To define a "woman" such as Jackie gets into the weeds of biologf, and Ill be the first to admit it.
What are you admitting? Jackie is a woman or not? ...what is your "biological justification" for that admission?
I submit Jackie identifies as a woman, and that is enough to define her as a woman. The fact of the matter is that gender is more complicated than sexual determination which is more complicated than you admit or understand.
Yah, that doesnt work for me, but you do you. 😉
Anything which is part of reality, being used to explain reality, ends up being circular explanation.
The answer must be unreality, eh? Something magical and extralogical should do the trick...
If someone is attributing their species or sex to how they dress, that's not how sex and species are really defined.
I dont think anyone is arguing this point. I am arguing sex and gender are far more complex than Fauxlaw is making them out to be, and his inability to keep up with, and/or indifference to, the cutting edge of our best understanding isnt an argument against it.
If a cis woman is infertile and doesn't have XX chromosomes, she can still point to other biological attributes.
I agree biological sex is generally determined by biological attributes. My point is that biological attributes aren't always unambiguous, or, in the case of Blakenship, they can be contradictory. "Biological justification" would necessitate ignoring part of her biology thereby nullifying the whole justification as an arbitrary pretense. If and when biological justification is possible, great - but let us not pretend it is the end-all be-all of sex and (especially) gender determination.
I'll look into that. Thanks for the discussion.
At least Jsckie Blakenship is not confused. To answer your question, no, I don't think she looks like a man, she says she did not grow up as a man, and considers herself a woman who is infertile.
To clarify, you acknowledge she is a woman in spite of her biology? How do you define "woman"?
Biological sex isnt an absolute binary.
I'm not sure how this makes fauxlaw's statement wrong.
Expecting "biological justification" when sex (much less gender) isnt built exclusively on chromosomes or genitalia is oversimplification to the point of being wrong.
FLRW wrote:
How come most real women athletes don't have any boobs?
...and why are there so many boobs among male athletes?
But men today are declaring they are women when there is no biological justification for the claim.
Even if gender and sex were the same thing (which they are not), this statement would still be wrong. Biological sex isnt an absolute binary.
Former Mrs. America, Jackie Blakenship has XY chromosomes and naturally developed as a woman. Is she a man in your eyes, or can nuance penetrate your argument?
As a result, women are being injured, both physically and emotionally.
Citation needed.
What justifies those injuries so a man, who could not compete and win with other men, can usurp roles and compete, and win, pretending to be a woman?
Transgender individuals make up 1.5% of the population (at the most) and less in sports - .002% of NCAA college athletes and .001% of Olympians.
Just as a man pretends to be an eagle, and kills another who pretends to be a puppy.
This is one of those thoughts that probably sounded great in your head.
Optimistic? I've not said doctors bear no blame for the issues with our healthcare. If you want to quantify doctors as the leading cause, I would vehemently disagree though. I would put Hospitals at the top of that list because they have the power to set prices with very little push back. Pharmaceuticals would be next.
Insurance companies arent as bad as everyone thinks, but they game the system nonetheless. Its true, only 15% goes to their pockets, but if healthcare costs more, their 15% is a larger amount. Don't be fooled. This is a flaw in legislation being exploited while described as a handicap for the poor insurance companies. It is a peverse incentive to allow more and more costs and do very little negotiating.
By your own words, climate change is debunked by NOAA's insufficient standards. When many other sources corroborating their internal corroboration is presented, you move the goalposts to require more corroboration.
This has been my experience with climate change deniers - denial for the sake of denial, not because it is warranted.
Were you not aware there are other sources of temperature data (utilizing separate methods) that all corroborate the same 'the planet is warming' conclusion?
Im so glad to hear that. I was really worried about you for a sec. 😉
I was around when it was used unironically in email chains....
Yes, it's a well-known copypasta...maybe I just need to be more clear when I'm not being serious.
Yes. Nothing in this thread suggests to me this is joking.
Debby wrote:
God created the universe and found it was good.
'For the Bible tells me so'.
Suffice to say, I remain unconvinced by your compelling argument.
Did good come of anyone's vote?
Einstein believed God was the force behind the physical laws of the universe.
That suggest an entity is behind the laws, but Einstein rejected this. You could probably say he thought the mathematics and laws of the universe were "God".
there are arguments for omnibenevolent being creating evil because being believed even evil deserves to live and experience joy, because omnibenevolent being is good to all, not just to those who are good.
Hmmm, are you not referring to a creator god? If so, he can create no evil and still be good to all he creates.
Speaking of bad arguments...
This story is known to be made up. Einstein didn't believe in a personal god. He felt the Biblical stories were "primitive legends". There is also the issue of the category error between physics and morality.
I dont disagree, but I think you are assuming argumentation equates to rational debate...thats not even true of debate here among, presumably, people who understand what debate is.
How do we fix it?
An omnibenevolent, omnipotent being responsible for evil doesnt make sense. Either the definition is wrong or that being doesnt exist.
God," says Epicurus, "either wants to remove evils, but cannot; or he can, but does not want to; or he does not want to and cannot; or he wants to and can. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent; which is inadmissible in God. If he can, but does not want to, he is envious; which is also alien to God. If he does not want to and cannot, then he is envious and impotent; and this too cannot be attributed to God. If he wants to and can, which alone is proper to God, then where do evils come from? Or why does he not remove them?
What you qualify as 'bad arguments by the lowest tier' seems to be the norm on social media by regular folks mimicking arguments 'approved by' people who should know better.
The problem is that these arguments are disingenuous emotional appeals which typically bypass rationality. I think that is generally by design, especially when it comes to politics and religion.
You are mistaking me for someone else - Ive never disclosed my vote.
Agreed. We spend the most of our peers and get the least.
That claim was debunked when, in 2018, President Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Accord,
That's not how claims are debunked. I think you might be suffering from TDS.
Dr.Franklin wrote:
The general direction is correct, and those TV drug ads need to be banned,
We are agreed!
but doctors are not these powerless victims of big pharma you are portraying them as. They are under prescribing pain killers as an overcorrection right now just because they want to cover their asses.
Whatever blame doctors bear for our broken healthcare system falls behind hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, and legislators who fail to address the problem.
I'd push back on generics being the answer. Generics are another facet of the same issue.
Agreed.
As for the advertisements themselves, I don't think they have much of a consumer impact
Journal of Public Economics estimated that DTCA drove roughly 31% of the total rise in U.S. prescription drug spending since 1997. [Link].
There is an undeniable impact to consumers - increase demand, increased volume, taxpayer funded write-offs, low added clinical value over existing alternatives (not necessarily generics).
and I don't think that's the primary reason why pharmaceutical companies air them.
Perhaps, but this doesn't negate that DTCA is still harmful. Don't get me wrong, I am very sympathetic to the fact that the US Healthcare system is very broken, but that is a much larger can of worms than just DTC advertising.
