Keeping an open mind doesn't indicate a desire for a particular result.Originally Posted by Mister D
Advisor
Keeping an open mind doesn't indicate a desire for a particular result.
In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.
"The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
Mahatma Gandhi
Senior Member
Your commentary pushes exclusively in a single direction. I don't think you have an open mind about this at all. I think your primary concerns are "inclusion" and the normalization of transgenderism.
Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same.
~Alain de Benoist
stjames1_53 (06-09-2021)
Senior Member
But it doesn't because you'd expect to see this result. The evidence is extremely weak.
Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same.
~Alain de Benoist
Advisor
The notion that being transgendered is truly abnormal ignores the historical reality that there has always been a percentage of the human population who identified as their non-biological sex. Since neurotic behavior is not particularly associated with people who lived in tribal societies - they simply didn't have the luxury of that kind of self-indulgence - I think that there is some basis to think that this may not be a purely psychological fixation.
In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.
"The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
Mahatma Gandhi
Advisor
Why should anyone expect to see this result? The evidence isn't conclusive, but that doesn't mean that it's not worth continuing to explore.
In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.
"The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
Mahatma Gandhi
Senior Member
Yes also from my link.
Do the brains of transgender people look different to what we’d expect for their natal sex?
The short answer is no apart from a couple of small exceptions, although even then they do not look like the brains of the opposite sex either!.....snip~
What is the impact of cross-sex hormones on brain structure?
Its well known that cortex thinning is caused by testosterone (this is why males have a thinner cortex) and that the difference between the male and female cortex only really starts to become obvious at puberty. So if a boy delays puberty he is delaying the thinning of his cortex and remaining girl-like for longer. If a girl starts testosterone treatment her cortex is expected to thin and become more male-like.Estrogen has also been shown to impact brain structure. Estrogen treatment in trans-identified males has been shown to reduce total brain volume towards female proportions.CONCLUSION: Although we often hear that transgender people are trapped in the wrong body this is a myth and not based on any credible scientific evidence. There is virtually no clear or reliable difference between male and female brains structurally, let alone evidence that transgender people have a brain that does not match up with their natal sex. It is currently unknown whether there is a biological basis to the transgender phenomenon. .....snip~
Maybe just maybe they should only consider studies that dont involve those taking cross hormones.
History does not long Entrust the care of Freedom, to the Weak or Timid!!!!! Dwight D. Eisenhower ~
stjames1_53 (06-14-2021)
Senior Member
OMB Director Defends Controversial ‘Birthing People’ Reference in Biden’s Budget
Acting Office of Management and Budget director Shalanda Young on Wednesday defended President Joe Biden's decision to include woke terminology in his 2022 budget proposal.
Rep. Jason Smith (R., Mo.), the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, asked Young to explain the budget's use of the phrase "birthing people" to describe women and mothers.....snip~
OMB Director Defends Controversial ‘Birthing People’ Reference in Biden’s Budget (freebeacon.com)
He should have asked her to define Chest Feeders.
Democratic leaders have lobbied hard for Young to be given the top slot at the OMB. Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland, and Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina have all endorsed the idea, and Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro has “unreservedly” recommended she be nominated.....snip~
The Repubs should have known Right then and there.....Dont do it! Dont confim this ditz.
History does not long Entrust the care of Freedom, to the Weak or Timid!!!!! Dwight D. Eisenhower ~
Senior Member
GOP Senator Knows the Perfect Word to Replace Biden Administration’s ‘Birthing People’ Shenanigans.....
The Democratic Party prides itself in being a lot of things, but science is one of them. That ‘we’re the party of science’ nonsense has been peddled in their global warming propaganda, despite them ignoring the fact that science is never settled. The party of science also has a lot of liberals who are anti-vaxx. The party of science also has been peddling outright lies and pure fiction that would probably peak the interests of Philip K. Dick, H.G. Wells, and Jules Verne if they were still alive. Science fiction is great. It’s not good for public policy, but Democrats take everything these liars say as gospel, which is why 71 percent of Democrats would rather have healthy and vaccinated people remain in the bunker because Dr. Anthony Fauci is still stroking his ego. At least it’s not a Jeffrey Toobin episode.
No, in this case, the party of science has also taken an anti-science position on gender and biological function to accommodate the small sliver of transgender Americans. In doing so, women are no longer women. They’re ‘birthing people.’ Spencer covered this language tweak last week. Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) also had questions for Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, who was testifying before the Senate Financial Services Committee on the budget. Becerra was asked by the senator to give a clearer definition of this ‘woke’ overhaul of the English language. He could not (via Daily Caller):
To save women, we must erase women. To promote science, we must peddle anti-science talking points to ensure we don’t offend anyone. Sounds ass-backwards, huh? Maybe that’s because it is. There are only two genders. Deal with it. You can certainly think that’s not true, as living in fantasyland is not a crime. It’s just funny how the ‘party of science’ throws all of that in the trash. As we’ve noted, just give it time. The boomerang Democrats chuck will eventually come back to break their face. It always happens. That’s the price you pay for pushing views based on feelings and not facts. .....snip~
GOP Senator Knows the Perfect Word to Replace Biden Administration’s ‘Birthing People’ Shenanigans by Matt Vespa (townhall.com)
Townhall.com
@townhallcom
Xavier Becerra defends the use of the term “birthing people” by saying that “We are trying to be precise.” Senator Lankford: “Mom is a pretty good word. That’s worked for a while and I think that’s pretty precise as well.”
Uh yep thats worked for a long time now. Mom, Moms, Mothers. But lets not confuse the leftists.
History does not long Entrust the care of Freedom, to the Weak or Timid!!!!! Dwight D. Eisenhower ~
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote