Supreme Court rules: biology over personal opinion

Recent neuroscience reveals that there is often more variation in thinking between individuals than between entire biological sexes. Factors that contribute to these similarities include:

Gender Identity: In some cases, feeling like a different gender stems from one's internal identity rather than just learned behavior. Neurological research suggests an individual's innate sense of gender can align differently from their physical sex, influencing how they think, socialize, and process the world.

fauxlaw wrote:

If it works, don't fix it.

It hasn't worked in any authoritative way in 6 centuries.

Yes, I know gays, trans, lesbians, straights. Always have. In my elementary and middle school years, a pair of gays lived next door in Brentrwood [L.A.] They were kind and appropriate with me, always. Both were young history professors in separate colleges. They constantly quizzed me on material I was learning in school. Very helpful. I just didn't agree with their sexual expression, but they never hassled me about it, nor I them. Live and let live.

hasn't worked in any authoritative way in 6 centuries.

Not supposed to work by authoritative ways. It's an individual effort with individual accomplishment results, always. Since Eden, not just a few hundred years. Hell, socialism has never succeeded for that long. Never will, because it basically ignores individual effort as a key ingredient.

fauxlaw wrote:

hasn't worked in any authoritative way in 6 centuries.

Not supposed to work by authoritative ways. It's an individual effort with individual accomplishment results, always. Since Eden, not just a few hundred years. Hell, socialism has never succeeded for that long. Never will, because it basically ignores individual effort as a key ingredient.

Yikes. This has gone off the rails! The subject was gender/sex.

Picking a definition like that pretty much determines final decision in the first place.

Which is fine and actually makes things easy as long as the definition can be justified. In this case I think it was based on the context/original intent of the law being interpreted.

"Bio-male thinks he's a female? Well... no."

What was this supposed to be? If he wants to convince anyone in this, he probably shouldnt base his entire argument on definition no opponent on topic would even agree to.

It's said in the context of a ruling on sports where the definition relies less on opinion and more on the context of the law being interpreted. If he's saying no one can ever use another definition then I disagree with that, but I think the general point is about the ruling on sports teams.

If your happy and you know it then your life will surely show it clap your hands. Clap Clap!.

I do not propose, as the recipient of imagination, which I agree is "information," that imagination is fact. You apparently, by this post [38], are willing to do so.

Hey boys.

Use your imagination, close your eyes and try and make universal sense of yourselves, your profound insignificance and your relative nanosecond of existence.

Supreme Court...It's a job and an opportunity to dress up.

Supreme Court...It's a job and an opportunity to dress up.

I watched American Experience on Netflix --worth the watch-- and another program on how once the American Revolution War was won, the real difficulty in keeping the semi-unified 13 states together was the next difficult issue at the Constitutional Convention at Independence Hall in Philadephia PA.

So George Washington --most respected man in the the 13 states because of his integrity to not be power hungry-- was invited and he sat at front of room a little higher on a platform than the others, yet he didnt really want to be there and had very little to say.

So they used three branches of governance idea invented by a French man some years earlier.

..> Executive: and that was proving difficult to agree on so they moved on to,

..> Legislature: and that was proving difficult, so they moved on to the,

..> Judicial: and it was the easiest and got only one paragraph at the convention.

proving difficult, so they moved on... and it was the easiest and got only one paragraph at the convention.

But moving on has now been almost 240 years, and still standing: the pre-eminent free market capitalist system in the world. No, not perfect, just the most successful to date. Got a problem with success? Anything less is a personal problem. Be ambitious, plan, execute. It's a simple formula.

According to projections by Goldman Sachs, an investment bank, China will replace the United States as the world’s largest economy by 2050, with India following closely behind in third place. Rats, I will be 104 then.

But moving on has now been almost 240 years, and still standing: the pre-eminent free market capitalist system in the world. No, not perfect, just the most successful to date. Got a problem with success? Anything less is a personal problem. Be ambitious, plan, execute. It's a simple formula.

Huh? I think you misread or misinterpreted my comments as stated. Happens to all of use.

.... ' Got a problem with success? '..

My comment was from what was stated in the of what happened at the Constitutional Convention and nothing more.

They address excutive and legislature, yet the proved to difficult to address in beginng so they moved on to Judicial system, and it was done in realtive short time with one paragraph. Nothing more nothing less was inferred by me.

Whether I have a problem with success is whole differrent issue, and, if other consider the truth of what is going on with humanity and our biological environment that sustains us, I think there is only one rather scary conclusion on whats looming just over the horizon for humanity.

Ive been clear with my own formula for prognostications of end date for humanity on Earth ---2015 and were now 10 years beyond that-- yet and certain future still is still ahead of humanity on Earth, and any who think there that some kinda of gurranttee that comes with humanities existing beyond the time weve been here, is fooling themselves for whatever ignorant reasoning they may be using.

My ignorant reasoning is that the Earth comes with its own cleansing mechanisms to restore the damage it can cause to itself, which far exceeds the damage humans have caused since the industrial revolution, and further with post WWII, when petroleum use skyrocketed. We had far worse climate conditions 140 million years ago due to rampant volcanism, yet mammals, which evolved about then, with physiological systems virtually identical to ours, survived, and they did not have the intelligence to construct shelters with controlled interior environments. We have more going for us than you imagine.

I imagine when we land on. Mars, we will find a warning sign from the former inhabitants of Mars. "We feared global warming, and re-adjusted our lifestyles to prevent it. That effort failed. We destroyed ourselves warring with each other about our assumed climate crisis and how to solve it. Better luck to you."

My ignorant reasoning is that the Earth comes with its own cleansing mechanisms to restore the damage it can cause to itself, which far exceeds the damage humans have caused since the industrial revolution,

So once again, you appear to misinterprate what Ive stated as nowhere have I ever stated otherwise in regards to your above, or anyone else. Those of us who have been around with access to news, and many programs over the years, know that Earths nature --and celestial objects--- could take out all of humanity in realtively short time.

and further with post WWII, when petroleum use skyrocketed. We had far worse climate conditions 140 million years ago due to rampant volcanism, yet mammals, which evolved about then, with physiological systems virtually identical to ours, survived, and they did not have the intelligence to construct shelters with controlled interior environments. We have more going for us than you imagine.

We have far more other factors facing humanity that is resultant of humanity. You want to ignore them is your ability to do so. I watched a utube of man who had been studying the India Pakastan issues for many years, and one of the things is if ony those two countries release their hydrogen bomb weapons on each other, the dust put into the atmosphere alone, would block out the sun for two years.

If you think humanity could survive two years with no sunlight, I think your fooling yourself.

Then of course there is also all the other hydrogen bombs humanity has sitting around on land and at sea.

I imagine when we land on. Mars, we will find a warning sign from the former inhabitants of Mars. "We feared global warming, and re-adjusted our lifestyles to prevent it. That effort failed. We destroyed ourselves warring with each other about our assumed climate crisis and how to solve it. Better luck to you."

Even is such were true, we dont need Mars to get smart here on Earth. 8.5 billion people and still rising, --yes at slower rate of growth-- and what do we have going on after some 265 years of industrialization?

1} Coral reefs { millions of years old } dying off from increasing heat and acidic oceans is significant to existence of other marine life.. Duhh! Thats humans

2} plastic { large and micro-plastic { for longer term } is killing off mammals, and other fish in ocean from ingestion of micro-plastics that is not humanity is not decreasing. Greed { money } above all else is the name of the game, and if you dont yet see that, then, your your missing out on a lot of easily available information.

3} other pollutions ---oil ionizing radiation, etc-- going into our oceans that, we do not yet know all of the ramifications they will cause,

4} rising sea levels is another that we dont know all of the ramification of yet,

............AI... Yes, rising sea levels severely threaten freshwater aquifers on land. As the ocean rises, salty seawater pushes inland and downward into the permeable rock and soil, a process known as saltwater intrusion. This mixing renders the groundwater unusable for drinking and agriculture '...

Interlude 1 : So all of these are going to affect humanity more and more. The fighting over resources for human life is only going to get worse. Much of the fighting of wars of human over countless years is about resources i.e. who { nation/state/tribe } is going to control those resources. Why do we think Russia/Putin has invaded Ukraine? Duhh! Resources

........Interlude 1a} So again, invading other nation/state/tribes is older than industrial revolution and again, now we have 8.5 billion and growing humans looking for this higher standard of life, much of which super-rich uneeded stuff, and some of it is just less rich unneccessary living standard. Humans can have much less living standard and still live long an productive lives and enjoy each others companies, if, and only if, they choose .;..all for one and one for all... survival on Earth. The alternative leads where humanity has no ideas of what is coming. No gurranttees that humanity can survive on Earth another years, another 10 years, another 200 years.

5} all of the other pollution etc issues ive not touched on, that, as not as directly ocean related, tho all rivers and air affects the oceans also. The stock market rules all of humanity. Governance rides on the tail of Corporate money. Old news for those who paying attention.

Earlier today, I read an interesting angle which has parallels with this thread’s progression.

In “4 stages of a nation’s collapse, according to a KGB defector”, the article’s author documented that Yuri Bezmenov, a Soviet journalist and KGB agent who defected to the West in 1970, presented a now-famous 1983 lecture. He explained about the intentional aggressor targeted self-destruction of a nation by:

1. Demoralization (15–20 years)
2. Destabilization (2–5 years)
3. Crisis (weeks to months)
4. Normalization.

That “new normal” that the adversary wants is detailed in the article, and I quote, “That is what a nation looks like after decades of sustained demoralization — a nation that has been taught, patiently and systematically, to distrust truth itself, to distrust its own foundations, and increasingly, to distrust one another”.

There are people who desire the coercion of government to enforce “you call me what I am not or you go to jail”.

There were people who instigated a crisis of epic proportions resulting in lockdowns for large swaths of the world’s population, yet people permitted massive riots in select cities by select groups gathering in tight formation.

Language is based on distinct concepts. When word to definition correlation is intentionally subverted, then confusion inevitably ensues.

Christ Jesus, Lord and God is not a God of confusion but of peace (1 Corinthians 14:33, so we who are in Christ utilize peacefully accurate linguistics because we Christians are destined for everlasting peace and joy in Christ. We want this for the people of the world.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling established that word to definition correlation matters in the U.S.A.

TLDR

What makes you think humans cannot survive 2 years without sunlight? Artificial light, Vitamin D supplements, V-D rich foods, and a sunlight clock. These are the four remedies to lack of sunlight, and humans can survive much longer than 2 years without the sun. They take care of the need for light [not an absolute need, but life is better], Vitamin D deficiency, and circadian rhythm disruption. What else is needed? Be specific.

A human can survive underwater for 2 hrs with an aqualung.

But obviously they would need an aqualung that will last for 2hrs.

What else is needed? Be specific.

All biologic/soul life ---or most is dependent in various ways--- needs sunlight.

'..

AI...' Roughly 99% to 99.9% of all biologic life on Earth would suffer or die within two years without sunlight. Because photosynthesis forms the base of almost all global food chains, its cessation would cause widespread ecosystem collapse, leaving only a tiny fraction of extremophile life to survive on geothermal energy '...

Portions of humanity are already killing off each other. Without sunlight, I believe that would increase the fighting for resources.

I suppose humans might act differrrently become a more peaceful unified humanity and go more the way ive been proposing for some years now for humanity to survive on Earth is ....one for all and all for one.... Most say that is a pipe dream and I agree, yet, I dont see another way.

AI...' Humanity as a species would likely survive a full-scale nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan, but civilization as we know it would face unprecedented devastation, mass casualties, and a global climate catastrophe '...

AI...' Scientists and researchers generally agree that the biggest threat to humanity's survival on Earth is anthropogenic risk—specifically the hazards created by human actions and rapidly advancing technology. The most critical existential risks include nuclear war, engineered pandemics, and unaligned artificial intelligence (AI) '....

Biology isn't a matter of choice, boys and girls.

That depends on what you're referring to. If by biology you mean a person's genitals, that is in fact a choice here in 2026. If you're referring to a person's chromosomes, then since I've never heard of a person going into surgery to switch their chromosomes to xx, I really don't know what your point is.

All biologic/soul life ---or most is dependent in various ways--- needs sunlight.

Your "source" is... AI? ROFL. AI is totally dependent on programming to generate what is euphemistically called "intelligence." They named it right: ARTIFICIAL. Why did they do that? You tell me. Horrible name for a product that is supposed to be helpful. Back-end of bull product.

Photosynthesis can be produced without the sun: https://www.biotechniques.com/plant-climate-science/grow-in-the-dark-photosynthesis-that-doesnt-require-sunlight/

We need UVA and UVB sublight? Sure, but these can also be produced artificially, underground.

https://www.cdc.gov/radiation-health/features/uv-radiation.html

Can over-exposure to artificial light be harmful? Yes, same as with over-exposure to sunlight, and it is prevented simply by limiting exposure by time reduction and various creams, etc, to apply to the skin. Or, just wear appropriate clothing. Just the same as limiting exposure to sunlight.

Yes, circadian rhythm is important, but again, that can be artificially compensated by nothing more exotic than a sunlight clock.

With proper adaptation, and humans are terrifically adaptable, the psychological fears can be treated and brought under control.

Sorry, ebuc, but your two-year limitation is old news. Bring yourself up to date.

 If by biology you mean a person's genitals, that is in fact a choice here in 2026.

Biology: the science of life. You CANNOT choose to change your personal XY chromosome in the 23rd of that series of 23 to XX. Never, no how, no way, because every one of your trillion cells needs to make that exchange, and, sorry, genius, but you cannot and will not do that by choice. No surgeon in the world can do it. Do it yourself? Go ahead, try. Maybe you are confusing sex with gender? But, even though "gender" in 2026, is being called a "social construct," with the exception of a slim [estimated] 0.00018 x 8 billion of us are NOT XX or XY, but intersex. And that is still a biological, not a social condition, so, again, biology is at work here, not your choices. And merely changing one's genitals does not change the 1x10^12 cells in your body, so you are still, in the massive majority of us, man or woman. By biology. Choose to be a woman? Go ahead, wear a dress, raise your voice, or even chop of your member, but that is a head trip, only.

Yes, I'm apt to agree.

We can redefine words and play pretending and dressing up games.

And for the relative nanosecond of his existence, a man that can no longer ejaculate semen, might be useful in other areas.

Sorry, ebuc, but your two-year limitation is old news. Bring yourself up to date.

AI.... Humanity is currently not prepared to sustain global life using artificial light following a massive hydrogen bomb war. If massive soot injections from urban firestorms block out the sun for years, planetary photosynthesis will collapse, causing global starvation. Only localized subterranean and geothermal refuges could artificially support small populations.:...

AI...' The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) warns that a nuclear conflict would ignite massive urban firestorms. The resulting soot lofted into the stratosphere would block sunlight, triggering a "nuclear winter" that causes global subfreezing temperatures, decimated agricultural production, and mass starvation that could last a decade ...

AI...' The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) does not have a plan to use artificial sunlight if the sun is blocked out. Instead, the organization strictly opposes the intentional deployment of solar geoengineering technologies (such as space mirrors or stratospheric aerosols), citing unacceptable environmental, ethical, and geopolitical risks. [1, 2]

If the Earth's natural sunlight were suddenly blocked for an extended period, the UCS approach prioritizes systemic resilience, disaster preparedness, and managing the cascading societal impacts rather than attempting to artificially replace the sun's scale and intensity.

While they firmly oppose deployment, the organization does support strictly regulated modeling research and observational studies to better understand the science behind these technologies. For further information, you can review the detailed UCS Position on Solar Geoengineering or explore their public What is Solar Geoengineering? '..

Biology: the science of life. You CANNOT choose to change your personal XY chromosome in the 23rd of that series of 23 to XX. Never, no how, no way, because every one of your trillion cells needs to make that exchange, and, sorry, genius, but you cannot and will not do that by choice. No surgeon in the world can do it. Do it yourself? Go ahead, try. Maybe you are confusing sex with gender? But, even though "gender" in 2026, is being called a "social construct," with the exception of a slim [estimated] 0.00018 x 8 billion of us are NOT XX or XY, but intersex. And that is still a biological, not a social condition, so, again, biology is at work here, not your choices. And merely changing one's genitals does not change the 1x10^12 cells in your body, so you are still, in the massive majority of us, man or woman. By biology. Choose to be a woman? Go ahead, wear a dress, raise your voice, or even chop of your member, but that is a head trip, only.

All you had to do was read the second half of the paragraph and you could have spared is both of this massive waste of a post. But that's what happens when you don't read because you're not actually interested in understanding alternative viewpoints.

Useful? What, by wearing a dress? Why not emulate Platner and just wear a towel?

Humanity is currently not prepared 

Why not? We've lived under a threat of nuclear war for... over 70 years. What does it take think prep is necessary? Currently, I have the ability for my family to exist completely off the grid in an ultra-insulated basement, maintaining a constant temp of at least 65 degrees, and food, water, and shelter with air filtration for over 8 years, and growing.

Do you really think that under conditions of surviving a nuclear attack, the UCS' stand "...citing unacceptable environmental, ethical, and geopolitical risks." is really the foremost concern of survivors? Get a,life, man. "Ethical???" You're kidding, right? These are supposed to be rational scientists, not alarmist quacks.

Well, might be a baker or a hair stylist or a techno-geek...Dresses are always optional...Trousers are sometimes more practical though, as a lot of real women will attest to.