|
|
Post by Lux on Nov 15, 2024 18:08:54 GMT
Nobody said you did. BUT Cross dressers are paraphiliacs and men with this kind of disorder are significantly more likely to offend than men without them. So using the evolutionary survival trait of pattern recognition, do the maths. Even cross-dresser spans a variety of identities, as this person isn't a drag queen or an occasional cross-dresser. This is their every day life. Lux may have sex pest confused, but even accounting for his error, I see nothing but a rational progression in Rachel Levine's life and career.
It is a statistical reality that men are the majority of abusers and offenders, but the majority of them are CIS men.
Rachel Levine looks like a sex pest. |
|
|
|
Post by 🐕 🐕 🐕 🐕 🐕 🐈⬛ Molly on Nov 15, 2024 18:11:56 GMT
It reflects on his character and integrity. In most administrations, character and integrity are important. Not so in a Trump administration. The less character and integrity you have, the more you “belong” in a Trump admin. Do you know what accused means? He also apologized to the accuser. So it it sounds like he was accused and acknowledged he likely did it. Do you know what apologize means? |
|
|
|
Post by cat on Nov 15, 2024 18:12:44 GMT
Even cross-dresser spans a variety of identities, as this person isn't a drag queen or an occasional cross-dresser. This is their every day life. Lux may have sex pest confused, but even accounting for his error, I see nothing but a rational progression in Rachel Levine's life and career.
It is a statistical reality that men are the majority of abusers and offenders, but the majority of them are CIS men.
Rachel Levine looks like a sex pest. Your mom looks like a sex pest. |
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Nov 15, 2024 18:15:20 GMT
Rachel Levine looks like a sex pest. Your mom looks like a sex pest. Bringing mothers into this?😂 You definitely inherited your Scottish father's grumpy attitude that's for sure. |
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Nov 15, 2024 18:37:56 GMT
Nobody said you did. BUT Cross dressers are paraphiliacs and men with this kind of disorder are significantly more likely to offend than men without them. So using the evolutionary survival trait of pattern recognition, do the maths. Even cross-dresser spans a variety of identities, as this person isn't a drag queen or an occasional cross-dresser. This is their every day life. I didn't have to mount a defense for all trans people to remark that in photographs, Levine looks like a standard old lady. If you can deduce she's trans without knowing for sure, then fine, but deducing sex pest is a different can of worms.
It is a statistical reality that men are the majority of abusers and offenders, but the majority of them are CIS men.
"cis men" is a bullshit term. Its an arbitrary and false distinction that seeks only to protect a specific group. "Non binary" men are not "cis" but don't actually exist in any verifiable way. The fact of the matter is as stated. Men that commit sex offences in our societies usually have a paraphilia of some kind. It is the abnormal sexual desire that leads to the offending, from the relatively benign, such as public exhibitionism to the very serious, like rape. Men do not want to have sex with women that are terrified and resisting. That desire is a paraphilia. |
|
|
|
Post by cat on Nov 15, 2024 19:01:06 GMT
Even cross-dresser spans a variety of identities, as this person isn't a drag queen or an occasional cross-dresser. This is their every day life. I didn't have to mount a defense for all trans people to remark that in photographs, Levine looks like a standard old lady. If you can deduce she's trans without knowing for sure, then fine, but deducing sex pest is a different can of worms.
It is a statistical reality that men are the majority of abusers and offenders, but the majority of them are CIS men.
"cis men" is a bullshit term. Its an arbitrary and false distinction that seeks only to protect a specific group. "Non binary" men are not "cis" but don't actually exist in any verifiable way. The fact of the matter is as stated. Men that commit sex offences in our societies usually have a paraphilia of some kind. It is the abnormal sexual desire that leads to the offending, from the relatively benign, such as public exhibitionism to the very serious, like rape. Men do not want to have sex with women that are terrified and resisting. That desire is a paraphilia. It's just the opposite of trans. It's not that big a deal, in my opinion.
Statistically, trans people are more likely to be the victims of sexual violence. Further, being transgender isn't a sexual desire, as it has to do with identity, not to whom one is attracted. Transgender isn't a sexual orientation.
What do you consider a verifiable way? People identify as non-binary in studies. If it's a matter of self-identification and it's all in the mind, than what's to distinguish identifying as a gender identity from a political identity? It's not like liberal or conservative can be verified with genetic testing.
|
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Nov 15, 2024 19:33:51 GMT
Do you know what accused means? He also apologized to the accuser. So it it sounds like he was accused and acknowledged he likely did it. Do you know what apologize means? Are we still talking about Pete Hegseth? You linked to an article that said RFK apologized. |
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Nov 15, 2024 19:36:54 GMT
"cis men" is a bullshit term. Its an arbitrary and false distinction that seeks only to protect a specific group. "Non binary" men are not "cis" but don't actually exist in any verifiable way. The fact of the matter is as stated. Men that commit sex offences in our societies usually have a paraphilia of some kind. It is the abnormal sexual desire that leads to the offending, from the relatively benign, such as public exhibitionism to the very serious, like rape. Men do not want to have sex with women that are terrified and resisting. That desire is a paraphilia. It's just the opposite of trans. It's not that big a deal, in my opinion.
Statistically, trans people are more likely to be the victims of sexual violence. Further, being transgender isn't a sexual desire, as it has to do with identity, not to whom one is attracted. Transgender isn't a sexual orientation.
What do you consider a verifiable way? People identify as non-binary in studies. If it's a matter of self-identification and it's all in the mind, than what's to distinguish identifying as a gender identity from a political identity? It's not like liberal or conservative can be verified with genetic testing.
The opposite of trans? So 99.5% or so of the population has to be defined by its relationship to the 0.5%? Its not a legitimate distinction since the 0.5% is inherently undefinable. "Trans" is a false category that encompasses people with gender dysphoria, a legit form of body dysmorphia that shouldn't be treated with affirmation, narcissistic morons who do nothing, call themselves gender fluid and claim oppression and autogynophiles. The former are not a danger, they are victims of a psychological condition, usually girls and almost always either having other mental health problem or being victims of abuse. The latter are paraphiliacs, almost exclusively men. How many women transition in their middle years as opposed to men? The reason trans people are over represented in sexual violence is because of their over representation in sex work. Prostitution is itself, the most dangerous job there is. And "non binary" doesn't exist because humans don't work that way. All personality traits are present in both sexes to greater or lesser degrees and what we deem "masculine" traits are only labelled as such because they are more prevalent in males. These are descriptive, not prescriptive. In terms of personality no human can be 100% male, because there are no exclusively male traits. But even where you have females with a predominantly male personality type, these traits are still expressed in a typically female way. For example, males tend to be more aggressive and this expresses itself as physical violence. In females aggression tend towards more social attacks, thus a more aggressive female will be more likely to be a "complete bitch" than physically violent. This is why even though the difference in male and female aggression is not that great, the difference in violent offences by the sexes is massive. |
|
|
|
Post by cat on Nov 15, 2024 20:17:20 GMT
It's just the opposite of trans. It's not that big a deal, in my opinion.
Statistically, trans people are more likely to be the victims of sexual violence. Further, being transgender isn't a sexual desire, as it has to do with identity, not to whom one is attracted. Transgender isn't a sexual orientation.
What do you consider a verifiable way? People identify as non-binary in studies. If it's a matter of self-identification and it's all in the mind, than what's to distinguish identifying as a gender identity from a political identity? It's not like liberal or conservative can be verified with genetic testing.
The opposite of trans? So 99.5% or so of the population has to be defined by its relationship to the 0.5%? Its not a legitimate distinction since the 0.5% is inherently undefinable. "Trans" is a false category that encompasses people with gender dysphoria, a legit form of body dysmorphia that shouldn't be treated with affirmation, narcissistic morons who do nothing, call themselves gender fluid and claim oppression and autogynophiles. The former are not a danger, they are victims of a psychological condition, usually girls and almost always either having other mental health problem or being victims of abuse. The latter are paraphiliacs, almost exclusively men. How many women transition in their middle years as opposed to men? The reason trans people are over represented in sexual violence is because of their over representation in sex work. Prostitution is itself, the most dangerous job there is. And "non binary" doesn't exist because humans don't work that way. All personality traits are present in both sexes to greater or lesser degrees and what we deem "masculine" traits are only labelled as such because they are more prevalent in males. These are descriptive, not prescriptive. In terms of personality no human can be 100% male, because there are no exclusively male traits. But even where you have females with a predominantly male personality type, these traits are still expressed in a typically female way. For example, males tend to be more aggressive and this expresses itself as physical violence. In females aggression tend towards more social attacks, thus a more aggressive female will be more likely to be a "complete bitch" than physically violent. This is why even though the difference in male and female aggression is not that great, the difference in violent offences by the sexes is massive. There's nothing illegitimate or unreasonable to me about majority/minority comparisons.
The majority of the population compared by a distinction to a minority? Yeah. What's unscientific about that? It's par for the course as to how research is advanced. I see no (sorry) persuasive reason for trans being a false category. Transgender explicitly means not identifying with the gender assigned at birth. If your biology and gender-identity match (as do mine), then you are of the majority (like me), and such a distinction does not apply to us. Thus, we exist in opposition to transgender status, and terminology denotes that distinction. It makes sense to me.
I do not know how many women transition as opposed to men.
That notwithstanding, you're correct to say trans people are over represented in prostitution and sex work. That is an explanation for greater exposure to sexual violence. We agree on the relevance, if not yet the interpretation, of that fact. Further, do you know why trans people disproportionately engage in sex work? There's a lot of societal barriers, including in employment and housing, that force transgenders disproportionately into the sex trade. It has nothing to do with cognitive or physical abilities. These barriers are structurally enforced by society.
I think personality traits linked to the sexes are largely mythical, though perhaps contextual is a better term because they're maintained by society's investment in social facts: women aren't cut out for leadership positions or STEM; men aren't cut out for domestic work or child-care. They're usually (social) facts imposed from the outside to maintain the social order of the day. They're not actually true. I actually think that thinking in terms of masculine and feminine traits allows for people to be held less accountable for acting in a manner befitting what is considered pertinent to the opposite gender. I've seen women kick the shit out of women and other men, and it ain't because they're "the boys" of the women.
We're at a precipice in history where women's sports, including UFC, boxing and martial arts, are taking off, and it ain't because they're the masculine portion of the women population. Thinking in terms of masculine and feminine traits limits human potential. The great astronomers, scientists and philosophers of ancient and modern times are so because they had the brains for it, not the gender for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Nov 15, 2024 21:21:48 GMT
The opposite of trans? So 99.5% or so of the population has to be defined by its relationship to the 0.5%? Its not a legitimate distinction since the 0.5% is inherently undefinable. "Trans" is a false category that encompasses people with gender dysphoria, a legit form of body dysmorphia that shouldn't be treated with affirmation, narcissistic morons who do nothing, call themselves gender fluid and claim oppression and autogynophiles. The former are not a danger, they are victims of a psychological condition, usually girls and almost always either having other mental health problem or being victims of abuse. The latter are paraphiliacs, almost exclusively men. How many women transition in their middle years as opposed to men? The reason trans people are over represented in sexual violence is because of their over representation in sex work. Prostitution is itself, the most dangerous job there is. And "non binary" doesn't exist because humans don't work that way. All personality traits are present in both sexes to greater or lesser degrees and what we deem "masculine" traits are only labelled as such because they are more prevalent in males. These are descriptive, not prescriptive. In terms of personality no human can be 100% male, because there are no exclusively male traits. But even where you have females with a predominantly male personality type, these traits are still expressed in a typically female way. For example, males tend to be more aggressive and this expresses itself as physical violence. In females aggression tend towards more social attacks, thus a more aggressive female will be more likely to be a "complete bitch" than physically violent. This is why even though the difference in male and female aggression is not that great, the difference in violent offences by the sexes is massive. There's nothing illegitimate or unreasonable to me about majority/minority comparisons.
The majority of the population compared by a distinction to a minority? Yeah. What's unscientific about that? It's par for the course as to how research is advanced. I see no (sorry) persuasive reason for trans being a false category. Transgender explicitly means not identifying with the gender assigned at birth. If your biology and gender-identity match (as do mine), then you are of the majority (like me), and such a distinction does not apply to us. Thus, we exist in opposition to transgender status, and terminology denotes that distinction. It makes sense to me.
I do not know how many women transition as opposed to men.
That notwithstanding, you're correct to say trans people are over represented in prostitution and sex work. That is an explanation for greater exposure to sexual violence. Further, do you know why trans people disproportionately engage in sex work? There's a lot of societal barriers, including in employment and housing, that force transgenders disproportionately into the sex trade. It has nothing to do with cognitive or physical abilities. These barriers are structurally enforced by society.
I think personality traits linked to the sexes are largely mythical, though perhaps contextual is a better term because they're maintained by society's investment in social facts: women aren't cut out for leadership positions or STEM; men aren't cut out for domestic work or child-care. They're usually (social) facts imposed from the outside to maintain the social order of the day. They're not actually true. Biologically, the greatest distinction is in physical attributes. I actually think that thinking in terms of masculine and feminine traits allows for people to be held less accountable for acting in a manner befitting what is considered pertinent to the opposite gender. I've seen women kick the shit out of women and other men, and it ain't because they're "the boys" of the girls.
We're at a precipice in history where women's sports, including UFC, boxing and martial arts, are taking off, and it ain't because they're the masculine portion of the women population. Thinking in terms of masculine and feminine traits limits human potential. The great astronomers, scientists and philosophers of ancient and modern times are so because they had the brains for it, not the gender for it.
And its fine to categorise "trans" anyway you see, fit, but the rest of the population isn't defined by them. That would rapidly become nonsensical. For example. I have blue eyes, thus I define all men without blues eyes as "normalis" and people with less common eye colours as "speciali" So now I am a Cis, Speciali male. But I'm also white, most humans are not, so I will define all non white humans as "humano" and white humans as "Europa" This now means that I am a Cis, speciali, Europa male and Denzel WAshington is a Cis, normalis, humano male. Do you see how stupid and pointless this is? The numbers in the UK in 2010 were roughly equal. Now, in young people it is about 70% girls. I don't care why trans people are over represented in sex work, it isn't relevant to the point made. The claim that trans women are more likley to be victim of sexual assault than women or girls is a misrepresentation of reality. In the same way that including male victims of prison rape in rape stats would make men more at risk than women. And no, it isn't a myth, literally all the studies ever done confirm this. The simple truth of this is that hormone influence behaviour and brain development and males and females do not carry the same levels, even high testosterone females do not approach males levels. The idea that we invented this to reinforce stereotypes is a nonsense that ignores the biological reality of what our species is and our evolutionary history. We are social mammals, specifically Great Apes. All the great apes show sex specific behaviour. All mammals show sex specific behaviour and not one person who argues in favour of social constructionism can explain why H.Sapien is the exception to this rule. Mate selection in humans is done by females. Infants humans are extremely vulnerable and pregnant women are also vulnerable and compromised in their ability to provide for themselves. Thus they require a competent male to protect and provide for them. This creates a sexual selective pressure on males for competence, assertiveness and aggression, since they have to compete with other males and must demonstrate those traits to females to be considered for selection. Thus after 250,000 or so years, we observe a greater tendency for aggression, technical competence and assertiveness in males than females, because no selective pressure existed on females to develop these traits. The problem is that this is viewed by left wing feminists as some kind of value judgement, because they fail to recognise what I said, that these things are descriptive, not prescriptive. |
|
|
|
Post by 🐕 🐕 🐕 🐕 🐕 🐈⬛ Molly on Nov 15, 2024 22:02:09 GMT
He also apologized to the accuser. So it it sounds like he was accused and acknowledged he likely did it. Do you know what apologize means? Are we still talking about Pete Hegseth? You linked to an article that said RFK apologized. Who knows - there are so many sex offenders in the Trump administration…. |
|
|
|
Post by primethefirst on Nov 15, 2024 22:04:10 GMT
Larry Johnson says he won't be confirmed and Trump has someone else in mind for SoD.
Likewise Attorney General.
|
|
|
|
Post by cat on Nov 16, 2024 0:44:27 GMT
There's nothing illegitimate or unreasonable to me about majority/minority comparisons.
The majority of the population compared by a distinction to a minority? Yeah. What's unscientific about that? It's par for the course as to how research is advanced. I see no (sorry) persuasive reason for trans being a false category. Transgender explicitly means not identifying with the gender assigned at birth. If your biology and gender-identity match (as do mine), then you are of the majority (like me), and such a distinction does not apply to us. Thus, we exist in opposition to transgender status, and terminology denotes that distinction. It makes sense to me.
I do not know how many women transition as opposed to men.
That notwithstanding, you're correct to say trans people are over represented in prostitution and sex work. That is an explanation for greater exposure to sexual violence. Further, do you know why trans people disproportionately engage in sex work? There's a lot of societal barriers, including in employment and housing, that force transgenders disproportionately into the sex trade. It has nothing to do with cognitive or physical abilities. These barriers are structurally enforced by society.
I think personality traits linked to the sexes are largely mythical, though perhaps contextual is a better term because they're maintained by society's investment in social facts: women aren't cut out for leadership positions or STEM; men aren't cut out for domestic work or child-care. They're usually (social) facts imposed from the outside to maintain the social order of the day. They're not actually true. Biologically, the greatest distinction is in physical attributes. I actually think that thinking in terms of masculine and feminine traits allows for people to be held less accountable for acting in a manner befitting what is considered pertinent to the opposite gender. I've seen women kick the shit out of women and other men, and it ain't because they're "the boys" of the girls.
We're at a precipice in history where women's sports, including UFC, boxing and martial arts, are taking off, and it ain't because they're the masculine portion of the women population. Thinking in terms of masculine and feminine traits limits human potential. The great astronomers, scientists and philosophers of ancient and modern times are so because they had the brains for it, not the gender for it.
And its fine to categorise "trans" anyway you see, fit, but the rest of the population isn't defined by them. That would rapidly become nonsensical. For example. I have blue eyes, thus I define all men without blues eyes as "normalis" and people with less common eye colours as "speciali" So now I am a Cis, Speciali male. But I'm also white, most humans are not, so I will define all non white humans as "humano" and white humans as "Europa" This now means that I am a Cis, speciali, Europa male and Denzel WAshington is a Cis, normalis, humano male. Do you see how stupid and pointless this is? The numbers in the UK in 2010 were roughly equal. Now, in young people it is about 70% girls. I don't care why trans people are over represented in sex work, it isn't relevant to the point made. The claim that trans women are more likley to be victim of sexual assault than women or girls is a misrepresentation of reality. In the same way that including male victims of prison rape in rape stats would make men more at risk than women. And no, it isn't a myth, literally all the studies ever done confirm this. The simple truth of this is that hormone influence behaviour and brain development and males and females do not carry the same levels, even high testosterone females do not approach males levels. The idea that we invented this to reinforce stereotypes is a nonsense that ignores the biological reality of what our species is and our evolutionary history. We are social mammals, specifically Great Apes. All the great apes show sex specific behaviour. All mammals show sex specific behaviour and not one person who argues in favour of social constructionism can explain why H.Sapien is the exception to this rule. Mate selection in humans is done by females. Infants humans are extremely vulnerable and pregnant women are also vulnerable and compromised in their ability to provide for themselves. Thus they require a competent male to protect and provide for them. This creates a sexual selective pressure on males for competence, assertiveness and aggression, since they have to compete with other males and must demonstrate those traits to females to be considered for selection. Thus after 250,000 or so years, we observe a greater tendency for aggression, technical competence and assertiveness in males than females, because no selective pressure existed on females to develop these traits. The problem is that this is viewed by left wing feminists as some kind of value judgement, because they fail to recognise what I said, that these things are descriptive, not prescriptive. I don't really get the position that you're not defined in opposition to trans people.
It's like disputing being defined by heterosexuality in contrast to homosexuality. Defining people as "normal" only goes as far as a statistical majority. So no, not only do I not see how pointless this is, I believe the exact opposite. I believe it very much has a point. Distinctions are important to research and consequently investments in services that people need. It affects policy and the law. My challenge to those who dispute this is write your own book(s); publish your own research.
Every study that's ever done confirms what? We're nowhere near the cusp of every study having been done. We don't know everything there is to know about people, nor are we ever likely to know. I don't know what you're talking about, to be frank, by saying females with high testosterone come nowhere near male levels. I don't know what position that argument supports or disputes, as I'm not arguing that males and females, are the same. No one would. That's untenable.
Your next sentence, however, speaks to what I'm saying, which is that our evolutionis in progress. Biological reality is still being discovered and, in some cases, innovated by mutations and epigenetic leaps in the gene pool. The samples through which generalizations about behaviour are what, studies that go back a couple of hundred years? Those won't hold water for long. Research relies on updates and modern scrutiny. It is science just as sure as our past is not our future.
Think about it. If you had to submit a study about cancer treatments, you wouldn't use peer-reviewed research from the 1890's as your sources. You need modern sources; modern studies; modern.
Because of our brains? Gender is a concept invented by us. Anything in the animal kingdom that resembles gender is anthropomorphism. Animals don't perceive masculinity and femininity.
My other comment was transgender people in sex work may not be relevant to your comment, but it's certainly relevant to my rebuttal of your comment about the inherent danger of trans women. No study has corroborated links between trans women and violence or criminal behaviour.
Full disclosure: I'm not sure what to do with "mate selection in humans in done by females".
|
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Nov 16, 2024 1:15:52 GMT
Are we still talking about Pete Hegseth? You linked to an article that said RFK apologized. Who knows - there are so many sex offenders in the Trump administration…. You could have just admitted you got mixed up. |
|
|
|
Post by pathfinder on Nov 16, 2024 4:35:27 GMT
Desperate much?
|
|
