This Economist has it right

[BYUcougfan]

On 12/1/2024 at 10:13 PM, Sactowndog said:

Why don’t you tell your wife, if you even have one, that a women is defined as someone who can get pregnant and see how that goes for you.  I can tell you my wife thinks you are a fucking idiot.  

You love to put words in my mouth.  I said the nature of women is that they can get pregnant.  I don't understand why that is such a problem for you or your wife.  It is basic biology.

[happycamper]

On 11/30/2024 at 2:31 PM, Chile_Ute said:

In the past 50 years there have been 6 and 7 presidential terms by democrats and GOP, respectively.  Both parties have fucked this up so I don't get why just the Dems have to self reflect.  The two sides of our political system is the same coin.  Fucking up a good thing for the many for money and power of the few…just take a different angle at it.  
It is not inaccurate that Trump’s so called plan will only worsen the situation.  His Tariff idea is horrible alone.  

I mean. High housing prices, increased global competition, the dominance of cities as economic units over towns and even burbs...

none of these are issues that a president even has the power to do anything about, let alone can be responsible for them. 

[Chile_Ute]

On 12/2/2024 at 9:59 AM, happycamper said:

I mean. High housing prices, increased global competition, the dominance of cities as economic units over towns and even burbs...

none of these are issues that a president even has the power to do anything about, let alone can be responsible for them. 

I agree….but as a society we take credit and place blame accordingly as if it’s cause and effect.

[Sactowndog]

On 12/2/2024 at 6:23 AM, BYUcougfan said:

You love to put words in my mouth.  I said the nature of women is that they can get pregnant.  I don't understand why that is such a problem for you or your wife.  It is basic biology.

The basic question is how do you define a woman.  You said a man can’t become a woman because they can’t get pregnant.  Therefore apparently your definition of a woman entails the ability to get pregnant.  If you think it’s is something different please clarify what you think it is.  

[Spaztecs]

On 12/1/2024 at 8:56 PM, BYUcougfan said:

Of course they are women.  However, the nature of women is that they can get pregnant.  If something happens and a woman can't conceive, we don't say the nature of women has changed, but we can all agree something went wrong.  Just like when someone is born with 9 fingers when the nature of humans is that we have 10 fingers.  They are still human but we don't say the nature of humans is now to have 9 fingers.  The nature of men is different.  They can't become women.  That is just the way it is.  Why is this so hard?  It is kindergarten stuff.

Fewer and fewer women are capable of becoming pregnant. I have an in-law going through IVF. It used to be an anomaly, now it's becoming more common.

 

[AztecAlien]

On 12/2/2024 at 1:23 PM, Spaztecs said:

Fewer and fewer women are capable of becoming pregnant. I have an in-law going through IVF. It used to be an anomaly, now it's becoming more common.

 

What does this have to do with the definition of what a woman is, or the fact that women can't become a man and men can't get pregnant, period? 

 

[BYUcougfan]

On 12/2/2024 at 1:08 PM, Sactowndog said:

The basic question is how do you define a woman.  You said a man can’t become a woman because they can’t get pregnant.  Therefore apparently your definition of a woman entails the ability to get pregnant.  If you think it’s is something different please clarify what you think it is.  

XX chromosomes.  Again, basic biology.

[BYUcougfan]

On 12/2/2024 at 1:23 PM, Spaztecs said:

Fewer and fewer women are capable of becoming pregnant. I have an in-law going through IVF. It used to be an anomaly, now it's becoming more common.

 

Yes, some women can't get pregnant or carry to term or other unfortunate circumstances, but that does not change the nature of women.

[AztecAlien]

On 12/2/2024 at 1:54 PM, BYUcougfan said:

Yes, some women can't get pregnant or carry to term or other unfortunate circumstances, but that does not change the nature of women.

That guy is so far in left field. 

[bornontheblue]

On 12/2/2024 at 1:54 PM, BYUcougfan said:

Yes, some women can't get pregnant or carry to term or other unfortunate circumstances, but that does not change the nature of women.

It's a simple concept, yet so hard for @Sactowndog to understand. 

If a person with a penis wants to be called a woman I will be polite and call them whatever they like to be called. However, I can also think they are suffering from mental illness and keep that part to myself. 

 

[Sactowndog]

On 12/2/2024 at 12:53 PM, BYUcougfan said:

XX chromosomes.  Again, basic biology.

Okay fine so are XXY women not women?  How about women genetically who are XY but are not able to respond to testosterone and therefore have female parts.  
 

your basic biology is not nearly as black and white as you think.   And in sports because the genetic outliers tend to rise to the top their frequency is much more common.  

[bornontheblue]

On 12/2/2024 at 2:42 PM, Sactowndog said:

Okay fine so are XXY women not women?  How about women genetically who are XY but are not able to respond to testosterone and therefore have female parts.  
 

your basic biology is not nearly as black and white as you think.   And in sports because the genetic outliers tend to rise to the top their frequency is much more common.  

Let's take the argument back to it's core, and then settle the fringe debates. 

Is a person with XY chromosomes, and no genetic abnormalities a woman, or can they be a woman? 

 

[Sactowndog]

On 12/2/2024 at 1:08 PM, bornontheblue said:

It's a simple concept, yet so hard for @Sactowndog to understand. 

If a person with a penis wants to be called a woman I will be polite and call them whatever they like to be called. However, I can also think they are suffering from mental illness and keep that part to myself. 

 

It’s simple for accountants in Idaho with zero medical training or understanding.  But in the real world not nearly so simple.  

[Sactowndog]

On 12/2/2024 at 1:50 PM, bornontheblue said:

Let's take the argument back to it's core, and then settle the fringe debates. 

Is a person with XY chromosomes, and no genetic abnormalities a woman, or can they be a woman? 

 

The core is what defines a women.  And how do you know a trans person has no genetic abnormality.   You think they just decide to be trans or gay??

[bornontheblue]

On 12/2/2024 at 3:05 PM, Sactowndog said:

The core is what defines a women.  And how do you know a trans person has no genetic abnormality.   You think they just decide to be trans or gay??

The core is the traditional/biological definition of a woman which is XX. Keep the argument at the core for now. 

The question is simple, yet apparently difficult for you. So let's try again. 

Can an XY person with no abnormalities be a woman, or can they become a woman?  It is a yes , no question with a brief explanation if you want add it. 

 

[BYUcougfan]

On 12/2/2024 at 3:05 PM, Sactowndog said:

The core is what defines a women.  And how do you know a trans person has no genetic abnormality.   You think they just decide to be trans or gay??

At some point you just have to go with the old adage that hard cases make bad law.  If you are down to how genetic abnormalities impact sex or sexual development then you are just not willing to concede the larger point.

[AztecAlien]

On 12/2/2024 at 3:05 PM, Sactowndog said:

The core is what defines a women.  And how do you know a trans person has no genetic abnormality.   You think they just decide to be trans or gay??

I don't know if you noticed that you're not doing very well in your ridiculous arguments about what a woman is. A man that feels or wants to be like a woman still doesn't make that man a woman. You do have the support of the spazhole, though. So you got that going for you. 

[BYUcougfan]

On 12/2/2024 at 3:05 PM, Sactowndog said:

The core is what defines a women.  And how do you know a trans person has no genetic abnormality.   You think they just decide to be trans or gay??

This just brings me back to my original point that spawned all this.  No need for any self reflection on whacky Democrat positions.  I am all for it.

[bornontheblue]

On 12/2/2024 at 3:03 PM, Sactowndog said:

It’s simple for accountants in Idaho with zero medical training or understanding.  But in the real world not nearly so simple.  

You are right. I have no medical training. I do have a high school education with biology requirement though. 

[SalinasSpartan]

On 12/2/2024 at 1:50 PM, bornontheblue said:

Let's take the argument back to it's core, and then settle the fringe debates. 

Is a person with XY chromosomes, and no genetic abnormalities a woman, or can they be a woman? 

 

A quick google shows 1 out of 500 newborns classified as males have XXY chromosomes.

https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/klinefelter/conditioninfo/risk

In 2022 in Utah, 4 out of 85,000 high school athletes were trans.

https://www.newsweek.com/how-many-transgender-athletes-play-womens-sports-1796006

Just for context. Sorry to interrupt, go ahead and handwave this post and get back to the talking points.