DescentBB

we have a clear leader:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... ar-BBkAsT4


wow

I'm always shocked at this stuff because of the sheer insensitivity of people who should know better.

add to that the fact, Vision, that he is a 'minister' and was speaking to the Christian Broadcasters Assn, and wonder what the heck kind of Christianity these loons practice. No wonder that the number of atheists is going up, annually.

All I want is a pro-gun, pro-choice, and pro-net neutrality candidate that believes our education system needs a complete overhaul (instead of throwing money at it hoping it fixes itself). Is that too much to ask for?

Isaac wrote:All I want is a pro-gun, pro-choice, and pro-net neutrality candidate that believes our education system needs a complete overhaul (instead of throwing money at it hoping it fixes itself). Is that too much to ask for?

I have one for you: James Webb

Isaac wrote:All I want is...

I could be happy with this. Even if they were just pro-neutrality and pro-education reform. I don't really give a ★■◆● about guns and abortions. Those issues are legally deadlocked.

Huckabee is nothing but a theocratic creep at that, along with that boatload of Fox News creeps. What happened to love thy neighbor?

http://news.yahoo.com/fox-neil-cavuto-m ... 49798.html

callmeslick wrote:

Isaac wrote:All I want is a pro-gun, pro-choice, and pro-net neutrality candidate that believes our education system needs a complete overhaul (instead of throwing money at it hoping it fixes itself). Is that too much to ask for?

I have one for you: James Webb

Still haven't heard a peep on the news.

Why not just eliminate gender-separated bathrooms in general? [It avoids the question of how gender is defined.]

This reminds me a little bit of the person who was suing some sort of cross-fit games because she self-identified as female but they made her compete with the men since here genes were male. If gender is based solely on self-identification, isn't the subject to abuse?

On the other hand, if the intention of the thread is just to take a shot at a certain political party forgive me for bringing up the complexities of the issue. Yes, those pesky GOP people have such a nasty habit of saying what they are thinking instead of what their publicist has told them to say.

vision wrote:don't really give a ★■◆● about guns

If you don't give a ★■◆● about guns you probably would rather see them banned for the most part.

snoopy wrote:Why not just eliminate gender-separated bathrooms in general? [It avoids the question of how gender is defined.]

This reminds me a little bit of the person who was suing some sort of cross-fit games because she self-identified as female but they made her compete with the men since here genes were male. If gender is based solely on self-identification, isn't the subject to abuse?

On the other hand, if the intention of the thread is just to take a shot at a certain political party forgive me for bringing up the complexities of the issue. Yes, those pesky GOP people have such a nasty habit of saying what they are thinking instead of what their publicist has told them to say.

You're forgetting that once a person actually starts the transition, not just claim they are the opposite gender, taking hormones will change the body to make that individual physically more like the gender they feel like, so any sports competition would be fair as long as there has been time for those hormones to make the physical changes to their musculature and bones. Once a person has gone down that road, the road back is very difficult on the body. No one would want to do it more than once. Jenner has probably already had sex reassignment surgery, so physically, he's now a she. Fox News and Huckabee are just being intolerant morons.

At least it's good that Republicans like to wear their phobias and biases like second clothes or otherwise how else would more tolerant people decide who is and who is not a bigot when it's time to cast their vote?

Isaac wrote:If you don't give a ★■◆● about guns you probably would rather see them banned for the most part.

Yes, from citizens and government alike, but I know that will never happen and I don't see it as a worthy topic to judge a candidate on. There are much bigger problems out there than guns and abortion.

snoopy wrote:Why not just eliminate gender-separated bathrooms in general? [It avoids the question of how gender is defined.]

That would be great! I hope our culture will one day be mature enough to eliminate all these ridiculous hangups about sexuality. Everybody poops! Nothing to be ashamed of.

snoopy wrote: they made her compete with the men since here genes were male. If gender is based solely on self-identification, isn't the subject to abuse?

Sports organizations wrestle with this issue and have made concessions wherever possible. But you have to maintain perspective. These are games. Competitions have rules for fairness. In sports, the fairness is often more about matching physical ability than gender and unfortunately there are real, quantifiable differences between men and women's bodies.

Imagine the NBA and WNBA were allowed to mix teams. Sure that would be interesting, but you can't possibly believe that over the long term most of the top stats will be from men, which might make it less fun for women, defeating the purpose of the competition.

Again, I would love for us to have more gender mixing, but not being able to play a sport falls waaaaaay down on the list when it comes to oppression.

Also, gender is NOT based solely on self-identification. Gender is a complex mix of physical traits and internal inclinations. It's also not binary, so there will always be problems when you try and fit people into an either/or model.

snoopy wrote:Yes, those pesky GOP people have such a nasty habit of saying what they are thinking instead of what their publicist has told them to say.

Thoughts => Words => Actions. When becoming a better person you first stop doing harmful things, then saying harmful words, then stop thinking harmful thoughts. Doing it in reverse is possible but much more difficult. The GOP could use a little self-control at times.

vision wrote:then saying harmful words

You first.

tunnelcat wrote:You're forgetting that once a person actually starts the transition, not just claim they are the opposite gender, taking hormones will change the body to make that individual physically more like the gender they feel like, so any sports competition would be fair as long as there has been time for those hormones to make the physical changes to their musculature and bones. Once a person has gone down that road, the road back is very difficult on the body. No one would want to do it more than once. Jenner has probably already had sex reassignment surgery, so physically, he's now a she. Fox News and Huckabee are just being intolerant morons.

1. Physical definition of gender: by the same token, genetically she is still a he... so what should rule, the parts or the genes or the self-identification?
2. You say they become physically more like the other gender - and appropriately so, because it's a spectrum. How do the residuals and PEDs figure into the equation? The hormonal therapies involved are among the exact same things that are deemed unfair cheating in most professional sports. Particularly for the transition from male to female, how do you define the "completion" of the process so it isn't unfair to those whose bodies have never been exposed to elevated levels of testosterone?

vision wrote:but I know that will never happen

Yup. It's a good thing too.

snoopy wrote:Why not just eliminate gender-separated bathrooms in general? [It avoids the question of how gender is defined.]

This reminds me a little bit of the person who was suing some sort of cross-fit games because she self-identified as female but they made her compete with the men since here genes were male. If gender is based solely on self-identification, isn't the subject to abuse?

On the other hand, if the intention of the thread is just to take a shot at a certain political party forgive me for bringing up the complexities of the issue. Yes, those pesky GOP people have such a nasty habit of saying what they are thinking instead of what their publicist has told them to say.

Good idea to eliminate gender specific bathrooms. But western culture has this odd thing with sexuality, acting like it's dirty and all.... It makes no sense logically.

Having sex in a public bathroom would be dirty.

Kinky too.

I'm firmly in favor of gender separated bathrooms. Have you ever seen the lines for the women's bathroom? F that.

lol Vander

snoopy wrote:1. Physical definition of gender: by the same token, genetically she is still a he... so what should rule, the parts or the genes or the self-identification?

Self-identification plus body parts, once they're changed to match the person's perceived brain sex. Since brain sex can be different from a person's genetic code sex due to the fetus' hormone exposure in the womb, a person's brain sex should prevail, since that drives what a person does in life. Transformation of the body parts can work great for a male to female. Not so much for a female to male. They have the worst problems because of that.

snoopy wrote:2. You say they become physically more like the other gender - and appropriately so, because it's a spectrum. How do the residuals and PEDs figure into the equation? The hormonal therapies involved are among the exact same things that are deemed unfair cheating in most professional sports. Particularly for the transition from male to female, how do you define the "completion" of the process so it isn't unfair to those whose bodies have never been exposed to elevated levels of testosterone?

Testosterone can build muscles in a female body. Estrogen can reverse the process in a male body. You don't give hormones the credit they're due. They are very powerful. Females who take testosterone to build muscles for an advantage but don't change their body parts to match are sports cheaters, not transgendered.

Vander wrote:I'm firmly in favor of gender separated bathrooms. Have you ever seen the lines for the women's bathroom? F that.

Those lines usually cause the girls start relieving themselves the boys bathroom and I've never seen a guy even flinch when that happens.

vision wrote:Those lines usually cause the girls start relieving themselves the boys bathroom and I've never seen a guy even flinch when that happens.

Trough or gtfo.

I recall a country fairgrounds in PA, where the mens facilities largely consist of not only a trough, but one placed
in the center of the room, so you are basically face to face with your compadres. That would sort of be tough to render
a unisex format, at least with prudish American mores......

callmeslick wrote:

Isaac wrote:All I want is a pro-gun, pro-choice, and pro-net neutrality candidate that believes our education system needs a complete overhaul (instead of throwing money at it hoping it fixes itself). Is that too much to ask for?

I have one for you: James Webb

Pretty close, but talk about a long-shot...

Spidey wrote:Having sex in a public bathroom would be dirty.

Kinky too.

and you would be there with the videocamera. while stroking that white beard of yours.

Spidey wrote:Having sex in a public bathroom would be dirty.

Kinky too.

Nothing there that bothered Larry Craig.