Honestly I think I may have heard each of them once at most. I pay little attention to most commentators as personalities. I DO like Ben Shapiro. He is articulate and he rankles the ire of the trans genders who claim they get to define their gender. Ben argues that basic biology determines that rather than inner feelings. OK, he could be a little nicer, but I dont see him as beng sexist...simply a realist.
I'm nonbinary, and my understanding of gender is that it's an arbitrary set of societal expectations. I love to increase my knowledge and understanding of the world whenever I get the chance, so I have some questions.
First off, I've never taken basic biology. I have taken general biology, biochemistry, mathematical biology, and a one credit hour senior elective called freestyle biology. Apologies in advance if my experience isn't up to the rigors of your course, Professor Phat.
How, exactly, does one use basic biology to define gender? Is it genetic karyotype? Is it blood concentration of testosterone, estradiol, and progesterone? Is it genital configuration?
If it's genetic karyotype, what about androgen insensitivity syndrome?
When speaking of passing judgement on others, I was wondering exactly where that is in your "traditional Christian principles"?
Phat writes:
You yourself say that gender is an arbitrary set of social expectations.
Yes. What I want you to do is explain yourself and clarify your point. How do you define gender? Why do you keep equating it with sex when the former is sociological and the latter is biological? How exactly are trans people out of touch with reality? Why does it amuse you to see people distressed when they are attacked for their very identity?
Re: Why, Yes, Marc. Our sky is blue. What's yours?
I heard plenty of horror stories from primary sources who directly experienced that era, is that sufficient? Being raised by them gave me plenty of time for it, right anglagard?
You must think really highly of Democrats if you think they're competent enough to pull off entire inventions.
Black Lives Matter? I'll let someone with more directly applicable life experience field that one.
As to defund the police, I'm open to negotiations. How about police duty? It'll be like jury duty but you're doing it for observing/aiding the police.
Police always say that people don't know how hard their job is, that the paperwork is excessive, and that they aren't paid enough for what they do. Leftists always say we need independent oversight and community policing. Both concerns can be addressed at the same time, while slightly inconveniencing people in true moderate fashion!
Police already do civilian ride-alongs, so we know it can be done safely. I think we can at least lighten the load on traffic enforcement.
If the people on police duty are paid the same wages as the individuals presently assigned to those tasks, they can judge for themselves if the police are getting paid enough for what they contribute for their community.
This will fight corruption by creating more opportunities to catch it, it'll break the toxic elements of police culture by interrupting it with an outside element, and it'll ensure that the community is well-informed about law enforcement and how it relates to public safety. Surely, only a few bad apples without a sense of duty would object to that?
And God said let there be irony. Nothing happened.
™ Version 4.2
