Being clueless is your deal, Tax, not mine. You also don't even know what a fact is, let alone would believe it if someone told you one.
2SLGBTQQIA+
- Thread starter B00Mer
- Start date
Being clueless is your deal, Tax, not mine. You also don't even know what a fact is, let alone would believe it if someone told you one.
Who told you that? You cant tell people facts. Facts are learned.
Of course you can. Hey, petros, China is the most populous country on Earth. That's a fact, and I just told you.
Facts can be absolute or they can be subjective.
Fact - gravity exists. That's an absolute fact.
Face - to me and many others, trans people not only exist, but are legitimately the gender they are. However to people like, say, Jin or Tax, Trans people might exist but they're not legitimately the gender they are. That 'fact' is something they cannot accept (despite what science is starting to tell us). So that'd be more 'subjective' depending on who you're talking to.
Or how about to the religious, God is a Fact. To the non-religious or atheist, God is not a fact at all. Jesus is a fact, but Jesus could also be a fictional narrative.
Even if things are proven, sometimes people deny facts to their death. Like Vaccines.
It just depends on what kind of 'facts' you're talking about and who you're discussing them with.
Y'know, the "Facts vs. Feelings" types.
A teaching moment. India is the most populous country on Earth since 2022.
Where have you been hiding?
Oh, you mean idiots? Yeah, they're out there, more every day.
Granted, facts may have greater or lesser certainty, but there is a point at which they cease to be facts.
And a lot of this is just bullshit semantics. If you have XY chromosomes and the gear, you're male. For me, "sex" and "gender" mean the same thing (in humans, though not in French nouns). If you're male and want to be called a "woman," I'll humor you. As Thomas Jefferson said (of religion), "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
True, according to Worldometer. I won't quibble about counting accuracy. As to where I've been hiding, obviously neither India nor China.
Default position: up to their parents. With appropriate guardrails for state action if it's an actual threat to the health or well-being of the child.
Oh right, do it illegally cuz its not moral or legal to surgically reaffirm a 12 year old anorexic.
Thats racist! Misogynistic too.
The problem with this line of thought though is... science proves otherwise.
Then, too, it's not just language, cultures around the world have looked at sex and gender as different things.
But you're right, really it's semantics and how people understand things.
Despite how 'in line' what you said usually goes with Jin and others, the point where you're different is where "I'll humor you".
We humans are always humoring others over lots of things, this shouldn't be any different.
And in these grumbly times, it's using words certain ways to spare oneself the heavy lift of thinking.
Have you read the "gender science" ? Should a larger group outside of penitentiaries been used as a sample group?
Thank you for that excellent example of non-scientific weaponized semantics.
In answer to your specific question, no. No larger "sample group" should have been used, because this trash is "science" like Scientology.
I neither fall for it nor get OUTRAGED by it.
Then again, I don't live in Saskatucky, so I've got better things to do.