Do anti-trans activists channel other social anxieties into transphobia?

Barnardot

@Dreamer ;Do you agree with this article's author?

I don't know and I think your done the wrong thing here by just putting a link to a PDF that people have to pay @50 to access. If your going to do that then you should download the article at your expents then ask people to comment on a part of it may be.

We all ready have 2 people on this site that deliberately does this sort of thing by giving links that you have to pay for then find that there full of phishing and scams. And I'm not even going to mention the name of @Dee or @just_sayin either.

Sorry but I reckon you could do a lot better than submitting that dodgy crap.

Dee

@Barnardot

15

Dreamer

@Barnardot

I can only read the abstract, which at least establishes what the topic is about. Honestly, I had trouble creating this post. I am just going to go somewhat off topic.

Democracy is in retreat. We are at real threat of fascism, defined as ultra nationalism taking root. One of fascists favorite tropes is to attack feminism. This because feminism is a dire threat to fascism.

Fascists reduce women's role to only bearing and raising children. This is why there is so much anti-choice extremism. For example woman being forced to go through with pregnancy despite no chance of fetus surviving.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/z34n44/abortion-bans-force-women-to-carry-nonviable-fetuses

Men feeling a lose of social status already are upset. Even a small loss of status can make privileged groups feel like victims. Fascists take advantage of people's sexual anxiety. There is a lot of anti-trans hate groups.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-undermines-rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria-claims/

At this point we need to push back. Yes, I agree with the abstract its a peer reviewed article.

MichaelElpers

@Dreamer

Youre making a lot of statements but not providing much evidence or explaination to back up your premises.

"One of fascists favorite tropes is to attack feminism. This because feminism is a dire threat to fascism.

Men feeling a lose of social status already are upset. Even a small loss of status can make privileged groups feel like victims."

These are just statements.

Contrary to these statements is seems to me feminism, trans idealogy, have dominating positive views amongst the main stream.  Rarely can you even hint at criticizing these movements without being demonized in society.

Men, especially white men, arent fearing a loss social status, they are seeing the results of whiteism or reverse racism (racism). 
Which group in America can you openly criticize in social media and it be followed by cheers?  Which group got assigned the word "toxic" in front of it with a perfectly acceptable use?  Which group is it tolerable to tell they cant have a opinion because of there sex or skin color?
When have you ever heard in modern society, you dont get an opinion youre a female and that be deemed acceptable.
Youve even expressed on site examples of this.

I could go on but feminism is largely applauded in the western world so if you think we are becoming more facist I am not sure how your premises follow.

just_sayin

@Dreamer
Democracy is in retreat. We are at real threat of fascism, defined as ultra nationalism taking root.

More people voted in the last election than at any time in the history of the US.  That doesn't seem like Democracy in retreat.  I would say that Democrat judges claiming Trump is guilty of insurrection without him ever been charged with that crime or found guilty of it is much more of a threat of fascism.  

Fascists reduce women's role to only bearing and raising children. 

And just where is this happening?  The participation rate in work for women is growing.  Is this some kind of veiled comment on states restricting the killing of unborn babies?  If so, it seems deceptive, because killing babies is kind of like the opposite of bearing and raising them.  If you are talking about abortion, then be direct about your position.

This is why there is so much anti-choice extremism. For example woman being forced to go through with pregnancy despite no chance of fetus surviving.

Yet more extreme allegations without any evidence.  Do you have any studies on why people don't want to kill unborn babies?  For me it is a moral issue.  I think we should protect rather than kill innocent human lives.  You think it is good to kill innocent unborn babies.  You think me extreme, but don't see your position as such.  Again, you have misrepresented the Texas case where the woman had an abortion.  No doctor claimed there was no chance of the fetus not being born alive.  Again, if you want to argue the law, then be direct and argue that point.  

Men feeling a lose of social status already are upset. Even a small loss of status can make privileged groups feel like victims. Fascists take advantage of people's sexual anxiety. There is a lot of anti-trans hate groups.

Again, i don't know what issue you are talking about.  Is it racist policies like Affirmative Action which discriminate against men, whites and Asians in college admissions, hiring, promotions, in receiving benefits, grants, and government contracts?  If so, then just admit you support those racist policies.  It seems logical to me that someone would be upset when they are being discriminated.  Do you think your racism is somehow good racism?  If so, then please make your argument.  

What groups are privileged?  I come from a 2 parent home.  If you are talking about a 2 parent home group then I have that privilege, but if this is one of those racist DEI things where you are arguing whiteness is privileged, then I would say that is a racist notion.  If white privilege were real, the poor kids in Appalachia would buy or steal some of that stuff.  It is a racist notion to say that you can know someone's implicit biases, intentions, privileges, oppressor/victim status, or fragility by only knowing their race.  Such racist claims are dehumanizing, for they see the individual as only an automaton of their racial group and not as an individual.  I hope you didn't mean this vile racist and dehumanizing notion of 'privilege'.  

Where are the anti-trans hate groups?  Seriously, until a minute a go, the percentage of trans-people in the US was negligible.  If you consider people who think parents should be notified if a child is showing signs of gender dysphoria as anti-trans I think that would show a level of arrogance on your part.  Children with gender dysphoria are 500 percent more likely to kill themselves than other children.  Not notifying a parent because of your political views is immoral because it keeps the parent from knowing crucial information that is needed to ensure their child's health and safety.  I would argue that such people who don't want to tell parents are the ones actually putting trans people in harms way. 

Maybe you are suggesting that those who don't think biological men should compete with women are transphobic.  I would argue that those who do are misogynistic.  It is unjust to demand that a women compete with a biological male when a male has greater strength, greater heart size, greater lung capacity, has longer strides, and is faster.  Since no one is saying trans-athletes can't compete in the category that matches their biological sex, there is no discrimination.  That doesn't seem transphobic, but demanding biological men compete against women certainly is misogynistic.  Now if that's what you meant, then please argue how your misogyny is good misogyny.  

Regarding your Scientific American article.  Do you know why most European Countries have disregarded the advice of the AMA, WPATH, Endocrine Society and the AAP?  Its because those groups positions are based more on politics than science.  Let me quote to you from the British Medical Journal:

Internationally, however, governing bodies have come to different conclusions regarding the safety and efficacy of medically treating gender dysphoria. Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare, which sets guidelines for care, determined last year that the risks of puberty blockers and treatment with hormones “currently outweigh the possible benefits” for minors.24 Finland’s Council for Choices in Health Care, a monitoring agency for the country’s public health services, issued similar guidelines, calling for psychosocial support as the first line treatment.25 (Both countries restrict surgery to adults.)
Medical societies in France, Australia, and New Zealand have also leant away from early medicalisation.2627 And NHS England, which is in the midst of an independent review of gender identity services, recently said that there was “scarce and inconclusive evidence to support clinical decision making”28 for minors with gender dysphoria29 and that for most who present before puberty it will be a “transient phase,” requiring clinicians to focus on psychological support and to be “mindful” even of the risks of social transition.30

...

The Endocrine Society commissioned two systematic reviews for its clinical practice guideline, Endocrine Treatment of Gender-Dysphoric/Gender-Incongruent Persons: one on the effects of sex steroids on lipids and cardiovascular outcomes, the other on their effects on bone health.3233 To indicate the quality of evidence underpinning its various guidelines, the Endocrine Society employed the GRADE system (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation) and judged the quality of evidence for all recommendations on adolescents as “low” or “very low.”

Guyatt, who co-developed GRADE, found “serious problems” with the Endocrine Society guidelines, noting that the systematic reviews didn’t look at the effect of the interventions on gender dysphoria itself, arguably “the most important outcome.” He also noted that the Endocrine Society had at times paired strong recommendations—phrased as “we recommend”—with weak evidence. In the adolescent section, the weaker phrasing “we suggest” is used for pubertal hormone suppression when children “first exhibit physical changes of puberty”; however, the stronger phrasing is used to “recommend” GnRHa treatment.

“GRADE discourages strong recommendations with low or very low quality evidence except under very specific circumstances,” Guyatt told The BMJ. Those exceptions are “very few and far between,” and when used in guidance, their rationale should be made explicit, Guyatt said. In an emailed response, the Endocrine Society referenced the GRADE system’s five exceptions, but did not specify which it was applying.

Helfand examined the recently updated WPATH Standards of Care and noted that it “incorporated elements of an evidence based guideline.” For one, WPATH commissioned a team at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland to conduct systematic reviews.3435 However, WPATH’s recommendations lack a grading system to indicate the quality of the evidence—one of several deficiencies. Both Guyatt and Helfand noted that a trustworthy guideline would be transparent about all commissioned systematic reviews: how many were done and what the results were. But Helfand remarked that neither was made clear in the WPATH guidelines and also noted several instances in which the strength of evidence presented to justify a recommendation was “at odds with what their own systematic reviewers found.”

For example, one of the commissioned systematic reviews found that the strength of evidence for the conclusions that hormonal treatment “may improve” quality of life, depression, and anxiety among transgender people was “low,” and it emphasised the need for more research, “especially among adolescents.”35 The reviewers also concluded that “it was impossible to draw conclusions about the effects of hormone therapy” on death by suicide.

Despite this, WPATH recommends that young people have access to treatments after comprehensive assessment, stating that the “emerging evidence base indicates a general improvement in the lives of transgender adolescents.”12 And more globally, WPATH asserts, “There is strong evidence demonstrating the benefits in quality of life and well-being of gender-affirming treatments, including endocrine and surgical procedures,” procedures that “are based on decades of clinical experience and research; therefore, they are not considered experimental, cosmetic, or for the mere convenience of a patient. They are safe and effective at reducing gender incongruence and gender dysphoria.”12

Those two statements are each followed by more than 20 references, among them the commissioned systematic review. This stood out to Helfand as obscuring which conclusions were based on evidence versus opinion. He says, “It’s a very strange thing to feel that they had to cite some of the studies that would have been in the systematic review or purposefully weren’t included in the review, because that’s what the review is for.”

For minors, WPATH contends that the evidence is so limited that “a systematic review regarding outcomes of treatment in adolescents is not possible.” But Guyatt counters that “systematic reviews are always possible,” even if few or no studies meet the eligibility criteria. If an entity has made a recommendation without one, he says, “they’d be violating standards of trustworthy guidelines.” Jason Rafferty, assistant professor of paediatrics and psychiatry at Brown University, Rhode Island, and lead author of the AAP statement, remarks that the AAP’s process “doesn’t quite fit the definition of systematic review, but it is very comprehensive.”
Sweden conducted systematic reviews in 2015 and 2022 and found the evidence on hormonal treatment in adolescents “insufficient and inconclusive.”24 Its new guidelines note the importance of factoring the possibility that young people will detransition, in which case “gender confirming treatment thus may lead to a deteriorating of health and quality of life (i.e., harm).”

Cochrane, an international organisation that has built its reputation on delivering independent evidence reviews, has yet to publish a systematic review of gender treatments in minors. But The BMJ has learnt that in 2020 Cochrane accepted a proposal to review puberty blockers and that it worked with a team of researchers through 2021 in developing a protocol, but it ultimately rejected it after peer review. A spokesperson for Cochrane told The BMJ that its editors have to consider whether a review “would add value to the existing evidence base,” highlighting the work of the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which looked at puberty blockers and hormones for adolescents in 2021. “That review found the evidence to be inconclusive, and there have been no significant primary studies published since.”

In 2022 the state of Florida’s Agency for Health Care Administration commissioned an overview of systematic reviews looking at outcomes “important to patients” with gender dysphoria, including mental health, quality of life, and complications. Two health research methodologists at McMaster University carried out the work, analysing 61 systematic reviews and concluding that “there is great uncertainty about the effects of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries in young people.” The body of evidence, they said, was “not sufficient” to support treatment decisions.

Calling a treatment recommendation “evidence based” should mean that a treatment has not just been systematically studied, says Helfand, but that there was also a finding of high quality evidence supporting its use. Weak evidence “doesn’t just mean something esoteric about study design, it means there’s uncertainty about whether the long term benefits outweigh the harms,” Helfand adds.

“Evidence itself never tells you what to do,” says Guyatt. That’s why guidelines must make explicit the values and preferences that underlie the recommendation.
The Endocrine Society acknowledges in its recommendations on early puberty suppression that it is placing “a high value on avoiding an unsatisfactory physical outcome when secondary sex characteristics have become manifest and irreversible, a higher value on psychological well-being, and a lower value on avoiding potential harm.”14

WPATH acknowledges that while its latest guidelines are “based upon a more rigorous and methodological evidence-based approach than previous versions,” the evidence “is not only based on the published literature (direct as well as background evidence) but also on consensus-based expert opinion.” In the absence of high quality evidence and the presence of a patient population in need—who are willing to take on more personal risk—consensus based guidelines are not unwarranted, says Helfand. “But don’t call them evidence based.”

In case you didn't get the message of the article, its this...  Europe doesn't follow US standards, because WPATH and the Endocrine Society have misrepresented low rated research as being more reliable research and made policies based off of that in defiance of normal procedures.  in other words, their recommendations are based on politics, not the science.  

It is truly sad that medical groups in the US are willing to let children cut off their breasts and penises for their political cause, knowing that this may cause greater harm to some in the future.  

Dee

The link brings one to the Taylor Francis website which seems to be a site that caters to the ever growing worlwide community of over sensitive snowflakes who insist we all should buy into their nosensical sense of victimhood otherwise we are are racist misoginistic bigots.

The site gets assorted academics to spout utter bull by introducing academic style language to make their nonsense appear credible

Have a look at some of their online articles , would make the eyes water ....... come on  " gay men negotitiate their visual identify " 

MayCaesar

The OP wants us to agree or disagree with an article that he, by his own admission, did not even read... 

Dee

One of the many articles on this site ...... dear oh dear .......

Dreamer

@MichaelElpers

"Men, especially white men, arent fearing a loss social status, they are seeing the results of whiteism or reverse racism"

This is why I've basically given up on so many users of this website. To have a point of view like this requires a head deep in the sand. Ignoring the school to prison pipeline for example and mass incarceration of Blacks. 

That mothers make substantially less money that males. To be oblivious to the violence against transgender people.

just_sayin

Dreamer said:

@MichaelElpers

"Men, especially white men, arent fearing a loss social status, they are seeing the results of whiteism or reverse racism"

This is why I've basically given up on so many users of this website. To have a point of view like this requires a head deep in the sand. Ignoring the school to prison pipeline for example and mass incarceration of Blacks. 

That mothers make substantially less money that males. To be oblivious to the violence against transgender people.

@Dreamer
If you make a statement then back up your argument with substantive points.  'Whiteism' sounds racist.  If you believe in policies that discriminate against someone because of the color of their skin or gender, that's racism and sexism.  If you believe that the racism that you support  is good racism then make that argument.  

Do you think that all races commit crimes at the same rate?  If so why?  There are 30 plus years of FBI records of violent crimes that suggest that crime rates are not equal.  Asians commit less crime than whites, and whites less violent crime than Blacks. 

To believe that there is systemic racism in the number of Black prisoners would mean A) You possibly believe Black people lie more than others - because the main witnesses of Black crime are Blacks, they are also the main victims of Black crime. B. You would have to believe that DAs are more stringent on Blacks - however Obama's own BJS report on the issue suggested the opposite - it suggested that Black offenders get more of a benefit of the doubt at mandatory sentencing thresholds for drugs than do whites.  C) You would have to believe that judges are racist - but Obama's own BJS study (the same one for B, said that there was no identifiable difference in how judges rule - if a specific judge was more stringent on a Black person, he was equally stringent on a white person, this in part is because Obama took a lot of control away from judges.  or D) that 12 jurors were all racist - especially the Black jurors which make up many of the jurors for Black offenders.  I could also add a E) You believe Black police officers are more likely to discriminate and lie about a Black suspect - because a plurality arrests of Black suspects are done by Black officers.   So where in the system is the systemic racism?  That's a fair question that deserves you answer it.  If you can't then you owe an apology for falsely accusing the justice system of something that the evidence does not support.  

Coming out of college, which by the way women are more likely to go and graduate from college, a single woman, will on average make more than a single man, working the same job.  The wage gap is more about these issues 1) men are more likely in STEM fields and in higher risk jobs than women, 2) men on average work more hours a week than women because women often can't be as flexible with their schedules do to childcare constraints, 3) and women often have gaps in their work experience due to having a baby and raising kids.  Again, take these 3 things away - and just compare a single man to a single woman in the same industry with the same experience - the woman is making more.  Kinda blows that argument to pieces.  

ZeusAres42

Right, so you want us to have a debate with an author of a link. Hmm. 

MichaelElpers

@Dreamer

Youve given up because unfortunately  you are lazy in your argumentation and dont attempt to use any sort of critical thinking or theory to back up your statements.

Normally id consider this ad hominem but the evidence is provided in this thread.  You used a headline to make an assertion you didnt even read because it backed up your thinking.  Now you continue to make statements without even attempting to back up with evidence.
Not only that but you just completely ignored my entire post and threw it to the side simply by saying i have my head in the sand.

Just sayin already provided some evidence against your other claims so I wont duplicate work, Ill simply ask a couple questions.

What current laws are not equally being applied across all races? Which laws contributing to black incarceration would you like to be legal?

Equal pay is easily debunked by anyone attempting to look, not to mention illegal.
Please show me the study that shows women working the same job either. equal years of experience are being paid less.  Google tried and realized they were paying women more.

My advice is to please fully read articles and instead of copy and pasting them.  Attempt to play devils advocate.  If you cant represent the argument in your own words than either you dont understand it or they are making a bad argument.

Dreamer

@MichaelElpers

The gender pay gap is well established. I shouldn't have to provide evidence for common knowledge claims.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap

The book 9.9% argues the gender pay gap is wider.

Dreamer

@ZeusAres42

I am unsure who you are responding. I just thought it was an interesting idea and posted not really thinking it through. The idea of affective drift.

Isn't the abstract enough for a starting point? Do we have to always link to the full text when using a peer reviewed article?

Dreamer

Anyways, the Internet can be annoying with all the paywalls and subscriptions required. Finding the perfect source often takes longer than simply typing an argument.

The link between anti-trans rhetoric and ableism is disturbing.

https://medium.com/the-establishment/how-our-society-harms-trans-people-with-autism-9766edc6553d

Before targeting Jewish people disabled people were mass murdered first.

"The methods used for mass extermination in the Nazi death camps originated and were perfected in earlier use against people with physical, emotional, and intellectual disabilities."

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00224669020360030601

Yes, another abstract only, nitpick the epistemology all you want but its hard to argue with well established historic facts.

"T4 Program, Nazi German effort—framed as a euthanasia program—to kill incurably ill, physically or mentally disabled, emotionally distraught, and elderly people."

https://www.britannica.com/event/T4-Program

just_sayin

Dreamer said:

@MichaelElpers

The gender pay gap is well established. I shouldn't have to provide evidence for common knowledge claims.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap

The book 9.9% argues the gender pay gap is wider.

@Dreamer, I appreciate your comments.  Thomas Sowell will often talk about how statistics will be used by whoever is quoting them to further their own agenda.  He often mentions the hilarious practice of the NYT of which set of data they use for economic news depending on if the president is a Democrat or a Republican.  If a Democrat is in office income information is based on tabulations based on individual income.  But if a Republican is president, the data will be reported using household income.  Do you know why?  The number of people in households has consistently fallen over the years, so household incomes will be reported as falling.  If you think about it, income is paid to individuals, and should always be reported using individual income, there really is no reason to use household income as the baseline - but NYT does this because it makes the Democrat president look more favorable.

In the same way, you have fallen for the gender pay gap vs the gender controlled pay gap fallacy.  The two are calculated differently.  The gender pay gap just takes salaries of both sexes, divides by the number of each sex and gets the totals.  It does not consider if more men 1) work in higher paying industries like STEM, which they do, 2) it does not consider if men work more hours, which they do - for example a male doctor works almost 10 hours on average more a week than a female one, 3) it does not take into account experience and time at the job - you would expect someone who has been working longer to make more.  So when you aren't comparing like jobs and like job experiences you get a gender pay gap.

Contrast that with the controlled pay gap which does account for these things.  Payscale, which explains the difference in the 2 calculating methods, says that women make at least 99% of what men make if you use the controlled pay gap method of comparing people in the same job, same length of service, same work hours.  Now, I know you'll say there is still a 1cent difference - however, as Payscale explains there are still other factors that aren't factored in that make up that 1 cent difference.  In fact, as I mentioned before, a single woman coming out college will on average be paid MORE than a single man coming out of college in the same industry with the same experience level.  

When you see these kinds of statistics it is important to ask basic questions.  For example, if you really believed women make less, then why would any company ever hire a man if it can cut its costs by hiring women who work for less?  The answer is they wouldn't.  If you can cut expenses by that much then every company would only hire women.  

By the way, the media are notorious for making people think that the statistics they share mean one thing, when it fact they do not.  

MayCaesar

Dreamer said:

Anyways, the Internet can be annoying with all the paywalls and subscriptions required. Finding the perfect source often takes longer than simply typing an argument.

Because that is not how you are supposed to do it. What you do is type something in google that you want to argue, then find the links that support your point and, without reading their content, post them here.
The actual way to do it is to spend some time researching the subject and developing a solid and informed opinion. Then, when you know the literature somewhat well, you come here, make a strong argument and use the sources to back it up.
But no. You just throw random things that you heard on the news and back them up with random links that you got after a few seconds of googling. Often those links state the exact opposite of what you claim they do, then you just find another link and hope that that one does not.

This kind of pseudo-intellectualism plagues the modern world. It is much better when people do not pretend that they know something about the subject and just unleash their stream of consciousness. But no, nowadays people have all these fancy tools that allow them to - in their own eyes, at least - appear like they have some knowledge. In reality, they know even less than if they knew nothing: as Socrates would say, it is better to not know something and be aware of it, than to not know something, but think that you do. Ignorance is a natural state of things; it is repairable. Ignorance confused with knowledge - now, that is miserable indeed...

MichaelElpers

@Dreamer

Again see just sayin post.  Median wage gap is crap is doesnt take into account different career fields, experience, ect.

I asked that you make sure you find a source that compares these equally but again you didnt take the time and posted the first wiki link you could find to support your position.

Dreamer

@MichaelElpers

Your comment is irrelevant and misses the point. Due to stereotype threat girls view magical unicorns eating ice cream and this influences career choice.

Dee

@Dreamer

There is no access to your first two links unless you're a paid up member , you never read either.

The level of intellectual dishonesty is staggering , are you that desperate to make a point?

Dreamer

This article challenges many common myths. Seems the religious right is quite the instigator and spreader of anti-trans myths.

https://medium.com/@juliaserano/transgender-people-bathrooms-and-sexual-predators-what-the-data-say-2f31ae2a7c06

just_sayin

Dreamer said:

@MichaelElpers

Your comment is irrelevant and misses the point. Due to stereotype threat girls view magical unicorns eating ice cream and this influences career choice.

It is really hard to determine what influenced someone's career choice.  There are biological, social, and environmental factors.  The national average of students who change their major during college is approximately 75%. This would logically suggest that since most college students change their majors in college, that college influences like friends, classes, professors would have a greater impact on their major choice - but this is just speculation on my part.  What I thought was disturbing was that 61% of college graduates said they would change their undergraduate studies major if they could go back.

@Dreamer said: This article challenges many common myths. Seems the religious right is quite the instigator and spreader of anti-trans myths.

https://medium.com/@juliaserano/transgender-people-bathrooms-and-sexual-predators-what-the-data-say-2f31ae2a7c06

2 of the sources that your article is based on are a Teen Vogue story and a Media Matters article.  Media Matters is a left-wing partisan organization - what is it you said about not using partisan sources?  From scanning your article it seems evident that you have fallen for a bait and switch and I suspect don't really understand the concerns of parents.  I think that most true transgenders would not be a threat in a bathroom.  I don't think that's parents real concern though - so making that argument ignores their concern.  I think their concern is for males who will claim to be transgender who can then access spaces where girls are unclothed and vulnerable.  For example, in Loudoun VA, a boy claimed he was identifying as a girl, and was even wearing a skirt as he entered a girls bathroom and sexually assaulted the girl.  A teacher entered the bathroom, but left and defended herself by saying 'well that's our school policy to allow transgenders in the bathroom'. The school district tried to initially cover up the incident, and even had the father of the girl arrested, instead of the suspect, to try and silence him.  The boy who identified as a 'her' on the day of the assault was transferred to another school in the district and within 2 weeks had sexually assaulted another girl.  The media, specifically the NYT, even intentionally mis-gendered her, because the story didn't fit with the narrative that they wanted.  They said a 'boy' met his girlfriend in a bathroom and it went too far.  Well, that 'boy' told teachers she was identifying as a 'girl' on that day and was wearing a skirt.  Even if the guy is just pretending to be trans, the sexual assault was real, and so is the danger to girls safety. The superintendent and some board members were found guilty of criminal conduct in their cover up.  Can you HONESTLY tell me, that left wing people would not cover up such sexual assaults in the future?

I believe left wing people would continue covering up sexual assaults, because their commitment to their political agenda is greater than their commitment to kids safety.  Think for a moment, just how many people were involved in the cover up in Loudoun Country between the 2 school incidents -Principals, secretaries, teachers, school board members, and the Superintendent for the county all knew, and all covered it up.  Again, they even had the girl's father, who was sexually violated, arrested when he confronted the school board at a meeting.  The guy had to get a pardon from the VA governor.  This may seem like a one off incident, but when you realize how many people looked the other way and lied about it - you recognize that this was a systemic cover-up based on a political agenda.  The safety of girls is too important, to allow people with political agendas to put them in harm's way.

MayCaesar

In case someone missed the memo, there is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibiting treating people differently because of their sex. That means that if women in an organization demonstrably get paid less for doing the same work than men on the basis of their sex, then someone can win a hefty prize by suing said organization. The fact that such lawsuits almost never occur suggests that such practice is nearly non-existent in the US, therefore there is no noticeable "gender pay gap".

There are other factors that result in statistical differences between genders. Women take time off work to carry and raise kids; men rarely do. Women tend to be more family-driven, men tend to be more career-driven. Women tend to be less aggressive about demanding promotion than men. Women tend to value work-life balance higher than men. Women tend to choose lower-risk professions than men.
What there is none in a way that is demonstrable is women being paid less because of being women. No one has ever managed to demonstrate that, on average, all other things being equal, a woman in a given profession will be paid less than a man.

This really should conclude this discussion. There is no point talking about something that cannot be demonstrated to exist. It is like god, or white holes, or faster-than-light travel, or pregnant men... These are just fantasies that make for cool stories, but do not map onto reality.

Of course, reality is not something so-called social justice activists care about, right? They even use this term "narrative". For them, reality is not what it is, but what story one tells about it.

Openminded

Argument Topic: To Dreamer

@Dreamer
It appears that the fragile male ego has been threatened in this debate and many others I might add. To still be pushing back on the argument that gender pay gap is still an issue and still uneven is quite telling. Thank goodness for the younger generation of men who I believe can teach the older while male that a strong man is one who´s able to admit he´s wrong. That ain´t happening in this debate.

MichaelElpers

@Openminded

Thank you for proving my point to Dreamer on my argumentation that people today are completely comfortable dismissing argumentation of men, especially white men simply because they are white men.

Now if youd actually like to provide any factual evidence of the pay gap feel free to take the time to back it up with reasoning rather than using dismissive majority views to make yourself feel good.

Openminded

Argument Topic: Now if youd actually like to provide any factual evidence of the pay gap feel free to take the time to back it up with reasoning rather than using dismissive majority views to make yourself feel good.

@MichaelElpers

I typed in ¨Is the pay gap between men and women decreasing¨. Here are the first few of several articles.

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/03/01/the-enduring-grip-of-the-gender-pay-gap/

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/03/01/gender-pay-gap-facts/

https://blog.dol.gov/2021/03/19/5-facts-about-the-state-of-the-gender-pay-gap

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/14/1162776985/equal-pay-day-gender-pay-gap-discrimination

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/01/gender-pay-gap-widens-as-women-age.html

https://www.business.org/hr/benefits/gender-pay-gap/

Now, I believe the above articles are reasonable and credible sources. 

MichaelElpers

@Openminded

Instead of posting 6 sources why dont you take the time to read one and articulate in your own words.

What these sources do is strictly compare median earning incomes of men and women.
What we learn in middle school is that you have to control your variables.  The common example is you have multiple pipes and your trying to figure out what makes the pitch higher or lower when you tap it.  If you grab a pipe of different length, material, thickness,color and compare the you cannot conclude which of these variables is changing the pitch.  If you wanted to test length for example you would have to grab pipes of equal in material, color, and thickness.

What the gender pay gap myth is doing is ignoring what we learned in middle school.  They are comparing median earnings amongst sexes but controlling variables such as different careers, length of service, location, ect.
If you want to compare earning of sexes only you have to control the other variables.  When Google did this in their company they actually figured out men were making less.

Openminded

Argument Topic: Instead of posting 6 sources why dont you take the time to read one and articulate in your own words.

@MichaelElpers

While I did not read the entirety of the six articles, I took in what I believe I needed to back up my argument.  As I said, I´m on this site to learn - not to muddy up the debate, bamboozle the debater or because I need to win an argument. 

The Equal Pay Act passed in 1963. There has been little progress to close the gender pay gap since then. While we need to take into account that women are still the main caregivers of children (this is changing thanks to the awareness of the younger generation of men and the women behind them), women tend to still work fewer hours, women take on more flexible jobs allowing for family time off if needed, time off is taken when children get sick - if all things are equal and with controlled variables, there still appears to be a significant gender pay gap. It´s now called the unexplained pay gap or just plain discrimination as it appears that women are still marginalized. But I do believe this is SLOWLY changing as I see men now taking a greater role in childcare. Kudos to millenials and GenZers.

I am interested in ¨If you want to compare earning of sexes only you have to control the other variables.  When Google did this in their company they actually figured out men were making less.¨ Can you please expand on this?

just_sayin

Openminded said:

@Dreamer
It appears that the fragile male ego has been threatened in this debate and many others I might add. To still be pushing back on the argument that gender pay gap is still an issue and still uneven is quite telling. Thank goodness for the younger generation of men who I believe can teach the older while male that a strong man is one who´s able to admit he´s wrong. That ain´t happening in this debate.

Hey @Openminded, I addressed the misleading conclusion that the gender pay gap is caused by some form of sexism.  Let me quote what I said:

In the same way, you have fallen for the gender pay gap vs the gender controlled pay gap fallacy.  The two are calculated differently.  The gender pay gap just takes salaries of both sexes, divides by the number of each sex and gets the totals.  It does not consider if more men 1) work in higher paying industries like STEM, which they do, 2) it does not consider if men work more hours, which they do - for example a male doctor works almost 10 hours on average more a week than a female one, 3) it does not take into account experience and time at the job - you would expect someone who has been working longer to make more.  So when you aren't comparing like jobs and like job experiences you get a gender pay gap.

Contrast that with the controlled pay gap which does account for these things.  Payscale, which explains the difference in the 2 calculating methods, says that women make at least 99% of what men make if you use the controlled pay gap method of comparing people in the same job, same length of service, same work hours.  Now, I know you'll say there is still a 1cent difference - however, as Payscale explains there are still other factors that aren't factored in that make up that 1 cent difference.  In fact, as I mentioned before, a single woman coming out college will on average be paid MORE than a single man coming out of college in the same industry with the same experience level.  

To quote Thomas Sowell "Fact-free moralizing is a common pattern among social justice advocates."  You don't have to be a man to recognize that the gender pay gap argument is a fallacy.  But you may have to be a SJW to intentionally ignore facts that don't fit with your racist and sexist view of the world.  Merry Christmas.

MichaelElpers

@Openminded
The equal pay act requires there be no discrimination based sex. This should already show you that women are getting equal pay as it is required by law.
On the last sentence im not sure how to expand on this.  Just like you must compare pipes with equal length, material, color ect if youre determining the effect length has on pitch. You must similarly control job, experience, location, hours worked ect when making the determination if sex is a factor in pay discrimination.  Because this is not controlled in a simple median income data you might as well be comparing a mans salary as an engineer to that of women social worker. Men largely dominate the higher paying degrees while women dominate the lowest paying ones. That is by choice. The difference is due to the types of jobs, hours worked, expeirence ect not their sex.


SAN FRANCISCO — When Google conducted a study recently to determine whether the company was underpaying women and members of minority groups, it found, to the surprise of just about everyone, that men were paid less money than women for doing similar work.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/technology/google-gender-pay-gap.html#:~:text=SAN FRANCISCO — When Google conducted,women for doing similar work.

Next ill respond to dreamers point on the stereotyping as theyve proved this false as well.  Based on studies the more egalitarian countries got the larger gap they saw in women choosing different career fields than men.
See article"If it is true that traditional stereotypes are socialising men and women into different occupational interests and choices- you will expect that countries that are more progressive and have more gender egalitarian norms will have a lower index of dissimilarity (ID). However, this is not the case.Take a look at the Nordic countries (Finland, Norway, Sweden) which have high levels of gender egalitarian social norms and are classified as Substantive-Egalitarian meaning they are both formally committed to gender equality and strongly committed in terms of women friendly policy. They are considered the most progressive countries in terms of their commitment to gender equality and were leaders in introducing parental leave and allowances. Women’s participation in the labour market is high and is supported by extensive social services which allow women to combine parenthood and work.The paradox and puzzling fact is that Nordic countries have a much higher ID – there is more occupational gender segregation in these countries even though they have the least traditional norms and stereotypes. Figure 1 shows how the countries that are ranked as being the most gender equal in the world actually have higher levels of occupational segregation than countries ranked much lower. Romania which is ranked very low in comparison to the Nordic countries and Iceland has a much lower ID."https://boammaaruri.blog/2020/02/11/the-gender-equality-paradox-in-occupational-choices-progressive-egalitarian-states-have-higher-occupation-gender-segregation/


@Dreamer

Openminded

Argument Topic: To quote Thomas Sowell "Fact-free moralizing is a common pattern among social justice advocates."

@just_sayin
It is hard for me to believe that so many sites, so many studies and so many institutions have gotten this wrong over the decade, but I´m Openminded and welcome truth. Merry Christmas.

MichaelElpers

@Openminded

They didnt get it wrong, they intentionally manipulate the way they represent stats to push the narrative they want.

Essentially what they did is say we took the median income of 100 guys with blue shirts and 100 guys with red shirts and figured out red shirts make 50% less.

Your initial reaction is they discriminated against men wearing red shirts because they earn 50% less.
When you dig deeper you realize the blue shirts have a lot of doctors and the red shirts had a lot of mcdonalds workers.  It had nothing to do with the color of the shirts.

just_sayin

Openminded said:

@just_sayin
It is hard for me to believe that so many sites, so many studies and so many institutions have gotten this wrong over the decade, but I´m Openminded and welcome truth. Merry Christmas.

If the gender pay gap isn't using an equal number of men and women, and isn't accounting for the fact men on average work more hours, and isn't accounting for the fact men, on average work more STEM jobs, and also men work more high risk jobs, and it isn't taking into account how much experience in a job someone has, then just what do you think it is really measuring?  Since it isn't comparing what a man and woman make doing the same job for the same number of hours and with the same experience, what exactly is it 'comparing'?

Never underestimate the desire of some to use 'statistics' to push an agenda, even if they have to construct their statistics in a way that doesn't show what they claim it shows.

Dreamer

@MichaelElpers

Typical MAGA lügenpresse response. Any time a myth is challenged MAGA blames the lying press.

https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2022/01/28/why-is-there-now-such-an-affinity-between-antivaxxers-and-fascism/#

Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas if you celebrate.

Openminded

Argument Topic: @MichaelElpers @Bogan @Dreamer

Now I´ve read the Google article and what it says is although they found during a routine pay study that men were actually being paid less than women for similar work, they also found other more troubling equity issues faced by women - basic structural problems and leveling in HR practices - defining job roles which leads to quite significant pay disparities. This article was hardly conclusive as this subject is complex, and it was one study. There are still ongoing gender and minority pay issues. True equity has not yet been resolved. I will continue to look into this - but because one study was done by Google, does not mean we can say night night to pay equity problems. Just the fact that there was an Equal Pay Acts in 1963 suggests the playing fields were never level and we´re still fighting for equity. 
Like Dreamer, I find there´s a bit of paranoia also among some here on debate island. To have so much suspicion of media does in fact suggest that Hitler´s ¨ Lugenpresse¨ and Trump´s ¨Fake Media¨ is behind it. Trump has stoked paranoia, anger and suspicion in his supporters because ¨I alone can solve it.¨ One day he´l pay for that. 
I have been enlightened and I continue to learn.
For now - Merry Christmas, and Happy Holidays!

Dreamer

" transphobic ideology and rhetoric, anti-trans legislation, and fatal violence against transgender people in the United States from 2015 to 2022. We find that increases in all three occurred over this time period, with all three aspects of the “trifecta” correlated."

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/10887679231201803

Wait, what violence is increasing? This is news to me, I know abstract only but it is a starting point.

Openminded

Argument Topic: @MichaelElpers

@MichaelElpers
Will have to look into this further. It appears to be a South African blog by one man? A disciple of Jesus Christ? Gets me wondering and I´m intrigued. Is this just one man´s opinion? Not a strong argument but Iĺl look further into this after Christmas. Happy Holidays to you.

MichaelElpers

@Openminded

The blog was reprrsenting data not performing it.
Heres a couple scholarly articles.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,33&q=personality+gender+egalitarianism&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1703514861936&u=#p=XatScmJhXX8J

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,33&q=personality+gender+egalitarianism&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1703514893916&u=#p=KzeYPqkhdbkJ

Regarding the google story.  I dont think they actually found that, I believe that to be opinion.  It cannot be denied the men were getting paid less for similar work.

Merry Christmas. 

MichaelElpers

@Openminded @Dreamer

One should always be suspicious of any stance or article.

Youll note that I didnt just write off your article because its "biased media".
I explained how/why there conclusion based on the data is a misrepresentation or at the very least inconclusive based on using median pay among the sexes.

In this instance some are indeed liars why others are ignorant.

MichaelElpers

@Dreamer

You are again using an article no one could read.  Could the increas be due to the amount of people identifying as LGBTQ?

The article cites terms such as biological man and woman as antintrans rhetoric which is pretty laughable.

MayCaesar

Openminded said:

Now I´ve read the Google article and what it says is although they found during a routine pay study that men were actually being paid less than women for similar work, they also found other more troubling equity issues faced by women - basic structural problems and leveling in HR practices - defining job roles which leads to quite significant pay disparities. This article was hardly conclusive as this subject is complex, and it was one study. There are still ongoing gender and minority pay issues. True equity has not yet been resolved. I will continue to look into this - but because one study was done by Google, does not mean we can say night night to pay equity problems. Just the fact that there was an Equal Pay Acts in 1963 suggests the playing fields were never level and we´re still fighting for equity. 
Like Dreamer, I find there´s a bit of paranoia also among some here on debate island. To have so much suspicion of media does in fact suggest that Hitler´s ¨ Lugenpresse¨ and Trump´s ¨Fake Media¨ is behind it. Trump has stoked paranoia, anger and suspicion in his supporters because ¨I alone can solve it.¨ One day he´l pay for that. 
I have been enlightened and I continue to learn.
For now - Merry Christmas, and Happy Holidays!

You are completely off base here. Hitler called all media that did not subscribe to his ideology "Lugenpresse", while endorsing openly the media that spoke favorably of it - and Trump did the same with his "fake news" term. This is completely different from healthy critical thinking which, in case of any text sources, implies upholding the author to the philosophical standards of the burden of proof. Your default assumption when hearing a new claim should always be, "There is no reason to accept this claim", and it is the author's job to refute your assumption. It does not matter if you are reading a media article, a scientific paper, or a religious book - by default, nothing can be taken to be true.

The media have every incentive in the Universe to be dishonest, and the only reason they (typically) cannot get away with systematic blatant lies is the standards the viewers/readers hold them up to. This kind of suspicion is exactly what keeps them in check - and the moment it is gone, they go completely off the rails. Look at what kind of nonsense Infowars can get away with, for its user base does not hold it up to even the most basic standards of logic.

When it comes to the question of the "gender map", the only arguments worth reading are those that logically justify it. The fact that someone claims that there is a gender gap not explained by the confounding factors has absolutely zero relevance on the validity of this claim. What matters is what they can demonstrate - and if they cannot demonstrate existence of such a gap in a way that would allow a decent lawyer to make a ton of money out of companies violating the Equal Pay Act, then for all intents and purposes it does not exist. And if there is no demonstrable discrimination at the work place by gender when it comes to pay, then, indeed, the playing field is completely equal. That it used to be unequal, again, is completely irrelevant. 

The "bleeding heart" people seem to have a very hard time separating the past from the present. They will lament on the history of slavery in America, when the last slave and the last master died over a century ago. Maybe they should go further and talk about our and the lobsters' common ancestor, about how unfairness in the reproductive practices of that ancestor is to blame for the plight of women in Saudi Arabia today?

Openminded

Argument Topic: You are completely off base here. Hitler called all media that did not subscribe to his ideology "Lugenpresse", while endorsing openly the media that spoke favorably of it - and Trump did the same with his "fake news" term.

@MayCaesar

You are completely off base here. Hitler called all media that did not subscribe to his ideology "Lugenpresse", while endorsing openly the media that spoke favorably of it - and Trump did the same with his "fake news" term. This is completely different from healthy critical thinking which, in case of any text sources, implies upholding the author to the philosophical standards of the burden of proof. Your default assumption when hearing a new claim should always be, "There is no reason to accept this claim", and it is the author's job to refute your assumption. It does not matter if you are reading a media article, a scientific paper, or a religious book - by default, nothing can be taken to be true.

Yes, of course, Hitler and Trump insisted all news to be favorable to them as dictators do. My point is Trump exploited his supporters from early on knowing their gullibility. He used ¨Fake Media¨ first to stoke suspicion and distrust in everything and carried it out to other departments especially in government to fully get their support (I alone can fix it). Fake DOJ, Fake FBI, Fake NIIH, Fake WHO, Fake Media, Fake Election, ¨the media is the opposition party¨, everything is nefarious ...... blah blah blah. My point .... his supporters don´t trust ANYTHING anymore. They´ve become so cynical and angry. Most anything to them now is fake and evil except of course everything trump touts because he alone can fix it. He manipulated and conned them. And while yes a healthy curiosity, truth seeking and researching should always be done with everything read, that is not the same as instantly taking the stance ´don´t trust anything¨. That sets one up for an unhealthy distrust in areas that were once respected and trusted. I believe Trump is responsible for a large part of this distrust because he successfully polarized our country. The media makes money with all this polarization. And Trump was behind it.

The media have every incentive in the Universe to be dishonest, and the only reason they (typically) cannot get away with systematic blatant lies is the standards the viewers/readers hold them up to. This kind of suspicion is exactly what keeps them in check - and the moment it is gone, they go completely off the rails. Look at what kind of nonsense Infowars can get away with, for its user base does not hold it up to even the most basic standards of logic.

And why do you think Infowars gets aways with it? Just who supports Infowars - trump supporters who believe everything favorable of trump. I believe also that Freedom of Speech has been put through the strongest test ever and we are abusing that right. The use of social media has amplified the misuse of our so called ¨freedom of speech¨ further. It seems everything is fair game now. With AI becoming more mainstream, we should consider using AI backed instant fact-checking on the daily news and everything that´s printed. Using one´s bully pulpit to lie and make $$$ (Tucker Carlson) is harmful. Lying for profit is becoming too normalized.

When it comes to the question of the "gender map", the only arguments worth reading are those that logically justify it. The fact that someone claims that there is a gender gap not explained by the confounding factors has absolutely zero relevance on the validity of this claim. What matters is what they can demonstrate - and if they cannot demonstrate existence of such a gap in a way that would allow a decent lawyer to make a ton of money out of companies violating the Equal Pay Act, then for all intents and purposes it does not exist. And if there is no demonstrable discrimination at the work place by gender when it comes to pay, then, indeed, the playing field is completely equal. That it used to be unequal, again, is completely irrelevant. 

I believe ¨because it used to be unequal¨ IS quite relevant. Abortion ¨used to be¨ illegal, then it was legal, and now .... well looky what we have after 50 years of women who fought for - and gained their right to control their own healthcare. Still relevant isn´t it? Justice and equity continue to be a struggle for the marginalized. The rights of women and girls are under threat once again - right back to the original inequity.

The "bleeding heart" people seem to have a very hard time separating the past from the present. They will lament on the history of slavery in America, when the last slave and the last master died over a century ago. Maybe they should go further and talk about our and the lobsters' common ancestor, about how unfairness in the reproductive practices of that ancestor is to blame for the plight of women in Saudi Arabia today?

There is no denying that racism still exists especially in the south. Confederate flags are still flown with pride. Why? Germany has outlawed the swastika being displayed as a hate symbol because they know that the display of a hate symbol creates more hate. In the US, when statues of Lee and other soldiers who fought to continue slave ownership were taken down, millions were angry. Why? Not because .... oh, it´s history .... because .... hate, anger, ignorance and bullying is empowering to them.  It´s not the bleeding hearts that have a hard time separating the past from the present. It´s the extreme right who have a hard time letting go of the past that once benefited them. They don´t like that the marginalized are given freedom to compete with them. It´s the intolerance of the extreme right and their discomfort and inability to control or make sense of anything they don´t understand.

Ask any African American how they felt walking by a confederate soldier statue daily that reminded them - and kept them in their daily subjugation. 

just_sayin

@Openminded
There is no denying that racism still exists especially in the south. Confederate flags are still flown with pride. Why? Germany has outlawed the swastika being displayed as a hate symbol because they know that the display of a hate symbol creates more hate.

I am sure you aren't aware of the racist views you hold.  While there may be some people who fly a confederate flag as a sign of hate toward Black people, for most southerners it is a symbol of southern pride.  It does not mean a sign of hate to Black people, nor support of slavery.  Do you really think that the old tv show, the Dukes of Hazzard, had a car with a confederate flag on top of it, because they hated Black people?  No.  It was a symbol of southern pride.  The belief that Appalachian American culture is inferior to other cultures and that if a symbol means something else in another culture, then Appalachian culture must accept the meaning other cultures have for their symbols is a racist one.  Would you demand that Blacks have to change the meaning of symbols they hold dear, if another culture had a different meaning for that symbol?  You don't really see Appalachian Americans as lesser beings and a lesser culture, do you?  It seems like it when you want to impute your meaning of their symbols upon them when they do not see that symbol holding that meaning.

In the US, when statues of Lee and other soldiers who fought to continue slave ownership were taken down, millions were angry. Why? Not because .... oh, it´s history .... because .... hate, anger, ignorance and bullying is empowering to them. 

Again, you have assumed that your culture's meaning of these symbols must be the meaning that others have for them.  You have again assumed your culture is superior to other's and that southern culture must adopt your meaning of its symbols or else it is wrong.  That's so racist and bigoted of you.  Would you assume that Hispanics must abandon the meaning of their symbols?  For instance Che is commonly seen on t-shirts.  Yet, Che murdered Cuban children, not of those who opposed the revolution, but of his own guerillas, without a trial, to keep them in line.  Should a child murderer be revered?  Of course not.  Yet socialists wear his child murdering face everyday.  To them, his face has a different symbolic meaning.  Whose cultural view is right in determining if it is OK to wear the face of a child murderer?  I am assuming that you would give those wearing the child murderer's face a pass, while condemning those who believe statues have historical value must abandon their culture's view of them.

It´s the extreme right who have a hard time letting go of the past that once benefited them. They don´t like that the marginalized are given freedom to compete with them. It´s the intolerance of the extreme right and their discomfort and inability to control or make sense of anything they don´t understand.

Are you once again defending your support of racist policies which discriminate against Asian and whites in college admissions, hiring, promotions, benefits, grants, awards, and contracts?  While I'm sure you believe that your racism is good racism because you see it as benevolent and well-intentioned, it is still racism.  To have reached this racist conclusion, one would have had to pervert the meaning of justice.  Justice is just not for groups, true justice goes down to the individual level.  In fact, any system of justice that does not judge the individual and makes decisions and declarations based on group affiliation is a perverted and immoral system - and certainly not justice.  To think this would be just, one would have to dehumanize individuals and see them only as automatons of their racial group, and then believe that it is just to discriminate against them because of their racial group.  I want to challenge you to be honest about the racist nature of the beliefs you hold and challenge you to repent of them.

No one should be discriminated against on the basis of their race. Period.  The belief that it is OK to discriminate against someone based on their race is racist.  

MayCaesar

@Openminded

You seem to be arguing two contradictory points at the same time. On one hand, "his supporters don't trust ANYTHING anymore", and on the other, they "believe everything favorable of trump". This kind of doublethink is a clear indication that you have not thought any of this through and are just repeating what I heard from your favorite news anchors - ironically, something you accuse Trump supporters of doing, while doing it yourself.
None of this is relevant to the point I raised earlier: that not trusting any claims by default is what everyone should do. As one of my professors liked to say, in rough translation, "Verification is the mother of trust". If this kind of attitude is that, in your view, Trump cultivated through his apparent superpowers allowing him to change the most fundamental properties of human thinking - then props to him and huge thanks for that.

Infowars has been around forever... It was founded in the 90-s, long before Trump even started joking about going into politics. And "lying for profit" was something Tacitus nearly two millennia ago said was becoming a norm in the society. You are waking up to it a little too late, my friend.
But the Infowars are not the only ones getting away with it. Formerly reputable sources such as New York Times or BBC are slipping into this kind of communication as well. I find it curious that you never talk about the sources that you are in bed with when it comes to your political views. A little biased here, are we not?

No, it is absolutely irrelevant whether abortion was legal 60 years ago when talking about whether it is legal today. And no, it is not back to the original inequity. In all these conversations I have again and again to suggest that you study history more: if you think that not having a federal mandate on legalized abortions is "the original inequity" that was there throughout most of the human history, then you are incredibly unread. As recently as 200 years ago many practices that today in the civilized world are considered to be "rape" were absolutely normal, and even considered an essential part of a healthy relationship.

Confederate flags are not an indication of racism, and if you talk to many people waving them, they will oppose racism as much as you do. And yes, the precise argument in favor of preserving the statues you mentioned was that they represented American history. Curious how you call wanting to preserve things "intolerance", but wanting to destroy them - I guess, the opposite, "tolerance"?
That you call yourself openminded, while displaying the most obvious signs of narrowmindedness and fixation on a very particular vision of the world, is mindboggling. Nowadays people can call themselves anything they want, even if they are the exact opposite of that.

To your last point, back when I lived in Russia, I would walk every weekend past a statue of Lenin, the guy responsible for murder of one of my family members and enslavement of another. How did I feel about it? Pretty good: the top of his head would be frequently shat on by pigeons, and he kind of looked like Ronald McDonald. I am not afraid of a freaking chunk of metal or rock that is shaped as a historical villain. I am not 5 years old, I can tell a statue from a living and ruling dictator.
Those African-Americans who cannot... are too young to walk past such statues without adult supervision.

Openminded

Argument Topic: You seem to be arguing two contradictory points at the same time.

@MayCaesar

You seem to be arguing two contradictory points at the same time. On one hand, "his supporters don't trust ANYTHING anymore", and on the other, they "believe everything favorable of trump". This kind of doublethink is a clear indication that you have not thought any of this through and are just repeating what I heard from your favorite news anchors - ironically, something you accuse Trump supporters of doing, while doing it yourself.
None of this is relevant to the point I raised earlier: that not trusting any claims by default is what everyone should do. As one of my professors liked to say, in rough translation, "Verification is the mother of trust". If this kind of attitude is that, in your view, Trump cultivated through his apparent superpowers allowing him to change the most fundamental properties of human thinking - then props to him and huge thanks for that.

His supporters put their trust in Trump only because he proactively stoked distrust and paranoia in everything but him. Trump supporters seem to be suspicious of anything government or anything media. I understand that a healthy curiosity and drive to research anything written should be done by default. Yes.  But just as ¨Verification is the mother of trust¨ so is ¨Paranoia is the mother of skepticism¨. Trust is built upon the confirmation and verification of anything you read. But Paranoia or excessive suspicion leads to skepticism and distrust even when substantial evidence proves otherwise. Extreme skepticism leads to paranoia - perhaps that´s why we have so many conspiracy theorists now. You made a broad judgment when you said the media has every incentive in the Universe to be dishonest. To me, this sounds paranoid. As if there are no good journalists in America. Eeeeks. But perhaps it is your Russian background? 

Infowars has been around forever... It was founded in the 90-s, long before Trump even started joking aout going into politics. And "lying for profit" was something Tacitus nearly two millennia ago said was becoming a norm in the society. You are waking up to it a little too late, my friend.
But the Infowars are not the only ones getting away with it. Formerly reputable sources such as New York Times or BBC are slipping into this kind of communication as well. I find it curious that you never talk about the sources that you are in bed with when it comes to your political views. A little biased here, are we not?

Yes, the hate has been brewing for decades. Then Trump came along, abused the bully pulpit which in turn gave all bully pulpits the okay to be as reckless as they want. Alex Jones capitalized on this - turning his platform into one of the most agregious far-right conspiracy theory, fake news sites. You know .... follow the leader and all.

No, it is absolutely irrelevant whether abortion was legal 60 years ago when talking about whether it is legal today. And no, it is not back to the original inequity. In all these conversations I have again and again to suggest that you study history more: if you think that not having a federal mandate on legalized abortions is "the original inequity" that was there throughout most of the human history, then you are incredibly unread. As recently as 200 years ago many practices that today in the civilized world are considered to be "rape" were absolutely normal, and even considered an essential part of a healthy relationship.

Yes, we´ve come a long way and we have to continue to move forward for justice for all.

Confederate flags are not an indication of racism, and if you talk to many people waving them, they will oppose racism as much as you do. And yes, the precise argument in favor of preserving the statues you mentioned was that they represented American history. Curious how you call wanting to preserve things "intolerance", but wanting to destroy them - I guess, the opposite, "tolerance"?
That you call yourself openminded, while displaying the most obvious signs of narrowmindedness and fixation on a very particular vision of the world, is mindboggling. Nowadays people can call themselves anything they want, even if they are the exact opposite of that.

Sure. There´s not one flyer of the confederate flag who is racist? And sure, in-your-face confederate flag flyers are proud of their southern heritage. Well why is it that up here in the northeast, we see these flags flying too? Southern heritage. B_ S. Okay. Just got into it with just-sayin. I will say I´m getting tired of the tables being turned. What came first - the intolerance of confederate flag flyers who seem unable to empathize or the intolerance of the hate that the confederate flag flyers cause?  Enough of the flimflam, hocus pocus, gaslighting B--S. Iḿ onto this trifecta tactic. Deception, trickery, manipulation used to mislead and cause self doubt.

To your last point, back when I lived in Russia, I would walk every weekend past a statue of Lenin, the guy responsible for murder of one of my family members and enslavement of another. How did I feel about it? Pretty good: the top of his head would be frequently shat on by pigeons, and he kind of looked like Ronald McDonald.  I am not afraid of a freaking chunk of metal or rock that is shaped as a historical villain. I am not 5 years old, I can tell a statue from a living and ruling dictator.

I do like your story of the pigeon revenge. 

So you are unphazed with Lenin´s authoritarianism, his human rights abuses, ruthless tactics, suppression of dissent and repressive regime? 

Perhaps the display of Lenin´s statue has influenced you more than you know?

MayCaesar

@Openminded

And what about those of them who put the "Blue Lives Matter" bumper stickers on their cars? Or those who constantly talk about the First and the Second Amendment and the empowerment of state and local governments? It does not seem that they are "suspicious of anything government" (although they certainly should be).
Presence of massive incentives to be dishonest does not imply that everyone is going to be dishonest, but it implies that dishonesty is strongly rewarded. There are absolutely good journalists in the US; there are even good journalists in Russia. That does not change the fact that dishonesty in the media space is extremely rewarding. It is rewarding in many aspects of life in general, for people often prefer to hear what they want to hear, rather than what is. If a girl asks her lover, "Do I look fat in this dress?", the lover has every incentive to say, "No, you look fantastic", even if she does look fat: the price of the small lie is virtually zero, while the cost of telling the truth can be staggering. Similarly, when people go to their favorite media page, they want to see what makes them feel good, not what is objectively true. That means that the model of catering to a particular user base at the expense of honesty is much more profitable than the model of impartiality.
Notice also how you try to attribute these views to something. For other people, it is Trump's influence; for me, it is my Russian background. Do you not think that people can arrive at these conclusions through their own logical reasoning?

Is Trump really to blame for 2,000 years of brewing hate across thousands of civilizations? How does this make much sense?

There is no justice in making false claims about the state of women's rights in the US of 2023.

I said that "Confederate flags are not an indication of racism"; I did not say that not a single person flying the Confederate flag is a racist. It seems to me that, regardless of anything, hating on someone because of the flag they are flying is extremely irrational. I have a friend who wears a red t-shirt with a hammer and a sickle; should I hate him for that? Or maybe, as a civilized individual, I can accept that people can have various views and fly various colors and symbols for individual reasons and that does not make them my enemy?

I said this: "I am not 5 years old, I can tell a statue from a living and ruling dictator." Lenin's authoritarianism, indeed, does not phase me for I look at history as history, not as present: it is gone, what is the point crying now? Learn from it and move on. And certainly a statue does not affect me in any way. Put Hitler's statue at every pedestrian crossing in Washington DC for all I care. People are too fearful of immobile sculptures, colored pieces of clothing and other superstitious stuff. They see a cross with a naked man pinned to it and get benevolent... In the 21st century. That is an anachronism. 

I have a better idea though. Instead of Lenins and Hitlers, how about we put statues of nude Japanese AV porn stars all over the country? That should make the streets of Manhattan really-really cool.

MichaelElpers

@Openminded

Convinced there is no pay discrimination?

Also ask yourself why businesses wouldnt almost exclusively hire women if they will do the same work for 20% less.

Barnardot

@Dreamer Okay I get you there and the thought that I get is that these facists made up the term gender dysphoria so they could make a straw man and stir up a situation that doesn’t exist except with these extremist s themselves. There the ones who have homophobia which is exactly what it means. They have a fear of gays because of there ignorance and lack of understanding. 

But they brought it on themselves and they should suffer and realize what it’s like for gays to be insulted and torment ed by these ignoramases. So instead of carrying on about there stress of living with totally normal people they should make an effort to actually learn about minority groups and stop behaving like Neanderthal tards.

Dreamer

@Barnardot

Yes they should stop behaving like nethadrals.

"there were annual increases in all five strands of hate crime, ranging from 19% for race hate crimes to 56% for transgender hate crimes"

https://archive.ph/ae3GT#selection-1253.0-1253.135

Openminded

Argument Topic: I am sure you aren't aware of the racist views you hold.

@just_sayin

A symbol of southern pride?  Iḿ sure there are millions of Germans that proudly share their German heritage inside their homes with their families. They don´t flaunt in-your-face Swastika flags outside their homes. No. Why? Because they understand it to be hateful particularly to descendants of those lost in the Holocaust and potentially harmful to future generations. They do not erase history. They have museums and books for history. Grow up.  So proud Americans continue to fly this symbol. Why? Because their ¨pride¨ seems to be more important to them than humanity.  And if this is southern pride, why are there so many confederate flags flown in the northeast and elsewhere in the world? Could it be that displaying this flag is an embrace and means of holding on to their own racial superiority? Why don´t southerners keep symbols of pride closer inside their homes where they are more visible and closer to them? I´m sure descendents of confederate soldiers (who sadly lost their lives to fight for a cause that was never going to survive) share their Civil War photo albums proudly - inside their homes. Perhaps make lampshades from their beloved confederate flags much like the nazis did with the human skin of prisoners?  They can keep their pride close to their hearts when closely displayed in their homes. In my view, flying a confederate flag from a vehicle or rooftop is much like flying a Trump flag or a ¨_u_k¨ Joe Biden¨ flag.  These ¨proud¨ symbols seem to propagate belligerence and anger and represent something missing or lost in their lives. Unfortunately it influences and potentially harms young, impressionable children who see these displays daily. These proud displays seem to feed some Americans who use their ¨pride¨ as a means to reconcile their anger. You think children aren´t taking in all that anger and hate? And your reference to the Dukes of Hazard? I don´t believe the confederate flag proudly flying was racism. It was ignorance. Grow up. Show a little understanding of humanity.

Most informed Americans are wise to flimflam, hocus pocus, gaslighting - the trifecta of B-S - a technique invented by Trump himself. So, sure Iḿ the racist. I´ll concede for the good of humanity.