biology because he knows that trans identity is not about the biology of reproduction.
Then, he finishes with, “every single human being that’s ever been was born of a biological woman.”
So first he ignores biology, and then he references it. The first part of his statement creates a straw man, and the second part argues against the straw man. He is arguing against the idea that biological men can be pregnant - an argument no one is making.
So why is doing this when he knows better? I would guess it’s because being a bigoted ass gets him votes. It’s too bad, because I believe a little compassion would get him even more votes.
I think the key phrase there is "we are subjected to".
As unpopular as Dave Chappelle is with the trans community, he's not wrong to ask "to what degree do I have to participate in your self image"?
“We” are not being subjected to a thing.
As I said, I have no problem with an honest conversation. But demonizing people - especially a tiny minority - over something they aren’t actually saying is obnoxious.
I fail to understand why those who do it are so threatened.
To what degree do you have to participate in anyone’s self image? And if you do sense a social or moral obligation to participate, do you usually refuse?
So, for some examples . . .
If a woman wants to be addressed as Ms., do you insist on calling her by something else, like Mrs. or Miss?
If a woman gets married and changes her last name, do you insist on addressing her or referring to her by her maiden name? What if her new name is a hyphenated amalgam of both her maiden name and her husband’s name? Is that a bridge too far?
If a man converts to Islam and takes on a new name, do you insist on using his old name? Like, were you one of the people who persisted in calling Muhammad Ali by Cassius Clay until the day he died (and after)? How about Kareem Abdul Jabbar (ne Lew Alcindor)?
What is so hard about just being a decent human being and treating or addressing someone in the way that they want?
We're subjected to being labeled "bigots" if we refuse to accept whatever the prevailing feelings are, no matter how nonsensical they may be.
You sure? Most trans-affirming people I've met are intensely opposed to honest conversations on the matter and start screaming "bigot" or "transphobe" as soon as one begins. They don't like the questions they have to answer.
He's not demonizing trans people. He's demonizing the people calling everybody "bigot".
Which do you suppose is worse? What you’re going through? Or what trans people go through? People aren’t calling you a bigot simply because you disagree with them. They’re calling people bigots who try to justify being mean or rude to someone - or straight up discriminating against them - who isn’t harming them, solely on the basis of them being trans.
When you mistreat or judge someone negatively based on a thing like that, then yeah, you might be a bigot.
Well, whoever you think the target is, he’s still doing it dishonestly.
Ordinarily, you don't. That's the issue.
This isn't about what name we call somebody. This is about the demands that we all accept various elements of this alternate reality.
Does it really bother you that much?
What difference would that possibly make?
Define "being mean or rude".
Does the refusal to abandon biology and agree with the idea that a woman with gender dysphoria is an actual man constitute "being mean"?
Does refusing to pretend that strong feelings of gender incongruence mean a 6'3" man should compete on the womens basketball team constitute "being rude"?
See... to me... something like "If you celebrate a 6 foot man winning the women's national championship in swimming, you're a complete imbecile" would be "rude". Accurate, but rude.
That's one of the hallmarks of a totalitarian regime. The demand that everyone, publicly at least, deny reality and profess acceptance of what everyone understands to be a lie.
Not at all.
But I'm in a position where I have the luxury of not caring at all what silly people think.
Uhh.....
You are in a position to influence. Why choose disparaging people.
We're so far removed from reality on the topic that attempting to acknowledge it is somehow 'disparaging people'.
But we live in reality. "Identifying" as something does not actually make you that thing. "Identifying" as a woman does not mean you actually are one, just like "identifying" as 6'4" does not make you taller.
If you live outside the realm of liberal ideology, the whole idea of having to argue that a man with a uterus is not actually a man is just surreal. I'm not sure how to describe it. It would be like you listening to a person who swore utterly that everything Donald Trump had ever said was complete truth. The entire discussion is so completely preposterous that you can't even understand how you got here.
The conversations about men competing in women's sports are worse, and the conversations about "transgender 3 year olds" are completely insane. It's like telling us about your bulldog that writes spy novels...fuck right off back to whatever nuthouse you escaped from.
On the one hand, we have a person with very strong feelings of gender incongruence. On the other, we have millions of years of evolutionary biology and a thousand years of English language definitions and pronouns. So naturally....if you don't go with "feelings" you're a bigot. What the actual fuck.
There actually IS a wide ground where we can have common sense discussions about transgender issues. But nobody seems to be interested in it.
Let's start with mocking or lying about trans people, their supporters, and the things they say. That's what Rubio has done, and you seem to support him in that.
Where is that happening?
Again, who says that?
This seed has not been about athletics.
I have written extensively on this site about the problems of trans women in competitive sports. That is a distinguishable situation. In competitive sports, the introduction of a trans woman directly impacts other people in a way that may be unfair or unreasonable.
That is not remotely the same as acknowledging that a trans man could possibly get pregnant versus mocking people for that acknowledgment. Furthermore, if a trans man does get pregnant, it impacts no one else. So, it's a totally different situation.
I agree with his statement that men don't get pregnant.
Where we describe the statement "men don't get pregnant" as "factually inaccurate".
I believe the publication is "The Recount".
No, it's just another example of how batshit some of these ideas have gone and the abuse laid on people who challenge them.
Men don't get pregnant. Now, if a woman who would rather be a man gets pregnant, happy day. Congratulations to her. I celebrate that with her, assuming the pregnancy is what she wanted.
But she's not a man. That's reality. Claiming somebody is a bigot because they acknowledge biological fact is utterly asinine.
There is a difference and I think you know that. You just seem to be unwilling to acknowledge that people do not always fall into norms.
You’re not addressing anything anyone is actually saying.
You ignore the fact that we are talking about cis women and trans men. Everyone is aware that biological men can’t get pregnant, but you keep dishonestly arguing a point no one is making. You’re engaging in the same straw man game that Rubio used. Why? Do you seriously not understand the distinctions between cis and trans? Or is it really that important to mock some group of people that makes you uncomfortable?
Again, no one is being called a bigot on that basis. Your entire comment history in this seed is dishonest. It has been pointed out to you multiple times by multiple people and yet you persist in pretending ignorance.
Have you ever taken a statistics class?
By definition, there will always be outcomes in any sample that deviate from the norm.
That doesn't change the norms, and it doesn't change the definitions.
Not everything fits into a little neat box. You know that. There are people all over the spectrum. Trying to pigeon hole certain people and tell them their truths are not real is not helping anyone or any thing.
I am literally talking about the article.
You’re not following. I am not ignoring anything. I am rejecting the concept that a person with a uterus and xx chromosomes is a man.
I'm not exactly sure how to state that more plainly.
Again, you mistake rejection of an idea for failure to understand it.
I understand what you would like be to believe. I simply view it as nonsense.
So thank you for helping make my point. Unless I accept your redefinition of the word "man", you resort quite quickly to a default position that there must be some flaw in my character.
I am somehow "dishonest", because the views I have honestly described differ from your own. I must be "uncomfortable" around trans people, and indeed desire to "mock" them. Normally the moronic "phobia" accusation isn't far behind. Hopefully you're too intelligent for that.
I will point out that you claimed you wanted an honest discussion, but when someone attempts one you can't accept it.
Based on what? 6th grade sex ed?
I have supplied with you several links to scientific studies and articles so that you may actually learn something new, and understand that it’s not nonsense. Have you checked out even one of them? And if you did, and still reject it, I ask again: Based on what?
Again you misrepresent others. I did not define “man.” I have written repeatedly of “biological man/woman,” “cis man/woman,” and “trans man/woman.”
If you finally do make the attempt, that will be refreshing.
Definitions of male and female do.
I realize you don't understand how ridiculous the phrase "their truths" sounds. Think of it like "alternative facts".
Still not ready for "honest conversation", I see. Based on biology and chemistry, kinesiology, physics.... it's just a whole STEM show.
Actually, you haven't used a single link in any of our conversations, which leads me to think you may be confusing me with somebody else. That said, I found them and read through some of the research, which was quite interesting.
OK, let's try this. Define "trans man" as you use the term.
Then you should have no problem supplying links. I gave you links. You won’t read them.
Not so. In a comment directed to you, @4.1.6, I referred you to 3 links I left for another member @3.3.9. I also supplied two more links in a comment, again directed to you @4.1.9. That makes for 5 links, in total.
I have thus supported my position with several, actual scientific links, as I have previously stated. It’s not just my gut. It’s not politics. It’s a position derived through a combination of modern scientific inquiry and basic human compassion.
Come back when you have studied some.
You do understand that Texan1211, Sunshine and I are all different people, yes?
Did you actually read the articles? And you think they support the idea that a woman with gender dysphoria is actually a man?
BTW, I believe we both have graduate degrees, so WTF are you doing citing Wikipedia? And we're also not pretending that a blog post from a fertility app constitutes science in any way.
Just like a lot of transphobic religious conservatives self-identify as "good kind righteous people" and expect others to treat them as such, but by their refusal to treat others as they expect to be treated they prove they are not what they self-identify as.
1 out of 5 links is Wiki. It’s still five more links than you have supplied. I figure if people are too brain-challenged to read the actual studies I linked, maybe they could handle Wiki.
I’ll tell you what, when any of you actually start reading, learning, and responding to the actual contributions I have made to the seed, then - and only then - will I consider giving a shit what you think of the sources offered.
Even allowing for religious conservatism, there’s nothing in the Good Book that justifies they way they mock and demonize such people.
I'm still not sure you've read them, especially since you seem to be trying to claim they provide evidence that a woman with gender dysphoria is actually a man.
You claimed you wanted an honest conversation, and now that you have one you're having a strop about it.
An honest conversation based on the articles you cited would certainly include discussion on interesting ideas like brain structure and its link to GD, but would ALSO acknowledge that DNA is real science and XX or XY chromosomes are not fake news. It would acknowledge that men and women are fundamentally different at the cellular level. Our body chemistry is different, our skeletal structures are different, our muscular construction is different, our intellectual and emotional development processes are different and produce different results. Our species, like almost every other on the planet, has spent millions of years evolving into those differences.
That doesn't even begin to address the social aspects that have evolved over just the few thousand years since we actually started to become civilized.
A person interested in actual honest conversation would not let the invitation to define the term "trans man" as they see it go unanswered.
An actual honest conversation would start with the premise that accepting long-established hard sciences does not "mock" or "denigrate" transgender people, and that there exists a broad area of possible compromise where we can treat these people well and still acknowledge that biology is real.
So are you actually interested in "honest conversation", or is that really just code for "conversation where everybody agrees with you"?
I've always found the use of the term "phobic" interesting and bizarre. It seems a strange accusation. What is it you imagine these people are actually afraid of?
But you do raise an excellent point. Self-identifying as a "good kind righteous person" doesn't make you one, does it? So I guess we can certainly add that to the list of things you don't become simply because you "identify" as such.
Nope. Never said that.
You can claim you are promoting an honest conversation, but you just misrepresented what I have written here. I have never said that a trans man is “actually a man.” I have only said that they have chosen to identify as a man and it costs me nothing to go along with that out of basic human compassion.
I’ve done that.
I have clearly stated that only biological women, born with working female reproductive parts can be pregnant and give birth. I have never denied the basic biology of reproduction, and I don’t know anyone else who has. This has been said multiple times on this seed.
I have also explained that in other comments. I see no reason to repeat it now. I have contributed much of substance to this seed and in return seen mainly “Wah! Don’t call me a bigot!” or “Stop denying science.” Neither of which has actually happened.
The core issue of this seed remains unaddressed by many here. That being the fact that Rubio dishonestly presented a straw man. People like you, who accuse me of denying science, perpetuate that straw man. I don’t know of a single person who has ever tried to argue that a biological man could give birth, yet this alleged argument is presented to show how ridiculous and silly trans people and their supporters supposedly are.
An honest conversation begins with at least considering - and hopefully acknowledging - Rubio’s straw man.
You're using the term "man".
It just seems like there are definitely forms of "basic human compassion" that don't require redefining a word that has been in the English language for 1000 years or a concept that has been part of every human culture since we started having them.
Other comments with me? Or are we talking about conversations with Texan1211 or Sunshine again? I don't actually read every comment in every conversation on this forum.
it's not actually dishonest, though, is it? I realize you keep saying "nobody is saying that", but you keep using the word "man" to describe people who can give birth.
This is like me saying "do you like my new trans car"?
You: "That's not a car."
Me: "It's a trans-car."
You: "That's not a car"
Me: "I identify it as one"
You: "It has hooves"
Me: "Trans cars can have hooves"
You: "It's a horse that you've painted with racing stripes"
Me: "Why can't you show basic human compassion?"
You: "I'm trying, but that's still not a car"
Me: "I never said it was a car"
You: "Yeah, ya kinda did".
Me: "I said it was a trans-car"
You: "Which is clearly a type of car"
Me: "I never said that"
You: "WTF?"
Am I? Where?
How can you claim to support science whilst simultaneously suggesting that we not alter or expand understanding that is thousands of years old? Do you not comprehend that science helps us understand things that we didn’t understand before?
And anyway, who said we were redefining a word? I haven’t said a trans man is a man for all purposes, period, stop, end of story. I have used the term “trans man” and said that a person identifies as a man. Why keep trying to represent my words falsely?
It is dishonest. No one I know of - including me - would claim that a biological man could get pregnant. Rubio claims he is hearing that men can get pregnant. No context. No detail. No acknowledgment of what is actually going on with trans men.
Then he proceeds on his own to get specific about biology, implying that people are saying that biological men can get pregnant. It’s dishonest.
Again, where? I don’t think I have been doing that, and I can’t clarify any further unless I know what statement of mine you are referring to.
Nonsense! A trans "man" is still a biological woman. What they identify as is irrelevant. There aren't enough trans votes to worry about. Telling the truth about these phonies isn't being bigoted..
Irrelevant to what, exactly? I hope it’s not whether or not we can be honest, fair, or compassionate.
You don’t think accusing a group of being “phonies” might not sound just a little bit bigoted?
It's very relevant when the comment being taken out of context is being used to insinuate that liberals somehow believe "biological males" can get pregnant, which was not what was said and not what was meant.
So clearly this attempt at mocking those who are standing up for the rights of transgender Americans only proves how either ignorant or out of touch and bigoted those doing the mocking are.
It would be like mocking Christians for being vampires because some drink what is supposed to be the blood of Christ. Of course we all know its wine, so those making the claim they're vampires is as ignorant as claiming that liberals and progressives think biological males can get pregnant.
Quote what was said and then "lib-splain" it.
" Hawley asked Berkeley Law professor Khiara Bridges if she meant "women" after she repeatedly referred to "people with a capacity for pregnancy." Bridges said that "trans men and non-binary people" were also capable of carrying pregnancies."
"I want to recognize that your line of questioning is transphobic, and it opens up trans people to violence by not recognizing them," Bridges told Hawley.
Sen. Hawley debating Berkeley law professor over pregnant men blows up Twitter | Fox News
I think Professor Bridges explained herself quite well, it's just brain dead conservatives being intentionally obtuse that are taking it out of context and trying to use it as a club to bash the supposedly "dumb liberals who think men can get pregnant".
It really is not hard to understand as Tacos pointed out, but even now there are apparently some who can't wrap their tiny little minds around it. I think that says far more about the conservatives lack of intelligence than it does any liberal or progressive.
So women get pregnant while men do not.
Seems like folks already know that and have for a very long time.
Calling a woman a birthing person is silly.
Nice try at spinning though, you really seem to have the talking points down pat!
Of course all woman don't give birth, she could have just as easily labeled them as an aborting person.
Not if that person identifies as a man. Using the term 'person' is just as accurate, so why all the fuss by conservatives? Oh yeah, that's right, because they believe it's their right to force their religious or personal views on gender and gender identity on everyone around them.
If Donald Trump can self-identify as a "stable genius" then any person can identify as anything they want.
I don't care what anyone "identifies" as. If someone is pregnant, they are female.
That is science.
Can you ever let your mind let go of Trump even for a single article?
It’s meant to be inclusive. People find themselves in different circumstances and this just makes an allowance for that. That should be a nice thing, shouldn’t it? It doesn’t exclude women or harm anyone in any way.
Biologically, that’s true of course. But why do you care if the pregnant person identifies as male? Do you have plans for them? Why does it matter to you or anyone else?
That's what always got me. Why do people care so much? It doesn't harm them or intrude in their lives in any way.
“…she could have just as easily labeled them as an aborting person.”
Or more appropriately, a woman with a choice. Put the labels away and allow for the individual freedoms we all should hold dear.
Why do you care if they are called what they are--females?
Yeah, I am not one to go all in for political 'correctness'.
Empathy.
“I am not one to go all in for political 'correctness'.”
…duh
Does what they identify as or what you choose to call them alter any of the scientific facts?
it needed to be said for all the woke folk.
I try to avoid labeling people and am happy to call someone what ever they wish to be called.
Which does more harm, being empathetic to something as simple as identity OR bigotry and hatred? Scientific facts show us humans don't have a lot of choice when it comes to gender identity. Being a hateful prick is a definite choice.
Because if I didn’t call them what they prefer - or you don’t - then we are actually doing something to them. Suppose I just call you “Boy” all the time, even though you want me to refer to you as a man. Biologically, I wouldn’t be wrong. You were born a boy. There’s no magic hard line where you cease to be a boy and become a man. You just finally reached a point were you decided to identify as a man. The good news for you is that you enjoy a lot of social support for that identity.
At some point, though, somebody called you “Sir” for the first time, and maybe you didn’t like it so much. At some point, someone will refer to you as a “senior” and you might not like that either.
Does the rest of the world get to dictate who and what you are? How you identify? Here at NT, you call yourself “Texan.” But what if I think that identifying with a state is problematic somehow? Maybe I think it’s backward or divisive. We are the United States, after all. So if I insist on calling you “American” because I personally think it’s more accurate, would you accept that? Is any of this my business or my right?
I care about treating people with dignity and respect. That includes allowing them the dignity of self-identifying. It costs me nothing to just respect their wishes.
My point of view has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with love, compassion, and respect.
Spectacular deflection.
Want to take a shot at answering the question, or are you going to continue to deflect?
I don't consider calling a man a woman to be honest, no matter what they wish for.
ok, let's start with not hiring or special treatment on the basis of gender or race. I see race labeling no different than gender labeling.
“…it needed to be said for all the woke folk.”
…thinking you are more likely speaking for the folk that continue to lurk in the shadows of fear and ignorance.
Oh, no, that is different.
LMAO!
And there is where it all went off the rails
As you find yourself once again out to sea…
I wonder if a white male could identify as a black female and be considered that for hiring quotas?
Is honesty always so important to you? If a woman asks you “do I look fat in this dress?” do you always tell her “yes?”
If you see a sports fan wearing the jersey of their favorite player, do you feel an urgent need to run up to them and remind them that they are not actually on the team?
When Grandma goes to the salon to get the grey taken out of her hair, do you make sure everyone at the family gathering knows that that isn’t her real hair color?
How far does your crusade for honesty extend?
Look, if you want to call men women and women men, have at it, just don't expect me to participate in that lunacy.
I had a friend in college that was White and came from Cuba when he was eight. He didn't self-identify as Hispanic until he applied to Law School.
Elizabeth Warren checked the block as a Native American but that might be legitimate as she was a contributing author of Pow Wow Chow : A Collection of Recipes from Families of the Five Civilized Tribes : Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole
College applications will be fun. Sure, my grandparents were German nationals, but I feel like a native American.
oh gawd no....no labeling allowed.
I once had a black female mailman deliver me letters, that i strategically placed in a female mailbox that accepted mail, and i could tell the mailbox was Fe male, due to the existence, of irony. What i spelled out with those letters was no doubt a death sentence that was pardoned because it left no exclamation points to be pondered, nor any mark, to be questioned.
Tex, i'm not exactly overly politically correct, as i am unable to spell Pc, but what rights are any infringing upon of yours, for you to call them what they wish ?
No, it really isn't.
Wanna just stop being purposely obtuse?
Why? It's worked for white men for generations, why stop now?
I once dated this very cute innocent young woman without an evil bone in her body, besides MINE !
Did you think it was fair? Don't stop if you don't want to, keep hiring white men based on labeling.
Exactly, white men hired white men. I have no issue with Black men hiring Black men or woman hiring woman.
An expectedly bigoted reply. Sure everything would be fine in your world if "they" stayed in their place. Are there "Whites Only" signs on your place of business?
See another reply to me @ 3.2.41
I asked you.
Oh for fucks sake! I'm finally putting you on ignore.
Oh geez...what a loss. /s
Sure it does, that thought process then leads to trans-women wanting to be in girls bathrooms, locker rooms, sports etc. Which is very harmful to women.
I figured you wouldn't answer.
“Gender "identity" is a choice.”
Forego the science behind it as you will.
And just what gives you the right to deny anyone a right to define their personal experience?
And just how does granting that right harm you in any way?
Exactly, no different than racial or ethnicity self-identify.
I’m inclined to agree, wry…but never sure about the sincerity.
So yes, I agree…with the hope the words match the intent.
Bigotry disguised as excuses.
In reality, women have a capacity for pregnancy.
Men do not.
Follow the science.
Clayton Bigsby, the World’s Only Black White Supremacist - Chappelle’s Show - YouTube
After they found out Clayton Bigsby was black, they needed someone else to make them proud to be white, and in rode dirty Donald Trump who grabbed up the banner of white nationalism and ran with it.
How, exactly? How are women harmed by a trans woman in the bathroom or locker room?
Competitive sports I consider a different matter.
How are they harmed by straight men in the locker room? Why have separate locker rooms at all?
So you aren’t going to explain or justify your claim that women are harmed?
What does that have to do with self-identification?
I think that you should take the self-identifier at their word unless they prove otherwise.
What happened to following the science? I guess we can ignore the science when convenient.
Science must take a second chair to feelings and political correctness.
There is actually substantial science being done on trans issues, and it is expanding our understanding of sexual identity beyond the basic sex education that we all got in middle school.
So, just a single example: Scientists have been studying brains and they find that brain structures and tissue types are often more associated with one sex or the other. But brains (like so many things) develop on a spectrum. It’s not purely binary. So while they can say that there is a general female brain or male brain structure, it’s not simply one way or the other all the time.
Therefore many trans people who have the chromosomes and equipment to be pregnant and thus, grew up as female, have a brain that is more male than female. So, they look at their body and they can’t relate to what they see. They struggle with it all their lives.
I suppose there are many ways that a person could respond to this contradiction, but for many, the healthiest response has been to identify and live as male. Some go further and choose surgery. Many do not.
Their choice to deal with this in the way that works best for them is none of my business, but as a compassionate human being, I choose to support them in whatever simple way I can, even if it’s just a small thing like calling them by a male name or using male pronouns for them, if that’s what they want. It’s really not such a burden.
I don't know if you have ever carried and delivered a baby, but it takes more than sexual identity and a brain. I suppose you missed the biological parts needed in your sex ed class.
As far as I know, only the female body is capable of becoming pregnant and science has not changed that position.
But Science has stated, for a woman to Get Pregnant, sometimes changing "positions" IS Require....
Since I didn’t say anything like that, I can only assume you didn’t read what I wrote, didn’t understand it, or are just trying use a straw man argument.
For whatever reason, you did not address (or acknowledge) the distinction I made between reproductive biology and brain development. Perhaps your adherence to science isn’t as strong as you think it is.
Of course not, the two have no correlation.
I am not the one saying that one can think themselves pregnant because of their brain..lol
So, you deny the studies I referred to? Please enlighten us with your scientific work on sex and brain studies.
No one else has said that either. Please stop trolling.
I said there was no correlation. Do you not know what correlation means?
Sure when you enlighten us with your scientific work on female reproduction. This should be interesting...
Yeah, and you'd be wrong. That's the point.
Sex differences in brain anatomy
A problem for many trans people arises when the brain does not correlate with the rest of the body. This can happen in several different ways.
So they choose to live in a way that matches up better with what is going on in their brain. And if they have surgery, it's to change the body. It's hard, but it's a hell of a lot easier than brain surgery, ya know?
Some people, like you apparently, think it's cool to make that harder for them.
A lay-friendly article on the matter is here:
Research on the Transgender Brain: What You Should Know
Or examine this metastudy on a myriad of brain structures in cis and trans persons, see:
Brain Sex Differences Related to Gender Identity Development: Genes or Hormones?
Again unless you have the female parts one will never be pregnant regardless of all the “studies” you use for your feeble attempt to ignore science.
When you have facts that say different please share.
Denying basic science and facts is worrisome.
I have never said otherwise. Why do you keep repeating the same dishonest straw man that Rubio used?
I have not done that. However, I gave you three links to science (granted, none of it is "basic" science) and you have chosen to ignore them. So if you want to be worried about someone, look in the mirror.
Marco Rubio isn't wrong here but what the hell is wrong with his forehead? With his history of partying with gay dudes, he probably should avoid these conversations really. It is quite possible the forehead is swelling from having a pecker tapped on his head for 12 hours.
His intentional mischaracterization of the comments from Professor Bridges for his own political campaign is clearly dishonest. And while his statement that "every single human being that's ever been born was born of a biological woman" is technically true, he is clearly being obtuse ignoring the context to rile up his poorly educated rightwing religious conservative base. Intentionally misrepresenting the debate to people he knows won't be smart enough to understand the context is, in my opinion, wrong.
Enough said right there, you should have stopped instead of projecting and guessing poorly.
Some just cannot help themselves when in over their heads
You mean that's where you wanted to stop listening. Why, though? Why is your mind closed to learning about something new?
Exactly, in the future, we will use full exogenesis or artificial wombs for the entire process.
I learned long ago about who is able to get pregnant.
When that changes, I am sure it will be ALL over the news.
Do you think everything you learned long ago is all there is to learn?
I direct you to my comment @3.3.9 where I have posted three links to scientific research on this topic.
No, but I am confident you will inform me when a male gets pregnant and gives birth, right?
Well golly gee... if it's happened in Hollywood it must be true, shouldn't it? /s
Here:
What it's like to be pregnant as a transmasculine person
Transgender pregnancy
But after this, I think I’m done with this dishonest argument from you. I have asked you several questions that you have ignored. I have supplied links to scientific studies of the thing I am talking about, and you ignore those, too. You will not acknowledge any of the specific criticisms of Rubio. You will not engage in an honest, nuanced discussion of the details of the issue.
All you want to do is put your hands over your ears and shout, “Cain’t no man get pregnant. Stooped libruhls.” Your entire approach has been like if I were trying to convince some hillbilly that a man could fly, but he don’t want to hear about no airplane. If you’re that determined to approach trans issues with mockery and bigotry, I guess I can’t convince you otherwise.
"Exactly, in the future, we will use full exogenesis or artificial wombs for the entire process."
Axolotl tanks from Dune?