Can the Law Overrule Science ?
I have been waiting for someone more knowledgeable than me to take up
this cudgel.
The recent court case which is now likely to go to the High Court to
decide that a man can really change into a woman by just saying so and
all other persons just have to accept that as fact.

Now my challenge is to the court to prove that its decision has
changed the science.
Has that man had his genitalia disappear and be replaced with female genitalia.
If not then the court’s decision is just playing with words.
It has not changed the science and so reality has not changed either.

The court needs to return to its own field and stop trying to change scientific fact.
No doubt if OLO accepts this there will be uproar or will ‘they’ just
try to ignore it all.
Think of the implications if it is accepted that the law overrules science.
To protect Insurance Companies the court could rule that a cyclone did
not cause any damage.
I am sure you can think of many such opportunities.
That might seem absurd, but then the whole situation is absurd.

This is what Bezz is talking about:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13771195/Meet-Roxy-Tickle-transgender-campaigner-changed-Australia-court-win-redefines-woman-is.html

The whole thing is symbolic of the struggle against reality:
http://youtu.be/chnlQQCsTVw

Bezz,

You appear to be confusing gender with biological sex. Understanding the difference between these two concepts will help to eliminate a lot of the confusion for you.

The world hasn't gone topsy-turvy. We simply have a better understanding than we used to of these two aspects of human identity and how they're interconnected.

So how do you disconnect gender from biological sex ?
Your reply will be like one of those late night talks on the ABC that
discuss all sorts of trendy ideas that get pushed around as philosophy.

I have just read that link to the case. It did not provide more info
than I had already picked up.
Where do the judges get off telling people we have to ignore the
science and obey their crazy beliefs ?
What other cases are there where rulings contradict scientific reality
and do we have to toe the legal writ ?
I will bet there are dozens if I knew where to look.
How about people complaining I used the wrong pronoun ?
Could that be an offence on something or other ?
Offensive behaviour perhaps ?
Perhaps all lawyers whould be forced to work in the building trade
for a year or two.

Bezz,

There's nothing to disconnect. The two concepts have always described different things. They're related but not the same.

Biological Sex refers to the physical aspects of a person’s body (e.g. chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs).

Gender is about how a person perceives and experiences themselves. It also involves roles, behaviours, and expectations that society traditionally associates with being male or female.

Recognising this difference doesn’t mean we’re ignoring biology; it just means we’re acknowledging that human identity is complex.

Bezza,

You seem to change your moniker like a few poor souls trying to change their sex. Baz, Bezza and now Bezz. Have you been fiddling again trying to get email notifications?

At least you can change your pseudonym realistically, unlike the poor silly people who think that they can change their sex. No matter what they do, the same old chromosomes will be with them until they die.

And, they make bloody ugly ‘women’.

The law is definitely an ass in the case of Tickle vs Giggle. The judge is a nincompoop.

This Tickle idiot's nonsense has cost Sall Grover, a beautiful real woman, around a million dollars, and another million to appeal against the ridiculous ruling, while the idiot - who looks as much like a woman as Boris Karloff - pays nothing for his mischievous litigation.

Good on you for bringing this up. I'm with you. People can live whatever private fantasies they want; but they shouldn't cost the rest of us money and bore us sh.tless with with the attention-grabbing nonsense.

If a person thinks their gender is different to their sex, then surely
that is a symptom of mental illness.

ahh ttbn, I could not get notifications from OLO and in attempting
various tricks to get around it I tried different email addresses
etc. When I finally worked out that it is a bug in bigpond software
Bazz and Bazza were taken by me but I could not use them again.
The bigpond bug is that if an email is generated by a website and is
going to a bigpond.net.au address it is scrubbed.
Often even selecting text msg to my phone also fails.
It came to a head when I had a problem with buying from Samsung.
Their accountat said they no longer accept bigpond email addressees.
As far as I know it does not happen with bigpond.com but they are no
longer allocating bigpond email addresses.

John Daysh,

If you can't tell the difference between XX and XY that's your problem, most normal humans can.

Bezz,

Unlike biological sex, gender isn’t governed by universal laws; it’s a socially constructed concept, so there is no right or wrong. And a lack of conformance to societal expectations is not enough to diagnose mental illness.

--

FireballXL5,

Gee, you’re a bright spark! You didn’t understand a word I said, did you?

Dear Bezz,

Why of all the thousands of cruel impositions that the state and its laws places on us, disturbing every walk of our lives, this particular one, relating to whether you should call your fellow "male" or "female", bothers you that much? Why should you even call them anything?

Think why we need to have that "identity" thing in the first place: obviously we are not identical to the our bodies, their sex, their height and weight, their age, their race or any of that, that presumed identity is clearly a lie, clearly unscientific, but the state imposes that false "identity" on us so that it can find and punish us if we break its laws, then in order to scare us they can announce something like "we caught a 53 year old male doing this or that, he has been refused bail and remanded in custody until he will appear in court on that particular date".

You don't really need to call others anything, but calling them whatever they themselves prefer, be it a "pink 1005 years old kangaroo-magpie alloy" perhaps, rather than what government considers them to be for its sinister purposes, is a step in the right direction.

it’s a socially constructed concept,
John Daysh,
So, it's artificial i.e. not real ?

Baz,

I'm going to stick with ‘Baz’ if that's OK with you. You've been Baz for a long time.

As for all this bloody technology, I'm convinced it hates old people, and I no longer try to keep up with it.

On the topic, Yuyutsu has a point - “Why should you even call them anything?”

I don't know any of these poor, deluded people, and am never likely to. I think that goes for most people. You could fit the number of those suffering from sexual dysphoria into a ‘phone box. And it's only a minuscule number of them who are so desperately looking for who-knows-what, apart from attention, that makes all the fuss.

The real pain is the obsession that some people in our society have with minorities, and the minorities’ obsession with themselves.

Why do so many try hard to avoid the important point of the discussion.
ie Does this verdict mean that the law can change the science.
That seems to be what the lawyers believe.
Yuyutsu goes on about people attitudes.
I couldn't care less except some people are very silly.
Get back to the important bit, can the law over rule science ?

Indyvidual,

Do you have a general expectation of how men and women should behave? If so, then you should be able to appreciate just how real a social construct is.

Social constructs are real, even though they don’t exist in a physical sense.

Money is another example. Collectively, we’ve agreed that pieces of paper and metal have value, and that agreement makes money a powerful and real force in our lives. The same goes for concepts like gender.

I think I know what you’re angling towards, though. You’re suggesting that the idea of a social construct has been contrived to excuse the “abnormal” behaviour of some, but this isn’t the case. Our understanding of social constructs can be traced back to philosophers like Immanuel Kant in the 18th century.

--

Bezz,

I’ve addressed the point by illustrating that the law isn’t trying to overrule science here.

Baz,

It seems that the law can overrule the science, and you can be punished if you publicly go against it. That doesn't mean that the law is right, fair or anything else. It's the law, according to one judge, who has slugged Sall Grover $10,000 plus costs, and the real punishment - the process - has cost her much more.

This absolute nonsense will remain the law unless it is quashed by the High Court.

We are seeing in Australia that tyranny does not necessarily come about through violence, as many people think. Tyranny is occurring in Australia by way of LAW.

A minority tyranny in China rules a massive minority; same in Russia, and in places like Iran. The majority doesn't stand up to the tyrants because they are not brave enough.

Do you think the majority of Australians will stand up to the LAW? Of course that will not: so the LAW will prevail over the science - unless another small group of unelected lawyers (High Court judges) decides otherwise.

ttbn,

What's the difference between biological sex and gender?

http://j.gifs.com/vb20nr.gif

"What's the difference between biological sex and gender?"

Well under the guise of biological sex a bloke will likely have a cock and balls hanging between his legs and a pronounced adam's apple in his neck.

Whereas under the guise of gendered sex, a bloke could have a vagina between his legs which is a attached to a uterus, a small adam's apple and scares where his tits had been removed.

Seems like an importance difference to me.

Rational people need neither science nor the law to tell them that there are two sexes and they are not interchangeable. It has been thus since Adam and Eve, or whomever you think were the first humans on Earth.

We have to accept that there are very few irrational people who feel that they are a sex that they obviously are not, as per their chromosomes, body, appearance, and they are to be sympathised with.

Not deserving of sympathy are those people who encourage and support their dysphoria because they are naive, stupid or are just in it for entertainment and some warped ideology.

mhaze,

"Gendered sex" is the concept of sexual activity that is influenced, shaped, or defined by the gender identities of the individuals involved. What you’ve quoted of me clearly isn’t referring to that.

--

ttbn,

In other words, you still don’t understand the difference between biological sex and gender.

In just another manipulation of language for political reasons, 'gender', referring to grammatical categories, was captured by radical feminism for political reasons. As usual, dumbed-down society accepted it, in the same way that they complacently accept anything that doesn't affect them personally.

""Gendered sex" is the concept of sexual activity"

No, gendered sex is the sexuality of an individual in the gender world. It stands in potential opposition to biological sex.

If OTOH gendered sex is just about bonking then biological sex as used by you must also be about bonking.

This is all about just playing with definitions. Its Queen of Hearts stuff - the word mean different things at different times based on the needs of the moment.

Man means biological male sometimes when it suits and trans male at other times when that suits. Its about people lying to themselves and demanding that everyone else buy into the lie.

Is a person who has a vagina between his legs which is a attached to a uterus, a small adam's apple and scares where his tits had been removed, male or female in the biological world and the gendered world? I look forward to your obfuscation.

ttbn,

Your claim that this is a manipulation of language is absurd for two reasons:

1. “Gender” has always referred to personal identity and experience, as opposed to the physical reality of biological sex.

2. The concept of gender identity, and the societal expectations placed on males and females, exist regardless. We would therefore still need a word to describe these phenomena, even if “gender” really did mean something different in the past.

Call it “schmender”, for all anyone cares. The fact of the matter is that there are two different things that we’re talking about here.

Ironically, it is only you and others of your ilk who are manipulating language for political reasons in an attempt to conflate the two concepts.

--

mhaze,

No, “gendered sex” and “gendered sexuality” are as different as “sex” and “sexuality”.

But this is all irrelevant to your previous comment, in which you attempted to obfuscate by conflating biological sex with gender by simply tacking the word “sex” onto the end of “gender”.

Like I said to ttbn, we’re talking about two separate concepts here. All the word games in the world won’t change that.

"we’re talking about two separate concepts here. "

No, you are. The rest of us are operating in the real world. They aren't two concepts. They are two different ways at arriving at the same meaning. It is claimed that trans men are men. We all know that biological men are men. So two different ways to allow people to claim to be men - the traditional way and the new fabricated way.

The whole configuration of semantics around the word 'gender' is merely to blur the established meaning of man and woman.

It exists to allow people with vaginas and scars where their breast used to be to claim they are men and rightfully able to use the men's bathroom. Worse, it allows people who have penises and adam's apples and prostates to claim to be women and use the female bathroom.

And it allows blokes to claim female-hood and invade female spaces. It allows people who have all the genetic advantages of being born a biological male, what with greater muscle mass and lung capacity and testosterone, to claim to be a sheila and partake in female sports.

Ultimately its an attack on women. It invalidates female sports and the biological women in those sports. It allows blokes pretending to be female to claim to be lesbian and demand that lesbians be shamed into relations with lesbians with cocks.

Ultimately its a sign of the decline of our culture and indeed our own common sense.

Oh and another front in the ongoing attack on the family.

Dear Ttbn,

«We have to accept that there are very few irrational people who feel that they are a sex that they obviously are not»

There are irrational people who feel that they are a sex. Period.
Any rational person can clearly observe that we are not a sex.

---

Dear John,

«The concept of gender identity, and the societal expectations placed on males and females, exist regardless»

Sadly still so - isn't it about time that we get rid of such nonsense?!

«We would therefore still need a word to describe these phenomena, even if “gender” really did mean something different in the past.»

On the contrary - having no word for that superstition should help us forget more quickly that it ever existed.

I know and care nothing about soccer, but apparently in the WOMEN’S game in Australia, the champions this season were a a team with 5 males in it. The real women's teams have decided that they will not play against that team again.

How long, I wonder, will it be before taxpayers find themselves funding legal action against real women again, now that it a court has decided that real women can't block a man from horning in on a women-only app.

mhaze,

No, we're all talking about two distinct concepts. All you’ve done now is focus on where there’s overlap between the two. Before, it was about whether law can overrule science. (Suddenly we’re all suddenly friends of science when it suits us, it seems.)

These concepts are distinct because gender is shaped by social and cultural factors, whereas biological sex pertains to physical characteristics. They’re not just different ways of arriving at the same “meaning” (whatever that is).

The recognition of transgender identities is not about creating confusion or enabling deception. It is about respecting the lived experiences and identities of others. Transgender men, who have undergone reconstructive medical procedures, use restrooms that match their gender identity.

There is no evidence to show that allowing transgender people to use the restrooms matching their gender identity creates safety issues, and the rare incidents that you could point to involve criminal behaviour, not transgender behaviour.

"BuT iT eNaBleS sEx OffEnDeRs!"

Sex offenders will commit rape and sexual assault either way. Allowing transgender people to use the restroom they identify with hardly makes this easier - particularly given how embarrassing dressing up as the opposite sex would be for most of them. This whole issue would go away with the implementation of single-stall unisex rooms, anyway.

Feminism and the transgender rights movements share common goals of challenging rigid gender norms and promoting equality. Transgender women do not "invalidate" the experiences of cisgender women, they highlight the diversity of womanhood.

The rest of your post is mere paranoid conspiracy, and is utterly baseless. Let me guess: it’s the Jews?

John Daysh sounds like just another Marxist trying to destroy class based elite socially constructed reality or as the Marxist's call it "False Consciousness", in the name of freedom from slavery. But slavery is everywhere, and Marxism wouldn't be my method of treating the ill even if I thought it needed to be treated. It's interesting how Marxist's delineate nature and nurture, mostly they deny nature, in favour of saying that everything is nurture. They claim all nurture accept theirs is tyranny. They deny that anything in Tradition could be anything other than capitalist elite propaganda. Marxist's seem to want to destroy everything to the ashes (blank slate), in the name of love, by destroying systems and processes, that create stability and identity.

They claim universalist principles, with apparently lower than average understanding of the universe, or as some have said, maybe they just want to see the world burn, because they hate the world.

It's been said Marxists don't love the poor, they hate the rich, the competent, the thoughtful, the productive, it's the religion of the mediocre and, as Ayn Rand said, of death itself (but she wasn't right about everything).

Maybe John Daysh has just been led astray. But I'm getting tired of those repeating Marxist propaganda, the ideology that killed 100 million people, and then claiming that they didn't know that they were promoting death. They should.

Atlas Shrugged talks about "the real trick" of power that the Marxist's understand. You create laws that cannot be obeyed, and cash in on guilt, of course only on those with something of value. It's said that Marxist's understand power in a superior transcendent way. Maybe it's the same with hate.

A person can hate another, a group of people, etc, but taking everything from Jung's "shadow archetype" from deep within the soul, bringing it up, and projecting it, onto hating the whole world, and wanting to create death everywhere, is hate at a superior order of magnitude.

Often the best thing to do is send the boxers to their own corners to be with their own team.

Sometimes perhaps often it is hateful to force people to be diverse

social construct has been contrived to excuse the “abnormal” behaviour of some,
John Daysh,
That goes without saying ! It has been designed to take focus totally off merit.
The description "abnormal behaviour of some" is a deceitful attempt to water down the undeniable fact that it is not "some" who operate that way, it's most !

Canem Malum,

Are you ever capable of addressing someone’s arguments instead of dishing out insults by calling them Marxists?

Your second post reads like an irrelevant word salad dished up by Jordan Peterson. You still don’t understand what Marxism is, either.

What you fail to grasp is that the telos of human existence is not claimed to be found in the shallow waters of enforced equity, but in the transcendent striving towards the actualisation of the Jungian self, where the chaos of the unknown is integrated with the order of tradition, thus paving the path to genuine individuation.

In the pursuit of ideologically driven identity constructs, we find ourselves entangled in a web of postmodern neo-Marxist deconstructions, rather than fostering individual sovereignty. We subjugate the very archetypal hierarchies that underpin the metaphysical substrate of Western civilisation.

Yeah… think about it.

--

Indyvidual,

Saying that the concept of a ‘social construct’ has been “designed to take focus totally off merit” makes no sense at all. Do you think you earned being born a biological male?

I take it you also believe that cash is worthless, because the value we place on it is also a social construct.

No one conjured up the idea of social constructs. They have existed for as long as social species have existed. It is only our awareness and labeling of them as such that has been a relatively recent development.

The same bloke who accuses me of thinking all the trans-malarkey is caused by "the Jews" also complains..."Are you ever capable of addressing someone’s arguments instead of dishing out insults..."

Self-reflection isn't an item with this chap. Nor is integrity. Speaking of which....he 'quotes' me as saying "But it enables sex offenders". Making up quotes is a sure sign that the argument, let alone any sense of logic, is lost.

Then he introduces issues of rape, which no one had mentioned before or since.

But the best bit is his claim that "Feminism and the transgender rights movements share common goals". I guess he's never heard of the people derisively called TERFs. (Well best to not be aware of things that might disturb the narrative).

TERF - Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists. These are feminists (usually lesbians) who don't buy the whole ideology that trans-women are real women. They reject the claim that's its transphobic for a lesbian to not want to have a relationship (or relations) with a 'women' who has a dick. They most definitely don't share the same goals. But JD, as usual, thinks that hm just asserting it is the same as it being so.

Earlier I asked JD "Is a person who has a vagina between his legs which is a attached to a uterus, a small adam's apple and scares where his tits had been removed, male or female in the biological world and the gendered world? I look forward to your obfuscation."

Well at least he didn't obfuscate - he just ran a mile. Why? Because there is no honest answer to that question that doesn't put a lie to his claims.

John Daysh,
Your last post is nothing more than a flailing attempt to appear relevant. It's not working. You simply can not smoke-screen the fact that the majority of Academia are nothing more than a frivolous waste of our funding & nothing less than an insidious community intent on derailing all that is based on common sense ! The only reason largely useless Academia is still reproducing is the fact that those who keep everything rolling are too busy working & don't have the time to waste on these parasites ! Academia wrongly & immorally tries to portray itself as being the foundation of useful knowledge, that is not so. Useful Scholars & professionals are unfairly lumped into the same waste basket that is Academia !

mhaze,

There was no hypocrisy on my part there, because I actually engage with the arguments of others. I also didn’t accuse you of “thinking all the trans-malarkey is caused by "the Jews,"” if you’d care to read what I actually said.

I didn’t quote you as saying, "But it enables sex offenders," I was preempting what you’d say in response. But I think you knew that much; you’re just back to your predictable MO of trying to discredit your opponent when you’ve run out of arguments.

Hence the discussion on rape. Keep up.

Yes, I’ve heard of the term TERF, but that doesn’t negate my point about feminism and the transgender rights movements share common goals.

//Well at least he didn't obfuscate - he just ran a mile. Why? Because there is no honest answer to that question that doesn't put a lie to his claims.//

No, I didn’t run. I’ll answer your question now if you’d like?

“Is a person who has a vagina between his legs which is a attached to a uterus, a small adam's apple and scares where his tits had been removed, male or female in the biological world and the gendered world?” - mhaze

Biologically, the person would be classified as female due to the presence of a vagina and uterus, despite having undergone masculinising treatments like breast removal and developing a small Adam's apple. In the “gendered world,” gender identity is determined by how the person self-identifies. Therefore, they should be considered male if we live in a society that respects the need for individuals to be treated with dignity and respect.

Simple. No obfuscation required (or personal attacks, for that matter). You should try it sometime.

--

Indyvidual,

That didn't address what I said at all. How about you start by telling me exactly why I was wrong?

John Daysh is on a par with the two Marxists. Respond to his nonsense, and he will never shut up.

Speaking of dishing out insults only...

ttbn,

Instead of engaging in petty personal attacks, perhaps you could help your friends out by explaining why I'm wrong?

http://j.gifs.com/vb20nr.gif

"Hence the discussion on rape. Keep up."

There was no discussion on rape. Just you trying to introduce items not in discussion to try to make others out to be on the extreme.

There was no discussion on Jews.. You just introduced it to try to make out others were on the extreme.

There was no discussion on sex offenders...just you trying to introduce extremist views.

And then hilariously he claims to " actually engage with the arguments of others." Self-reflexion isn't a strong point, eh?

You can play this little game where people are biological females and gendered males, but its all in your fantasies. In the real world, people who are gendered female claim to be actual females. They claim the right to go into female areas. They claim the right to go into female sports. They claim the right to go to female prison. They claim the right to be referred to as a women. Equally trans men claim to be actual men. They want prostate exams FFS.

I don't care if they want to play these little dress-up games. Their call. But I'll be damned if I will go along with their fantasies or be forced to cater to their delusions.

"It may be a sign of our times that everyone seems to be talking openly about sex but we seem to be too embarrassed to talk about love". Thomas Sowell

Daysh

Your twaddle isn't interesting enough for me to bother proving that you are wrong. Everyone here knows that you are wrong, anyway. Going back to ignoring you will be fine for me. Hell, man, you are just another loser rabbiting on to less than a handful of people, and achieving nothing.

mhaze,

So, you mean to tell me that you never even hinted at the issue of rape or sexual assault?

“It exists to allow people with vaginas and scars where their breast used to be to claim they are men and rightfully able to use the men's bathroom. Worse, it allows people who have penises and adam's apples and prostates to claim to be women and use the female bathroom.” - mhaze

Why is the latter “worse” then, mhaze?

There goes the other foot!

That’s what happens when you resort to character assassination when your only intention is to win an argument. Dishonesty always exposes itself at some point or another.

Try engaging with my arguments again instead of sifting through my words to find something you can skew or take out of context to make me look bad? Perhaps you could start by telling me why you think each of those things you listed are bad, and who these transgender men are who have demanded prostate exams?

--

ttbn,

Yet you have the motivation to attack me personally? No, I’m not buying it. It would be far easier to shut me up with a solid rebuttal or to ignore me entirely. The fact that you go to the effort of hurling insults speaks volumes.

Foxy claims to be a Small L Liberal (Left Libertarian) at times it seems but I think women do lean into certain progressive concepts not realizing that they originate in Marxism. However I think that Foxy is using naivety as a shield.

John Daysh is perhaps somewhere in the Libertarian sphere just repeating idioms without understanding the deeper Political Philosophy and Ideology. Sadly as I said previously many Libertarian's also appear to repeat Marxist propaganda.

I wonder in what sense John Daysh means by saying that I don't understand Marxism. Saying something doesn't give it a basis or plausibility

What if the law over rules science? What are the implications?

Laws are made by the people for the people. And changes of
law usually reflect changes in society. Outmoded laws are
often replaced by new ones as societies evolve.

There was a time when homosexuality was a crime. When same-sex
marriage was forbidden. Today we have many countries that now
legally recognize sex reassignment by permitting a change of
legal gender on an individual's birth certificate.

This is recognition of the fact that many transgender people do
have permanent surgery to change their body. And, all gender
affirming surgeries are major procedures.

It's recognizing reality. Surgery affirms changing one's physical
body so that it better aligns with how they understand and wish
to express their gender. Who they are.

Many countries now legally recognize sex reassignment
by permitting a change of legal gender on an individual's
birth certificate. This is in keeping with the
reality of our society. Transgender people have rights.
Which need to be recognized in law.

People like Carlotta, the Australian transgender cabaret
performer and TV personality (the Queen of King's Cross) and
Catherine McGregor, the transgender writer, commentator,
and former Defence Force Officer (and friend of Tony Abbott)
give so much to our society.

It's time society gave something back to them.

Legally recognizing their right to be who they really are is
only fair.

BTW - Speaking about science?
There are some things which science cannot answer.
Such as the meaning and purpose of life. That's why for example,
religions survive and will continue to do so for sometime yet.

In my discussions, sadly even people highly qualified in Political Science don't seem to understand Political Philosophy. I referred one person to Hegel's relationship with Marx and Classical Fascism and they didn't know what I meant. This seems fairly fundamental evolutionary Political Philosophy to me, but there you go. It seems that the progressive university academy doesn't want people to actually think. Not that I am a giant of political understanding, but I believe I deserve a better standard of experts.

"you mean to tell me that you never even hinted at the issue of rape or sexual assault?"

Yep. Didn't use the word rape or sexual assault. Didn't insinuate it. Didn't imply it. Didn't think it relevant. Only you thought otherwise.

Its worse to have trans women with cocks in female bathrooms because women (really trooly women) are more likely to get offended at seeing a hairy set of balls in their change-rooms than men (really trooly men) are likely to be offended seeing a vagina in their change-room.
Still its interesting that you are so anxious to rebut something I never said. Obviously you are concerned about the documented rapes by people claiming trans status in female only areas.

"Try engaging with my argument..."
You don't have arguments...you have assertions. In a practical sense, these days, someone's gender claims are used to trump their biological reality. You deny this without evidence or even argument, just assertion.

Effectively you are saying blokes who call themselves sheilas should be allowed into all female areas but want to avoid that point by diverting to claims about rape etc.

You might be comfortable about people with cocks getting an all access pass to female areas just because they say they're a women. I'm not

mhaze,

Making judgements as an alpha male on the behaviour of
how a transgender may or may not behave in a female WC - is a rather
narrow- one-sided - limited view. You have no way of knowing.
And you are pre-judging according to your own views.

I wonder if John Daysh thinks that "archetypal hierarchies that underpin the metaphysical substrate of Western civilisation" are a type of "ideological principle". Just a different principle than Marxism. Nietzsche talks about the Genealogy Of Morals- and morality evolved within Western civilisation, rightly or wrongly. I suppose that John Daysh thinks he knows more than I, he believes he is right, great , he can believe that, I haven't learned much new from his words. Teach before preach.

mhaze,

Despite the fact that safety would have to be the number one concern for critics of trans-inclusive restrooms - particularly where the safety of cisgendered women is concerned - I’m expected to believe that that’s not what you had in mind in your talk of bathroom use?

No, being the gentleman that you are, you were mostly concerned about the discomfort cisgendered women may feel in seeing male bits - and specifically in their “changerooms” now?

Right.

But it doesn’t end there. This all started with what was nothing more than an attempt from you to diminish my credibility and distract from arguments that you have no sound rebuttal to. None of this makes any difference at all to who is in the right when it comes to transgender issues, yet you’re doubling down anyway because you’ve backed yourself into a position where you have no choice but to double down.

This is what happens when people get tangled up in a web of their own lies.

//In a practical sense, these days, someone's gender claims are used to trump their biological reality. You deny this without evidence or even argument, just assertion.//

My pointing out the difference between biological sex and gender isn’t a mere assertion. It’s a fact.

But if you could let me know how this “trumping” affects others so negatively that we can’t treat these people with dignity and respect, and how exactly it negatively affects others, then by all means let me know and I’ll do my best to address your concerns.

Foxy wrote: "Making judgements as an alpha male on the behaviour of
how a transgender may or may not behave in a female WC - is a rather
narrow- one-sided - limited view. "

But but but....I wasn't making any judgement, ya dill! Kindly redirect your silly assertions to JD.

JD,

You want to know how this silly transgender malarkey affects women who are actually women (the people you call ciswomen)? Well go no further than read the issue that started this - women being forced to open public spaces created for women to people who are pretend women. We also know of sports where women have been cheated out of prizes, medals and accolades by people with penises who claim to be female. And do I need to mention the TERFs again?

Here's an interesting conundrum. Caitlan Jenner used to claim to be a bloke named David Jenner. In that guise, David won praise and gold at Olympics. Now David says she's a sheila and its impolite and, in some places, illegal to refer to her previous guise. So when he/she/it won gold was she/him/it a bloke or a woman? Should she now return the medals incorrectly won as a bloke when she was always a woman?

Or an actor now known as Elliot Page who used to be Ellen Page -am I allowed to say that? This Ellen Page (who never existed apparently) won best actress Oscars for his/her films. Yet we are now told the actress was really a bloke and therefore won best actress awards by theft!

You see, when we go down this path of catering to the delusions of a few, everything becomes completely screwed up and nonsensical

mhaze,

Read your previous post. - and your comments about
women with cocks and how uncomfortable that would make
other women feel. (trooly women as you said).

Your Trumpster tactics of denial - don't work here old chap.

Foxy, ya dill, you accused me of making judgements about " the behaviour of how a transgender may or may not behave in a female WC". But I made no such judgements. I was talking about the reactions of the women not the actions of the trans.

But I'll drop it - we all know this level of subtlety is beyond you and that you are a past master at claiming black is white when you realise you are wrong.

Back to the issue.

The biggest problem here, by orders of magnitude, is that these trans delusions are being foisted on kids. Puberty blockers are being used to halt the natural physical development of kids so that they won't develop adult genitalia or things like breasts. It is said that the halt is temporary but the evidence against that is overwhelming.

While it is absolutely illegal to provide things like cigarettes and alcohol to kids under any circumstances, doctors and the medical fraternity can medicate kids to alter their life trajectory based upon nothing more than the delusions of those kids. Its a crime against humanity right under our noses, no better and probably much worse than the lobotomy debacle of the last century.

Women being forced to share their space with delusional (or worse) blokes is one thing. Kids have their life ruined because of a juvenile delusion is a very different thing.

mhaze,

What you say, you don't mean.

I get it now.

mhaze,

Do you feel that changing my wording to “ciswomen” makes what I say more absurd, or was that just a typo?

So, sports was the first thing to come to mind then? That wouldn’t be my first concern. But then, listing restroom safety as a point of concern after all the fuss you made in your failed attempt to portray me as a clutz would mean you’d have to eat your own words, I suppose.

It’s a pity. I was all geared up for that one.

I understand your concern about transgender people in sports. It’s been a concern of mine, too, ever since I read this article:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/27/517491492/17-year-old-transgender-boy-wins-texas-girls-wrestling-championship

But these issues are slowly being addressed with various means of categorisation such as hormone testing.

You’ve mischaracterised the laws you mentioned. These laws focus on preventing abuse and harassment. They don’t criminalise accidental misgendering or casual misstatements. Legal consequences typically arise only in cases of persistent, intentional, and harmful behaviour.

As for medical treatments for transgender youth, puberty blockers have been used for decades to treat conditions like precocious puberty. It’s about giving young people more time to explore their identity before the onset of permanent physical changes, not to "foist delusions" onto them, as you so emotively and incorrectly put it.

The process involves an entire team of medical professionals and involves psychologists, psychiatrists and endocrinologists. The aim is to act in the best interests of the child after considering all the available evidence.

Personally, I accept that gender (in the modern woke sense of the word) is different from sex (in the biological sense). For me gender is a social construct, BUT dependent on biological sex. So how does this work?

Well, in my world-view: to be a man (man in the gender sense) you must be firstly male by biological sex (ie: have XY sex-chromosomes and without major development problems) and then live predominately by the societal norms of men as well as identify as a man.

Likewise, to be a woman (in the gender sense) you must be firstly female by sex and then live as a women and identify as a women.

So where does that leave people who identify contrary to their biological sex? What is their gender?
I'll start by saying what they're NOT: If a human is born a biological male but they later on adopt the female societal norms and identify as female they are NOT a man by gender (although they are a male by sex). Similarly, if a person is born female but when older decides to identify as a man, they are NOT a women by gender.

Instead the gender of these people is.. wait for it.. drum-roll please--- TRANS. So these types of people are neither classified as man nor woman (by gender) but in a separate class. Note that this gender classification is a broad one and can be further divided into subcategories, such as male-to-female trans.

-- continued below --

-- form above --

So according to my opinion, when should you be able to discriminate against them?

In a situation where it is currently legally allowed to discriminate by gender (eg: a social club/group that is for women only- such as a female soccer team, or a job that is for women- such as a female prostitute) then I'm of the opinion that you should be allowed to discriminate against transgender people.
Note that the discrimination may also go the other way. For example, folk can set up a soccer competition for teams with exclusively trans players.

On the other hand, in a situation where it is currently illegal to discriminate by gender (eg: a social club with a constitution that states it is open to all, or a job/profession that may be competently conducted by any gender eg: builder, nurse, engineer, receptionist, professor) then you cannot discriminate against trans people.
But note that it should be illegal the other way to, that is, unless a job intrinsically requires a specific gender a business cannot employ a trans person in preference to a non-trans because of their gender. For example, if a theatrical production has the part of a male-to-female trans person and a woman (woman by my concept of gender) turns up at the audition and demonstrates that she can competently play the part (ie: she can act well enough to portray herself convincingly as a man who identifies as a women) she shouldn't be denied the job because she is a women by gender.

To paraphrase Shakespeare "To gender or not to gender is not the question".

It's a distraction. But sometimes you need to deal with distractions.
The question is why are Woke Marxists trying to divide Anglo European communities with different types of political fashion.
Once you ask the question the answer is obvious.
Next is to ask the question, how can we stop them in the most efficient and effective way possible.

A hypothetical scenario-

They say that "the law has to be seen to be done" but this perhaps sometimes contradict the principle that "the law should be blind".

Sadly many judges are just trying to keep their jobs, and so they compromise themselves to a contentious political environment, sometimes they may not even realize it. This is an example of Marxism "buying the rope to hang the capitalists with".

Usually Judges are paid well so they are less corruptible, but in this situation if Judges don't follow a political interpretation of the law then their jobs are targeted. And the university academy is corrupted and this provides the educational basis for the legal profession. Snafu.

Perhaps if there was to be a coup and a new regime- the legal profession should be replaced by non-university people. According to Gustav Le Bonn they couldn't do any worse. Perhaps a few institutions could do with this type of power inversion.

When institutions are "professionalised" and corrupted by the university academy and the high school system, much value in professionalism is lost, we need to get people that aren't in the tree.

One bad apple in a team can ruin the team. One bad institution in a society can ruin the society.

When the society is under attack from bad faith Marxist's it makes sense to oppose many changes to the status quo.

“If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better,” (George Orwell).

Marxism could so easily be knocked on the head, simply demand merit, particularly in the Public Service ! Private enterprise is dependent on merit so why not introduce it for bureaucrats ?

Foxy: you do realise people can just look back and see that what I wrote was different to what you said I wrote? Why you do this is beyond my understanding. Why you can't just own up and move on is difficult to fathom. Do you realise your reputation in the group would be immeasurably improved by that one simple step?

____________________________________________________________________

Some more data....

http://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/

This is where we are...."Hospital says patient could not have been raped because alleged attacker was transgender" ... http://tiny.cc/db4kzz

Coming to a school near you.. "Young girl is raped in school bathroom by transgender peer"...."The young girl...said she is used to sharing the bathroom with boys because of ASK Academy’s gender identity policies. She said she was too afraid to approach the school board because she thought she would be labeled a “bigot.”"... http://tiny.cc/rb4kzz

Even though we are told that transitioners have always been the gender that they now choose, many realise tey were misled... "Detransition Among Transgender and Gender-Diverse People—An Increasing and Increasingly Complex Phenomenon"... http://tiny.cc/vb4kzz

"Puberty Blockers May Cause Irreversible Harm to Young Boys, Mayo Clinic Study Finds"... http://tiny.cc/1c4kzz
(there's actually lots of other reports on the WWW about the dangers of puberty blockers). eg "Study: Effects of puberty-blockers can last a lifetime".... http://tiny.cc/8c4kzz

mhaze,

What you wrote is crystal clear.

And frankly I'm not really interested inhaving an argument
about what you wrote.

The trans phenomena is with us to stay especially as science makes it easier for people to play pretend.

Nonetheless, society needs to resolve rules around how to handle this situation and especially how to protect vulnerable groups open to being exploited by the never-ending loopholes.

Women's sport can only be saved by bans on allowing biological men/boys any right to participate in those competitive sports. Children need to be protected from people using their sexual dysphoria to gain access to them and more importantly they need to be protected from making rash decisions that will affect the rest of their life.

The trans community opposes all attempts to rationalise these issues simply demanding that trans women are women even if they have a penis. At some point society has to reject that.

Equally at some point we need to come to some agreement that others shouldn't be forced to buy into the delusions these people entertain. It should be perfectly acceptable to save that Bruce Jenner won Olympic gold even though Bruce now claims to be Catlin and that Bruce never existed. Ditto it is clear that Ellen Page starred in 'Inception' even though Elliot Page now says Ellen never existed.

I for one will continue to say Bruce won gold and will continue to say someone with a cock is a bloke even if he wants to play dress-up or that some with a uterus is a women even if they are now testosterone addled.

Or I will until it becomes illegal to do so.

mhaze,

Thanks for the light reading, but none of it justifies the rejection of transgender rights or not treating them with respect.

The Cass Review presents a case for more research and carful consideration when treating transgender youth, not for the banning puberty blockers or gender-affirming care. It also emphasises the need for more individualised and evidence-based handling of each case, which is far from an outright condemnation youth transitioning.

The mishandled rape case at the hospital is an example of a failure in the institution's policy, not an indictment transgender individuals. The problem lies in the hospital's response, not in the broader issue of transgender rights.

Presenting the the isolated school assault case as representative of the effects of transgender-inclusive policies is dishonest. All the article manages to do is make a case of improving safety protocols rather. It provides no reason to condemn transgender rights as a whole.

The study on puberty blockers raises concerns about their long-term effects; it does not say that the treatment should cease. The article calls for careful monitoring and more research; it recommends exercising greater caution rather than rejecting transgender healthcare altogether.

The detransitioning study shows that an overwhelming majority of transgender people don't regret their transitions. It also discredits your suggestion that gender-affirming care is widely harmful and points to the need for better support systems.

But thank you for highlighting the areas where improvement is needed. It’s a far more constructive way to contribute to the discussion than getting yourself all tangled up trying to undermine the credibility of others.

I don't get tangled up over the credibility of others. Often its quite easy to examine it. You just need to highlight their lack of logic or unstated hypocrisy or, most often, bring forth facts they'd prefer didn't exist.

mhaze,

No, you don't get tangled up over the credibility of others. But you certainly did get tangled up trying to undermine my credibility for a while there, which resulted in nothing more than egg all over your face.

//You just need to highlight their lack of logic or unstated hypocrisy or, most often, bring forth facts they'd prefer didn't exist.//

Then start doing that instead.

By the way, you'll be happy to know that Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner has had reconstructive surgery, so she no longer has a penis. Although, I do find your focus on the genitalia of others a little disconcerting.

" which resulted in nothing more than egg all over your face."

I'm always fascinated by those people who think their mere assertion is proof. Anyone who points out the lack of evidence or logic for their views is considered chastised by mere assertion. Its not a path to the truth but it certainly helps their misplaced self-esteem.

" Although, I do find your focus on the genitalia of others a little disconcerting."

Oh I'm sorry. I was just using the terms as a metaphor and point of difference between really-trooly men and women. Sorry if it had you reaching for the fainting couch. In the future I use prostate and uterus as the metaphor to better protect your Victorian sensibilities.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/madelineleesman/2024/08/28/new-taliban-law-bans-women-from-speaking-in-public-n2643996

"New Taliban Law Bans Women From Speaking in Public"

I wonder if the rule applies to trans women as well?

mhaze,

I've already explained why you had egg all over your face:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10466#363858

I'm always fascinated by those people who think their denial is proof.

Dear Foxy,

«Legally recognizing their right to be who they really are is
only fair.»

But is it possible for anyone to ever be other than who they really are?!

Even if you have no right to be you, or if that right is not being legally recognised - Suppose these idiots passed a law saying that you are Mhaze, are you Mhaze then?

Yuyutsu,

You ask:

Is it possible to ever be other than who they really are?

No. of course not. But the point is that this is something
that some people have had to hide (for inclusion and
acceptance) in societies throughout history, and many still
do.

This is not something new and the sad thing is that denying
someone the legal recognition of their gender can
negatively impact all aspects of their life.

Self-determined gender is a cornerstone of a person's identity.
The lack of access to gender recognition negates the identity
of a person and I shall repeat that denying someone the
legal recognition of their gender can have negative impacts.

You can't break the laws of physics only break yourself against them.

I'm not really interested inhaving an argument
about what you wrote.
Foxy,
That is Foxy language for "I can't keep arguing because I realise I'm wrong but I can't admit that" !

indyvidual,

You're not qualified to be my interpreter.

Probably because no one can understand Foxy. Kudos Indyvidual.

Dear Foxy,

«Self-determined gender is a cornerstone of a person's identity.»

I have no problem with people determining their gender, though I cannot see why one would care to do so and why we even talk about genders.

While some people may not be happy when others do not recognise the gender they chose for themselves, that has absolutely nothing to do with who one is.

That is why I had much difficulty answering surveys, when one of the first questions they asked me was "what gender are you" or "which gender do you identify with" - obviously I am not a gender and not identical with any such gender - I would have to be a complete imbecile to believe that I was a gender, hence I could never complete these surveys. Sometimes they allowed me the option "other" with a space to write "what gender I am", so I would tick that box and write: "I AM NOT A GENDER".

Should they ask me such a stupid question in the next census, like "are you a door or a window?", I guess I will have to pay heavy fines for not being able to complete it.

Apart from that, I never sought any legal recognition: if these legislator bastards do not recognise me, I can only consider it as a badge of honour.

Yuyutsu,

It is important to many transgender people to have their
gender identities legally recognized. In many parts of the
world transgender people are still denied the right to have
their gender identity legally recognized.

This may not be important to you but it is to many transgender
people because legal gender recognition allows transgender and
gender diverse people to change their sex/gender and names on
official identity documents.

Inconsistencies between a person's identified gender and their
official documentation can create barriers that can limit a
person's access to health, education, employment, and public
services.

Gender awareness is necessary simply because no one is ever
completely able to step outside of the social and cultural
processes that partly shape our identities, values, and
perceptions.

Dear Foxy,

One may have a gender, and one may even like it very much, but no one can have a gender-identity: that is a logical impossibility - only a gender can be identical with a gender.

«legal gender recognition allows transgender and
gender diverse people to change their sex/gender and names on
official identity documents.»

Then deal with the root of this problem - abolish the need to have such stupid documents!

Yuyutsu,

Thanks for sharing your views.

I no longer wish to argue with your logic.

Cheers.

Hudson Institute of Medical
Research has a new study which has uncovered a link between
transgender and changes in genes that have a possible
biological basis for gender dysphoria.

Hudson Institute of Medical Research is a leading medical
research institution recognized internationally for discovery
science and translational research.

"I've already explained why you had egg all over your face:"

No you didn't explain it, you asserted it. I doubt you'll understand the difference.

cont'd

There's more at the following link:

http://sbs.com.au/news/article/australian-scientists-find-possible-genetic-link-to-gender-dysphoria/oOpovjcjh

Kudos for this post mhaze.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10466#363885

Girl gets raped in bathroom for Diversity (DIE) "intersectionalism"- therefore Diversity (DIE) and intersectionalism are evil and bad.

mhaze,

I did explain it. Ironically, it is only you who is doing the asserting with your 'nuh-uh!'

If you want to offer more than a mere 'nuh-hu', then you'll at least need to critique my reasoning.

This is how I see the 'science' of it all.
There are three main aspects to a person.
Firstly, physical shape.
Secondly, sexuality. (sexual drive or preference)
Thirdly, what I call emotional outlook.
These can all vary from strongly male to strongly female.
When all are male, we have a typical male.
When all are female, we have a typical female.
However, due to genetic error and other variation, there can be odd combinations.
This results in persons who can be physically one thing, but emotionally and sexually another.
All quite simple really.
We need to accept the reality of it all.
Were one of your children to be so varied, would you reject them out of hand?
If so, are you a good parent?

Dear Ipso Fatso,

Great post and I agree - thank you!

The problem is only when this natural thing is being turned into an "identity", then further when that "identity" is politicised.

Nothing in our body or mind, including the three aspects you mentioned (the physical shape of our body; our sexual preferences; and our emotional outlook) has anything to do with our identity: we HAVE a body, we HAVE a mind, but we are not identical to either.

Ones 'identity' or 'gender' is the combined effect of ones individual aspects?
But it might be largely decided by ones 'emotional outlook'?
Whatever the situation, now we are aware of it, we need to accept the reality of it all.
It alarms me that some religious groups have such a narrow minded and harmful approach.
I see it as a natural quirk of nature, which aims to limit population growth.
This means we should assist nature by encouraging 'variations' not to reproduce?
I don't mean that harshly.
It is just a mild observation.

Dear Ispo Fatso,

Indeed, I see no conflict between religion and natural variation.

I am not knowledgeable enough about it, but if as you say, nature (or God even) is working to help humanity overcome its overpopulation by modifying sexual preferences, then I am very glad for it.

You may speak about "gender" if so inclined (though I see it as a waste of time), but please just leave "identity" out of this whole business: our perception of gender is all in our mind, so is our emotional outlook, but OUR mind is something we have, not something we are.

You may for example be using a computer to comment here, but that would be YOUR computer, not you, its user: you cannot be identical to your computer. It is a big mistake to identify oneself with something you own. You may change your computer at any time just as you may change your mind, but that does not change you, their owner, in any way!

As I read through other opinions, I sometimes find them difficult to process.
I have realised that this is because we, the contributors, think in different ways.
The principles which underpin our thinking are not the same.
My principles form the basis of my thinking.
They control how I process and assess information.
They also control how I express my opinions.
Where principles differ, so will the way opinions are expressed.
I hope my principles are truthful ones, and that they allow my opinions to be understood.

Principles are like the foundations of a big building?
Without strong foundations, the building could collapse?
So with thought processes not based on sound and truthful ideas.
They are almost sure to deliver poor outcomes?
I think some of those who are in extreme mental distress must have an unsound way of thinking and processing information.
So the cure for many ills is to get back to serious and logical thinking?
Above all, base this thinking on truthful principles, not on fictional ideas?
Because 100,000 people think a certain way, doesn't make that a right or reliable way.
100,000 people can be wrong. Keep that in mind.

Regarding the comment on "the genetic basis of gender confusion".

Answer- Some Irony- Some put it as "soy makes gay". We know that testosterone levels during pregnancy influences the sex of the baby. Apparently soy mimics estrogen. This is similar to another thread where the concept of diet based power tactics was raised.

Interesting how this might effect social dynamics in societies such as China with high soy intake.

The breakdown of the family structure from the traditional extended family, to the atomic family, to the "modern" single female parent family- would seem to be a factor in the child's ability to model stable relationships between males and females. When you consider that Confucian scholars consider the family as "the atom of society", it also has implications for the stability of society itself.

Woke Marxism seems to use it's own twisted version of "the broken windows theory" of policing- ie. the more broken windows the better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory

It's easier to destroy than to create stability, that's why castles were invented.

It's interesting hearing the comments of Freud and Bernays on the madness of mass society, when they were a significant part of the cause of the breakdown of society. The attempt to integrate African American's into US society after the US Civil War in still in progress today. In a sense this attempt has just caused fragmentation and instability of the social fabric.

Woke Marxism seems to be like Sun Tzu's proverbial General without a Civil Ruler- only the next battle is ahead- it can only create destruction- eventually it will burn itself out- eventually there won't be anything left to steal or loot. Hebrew Libertarian "Ayn Rand" referred to Marxist's as Looters and Moochers (Thieves and Beggers).

Gender Theory seems to be another milepost along the road to the destruction of Western Society. Sadly it seems to be the very strength of western society that is causing it's destruction- and decay. We seem to have missed a principle, a step of logic, in the advance of western civilization. The ego rather than the thought of the west seems to be the source of it's instability. "Teach before preach" seems to be something the west should do more of- often teaching ourselves first. Experimentally testing society solutions ourselves before preaching to others what society should be. Marx couldn't even function without reliance on the foolish wealthy Engel's- what would be the result of a world based on such misguided principles.

Regarding science?

Professor Tor Hundloe reminded us in his - "From Buddha to
Bono : Seeking Sustainability," " In case we dismiss
religious intervention in science as a thing of the past,
be aware that issues which require radical solutions that
are likely to harm vested economic and political interests,
censorship exists today."

Back in Australia in 2006 - "leading climatologists with
the country's pre-eminent public research organisation
CSIRO were forbidden by the organisation's management
from publicly discussing the implications of climate."

"Management was acting on behalf of the government.
And Australia is one of the standout countries in terms
of human development status. It is not corrupt. Its science
is world class."

"None of this matters. In 2006, the Australian Government's
position was to cast doubt on global warming and refuse to
enter into UN agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol."

"With the release of the Stern Report on climate change
the the Australian Government's position had changed -
yet the Prime Minister remained half-hearted about a
commitment to global warming."

"Little has changed in near to 400 years when ignorance
and vested interests are confronted by scientific facts."

"While Galileo's and other wonderful discoveries
were being made, not much had been learnt by the political
elite in 2000 years since Socrates ' murder by the state.
New ideas, instead of being welcome for the opportunities
they opened up for the improvement of the human lot -
were threats to those who had become comfortable in their
ideologies (religious or otherwise)."

The Hudson Institute of Medical Research and it future findings
on transgender - will undoubtedly go through the same
process of denial and all sorts of bizarre
accusations. That's how the game is played apparently

Canem Malum,

No, soy doesn't mess with our testosterone or oestrogen levels. The effect it has on human hormone levels is insignificant.

The claim that soy can make men gay (or transgender) is a myth originating from a combination of our cultural perception that "real men" eat meat and misinterpretations of the findings of certain scientific studies.

The far-right and alt-right continue to perpetuate this myth.

Here's a link on the Hudson Institute of Medical Research study:

http://hudson.org.au/news/written-in-dna-study-reveals-potential-biological-basis-for-transgender/

There are other views on the meaning of Galileo and Socrates demise. I can see both sides of the debate both the view of the establishment and of the "progressives" Galileo and Socrates. It's notable that Foxy doesn't seem to have a science background. Those that have served in positions of management or leadership realise that some good ideas aren't followed because of various reasons- not just because management is evil- but if subordinates refuse to accept this as the temporary condition the management will have to treat them as insubordinate and address their behavior. Bernays said that if you want to influence someone it's important to avoid annoying them.

There was some mouse research into the differences between male and female brains and how this might be relevant to gay identity- it seems that hormone issues, especially testosterone, in pregnant women may be relevant. It's interesting to hear about this research in the light of previous "scientific" claims that children were male or female based on social conditioning, and the previous assigning of hermaphrodites sex, based on the belief that sexual identity isn't established until the age of five years of age.
Woke Marxists seem often to deny nature over nurture.

John Daysh said-

The claim that soy can make men gay (or transgender) is a myth originating from a combination of our cultural perception that "real men" eat meat and misinterpretations of the findings of certain scientific studies. The far-right and alt-right continue to perpetuate this myth.

Answer- Well the Hebrew makers of the TV series "The Big Bang Theory" must be, according to John Daysh, from the Far-Right or Alt-Right, because that's where I heard it, from the Sheldon character (a gay actor). Probably not a good source but I did say it was "irony". So in this case it was a gay man and Hebrew's perpetuating the myth. I am often amused when Woke Marxist's label Hebrew's Nazi's, but teasing out this concept of "Hebrew Nazi's" is worthy research.

http://www.reddit.com/r/bigbangtheory/comments/vtx4zo/what_happened_to_leonards_testosterone_level_due/
http://www.livestrong.com/article/13724441-is-soy-bad-for-your-hormones/

Soy contains phytoestrogens — a group of natural compounds that can act like hormone estrogen.

Another interesting phenomena is that of "The Hebrew Marxist". So in addition to "John Daysh's implicit subconscious assertion of Hebrew Nazi's" it fill's out the palette of potential Hebrew interest (the same people play both sides against each other) or Hebrew diversity (different people within the same group have different opinions).

This observation has implications to groups more widely.

It's interesting that Marxist's don't like to call attention to Nazi's anti-Communist impetus- but this does seem to explain why Marxist's label all opposition as Nazism

Israeli historian Prof. Ilan Pappe says that:

"History lies at the core of every conflict.
A true and unbiased understanding of the past offers
the possibility of peace. The distortion or manipulation
of history, in contrast, will only sow disaster. As the
example of the Israel-Palestine conflict shows, historical
disinformation, even of the most recent past, can do tremendous
harm."

Also the management of CSIRO had to comply with the
government wishes at that time. I worked for CSIRO for quite
a few years. and am quite familiar how things work.

Interesting times ahead in the future of science in this
country

The Hudson Institute of Medical Research is an independent
not-for-profit research institute hosting approximately
450 researchers, post-grad. students, and support staff.
The Institute is recognized internationally for discovery
science and translational research.

It shall be interesting to see what the future holds for
transgender. And what discoveries science can make.

The Hudson Institute is generally described as conservative
and sometimes as neoconservative. Hudson says it hosts
policymakers, foreign policy experts, and elected officials
from across the political spectrum.

Here's one example:

http://hudson.org.au/researcher-profile/vincent-harley/

And more on transgender:

http://hudson.org.au/news/written-in-dna-study-reveals-potential-biological-basis-for-transgender/

The wonderful world of science.

How is seeing the conflict "between the establishment and the progressives Galileo and Socrates" from both sides "historical disinformation". You could argue that seeing things from only one side as disinformation.

I don't see the Hudson institute as Independent as they have strong links with Monash University. I don't think I would see any western institution as independent at this point- especially when the Hudson institution is linked so closely with university institution- this is particularly starkly illustrated due to the disproportionately high "Voice Vote" in Canberra where the bureaucracy dominates the electorate in higher proportions to other territories.

Sadly universities are engines of indoctrination rather than Socrates vision of centres of thought. Teach before preach.

The way Foxy talks she doesn't seem to be very scientifically knowledgeable despite her claims of working for CSIRO. But I've been disappointed with the outputs of the CSIRO for a while. Perhaps the CSIRO needs to be defunded like the ABC.

Canem Malum,

Yes, it's always the Jews and homosexuals, isn't it? It must all be part of the gay/Jewish media conspiracy!

Sorry, but again, soy does not have a feminising effect:

http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19524224
http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20378106
http://nutritionsource.hsph.harvard.edu/soy

And, yes, it's the far-right and alt-right perpetuating this myth - as you are ironically demonstrating as we speak.

The Hudson Institute of Medical Research has five specialist
centres which bring together the best professionals in
Australian science and medicine to conduct basic and clinical
research and provide hope for the wider community.

The centres specialize in: innate immunity and infectious
diseases, in cancer research, in reproductive health, in
endocrinology and metabolism and the Ritchie Centre - in
obstetrics and gynaecology and paediatrics.

Our gender identity, the sense of whether one is male or
female is one of the most sexually differentiated traits
in humans. Growing evidence has led to a new conception of
psychosexual development as a result of genetic, hormonal,
and psychosocial influences.

Future studies are needed to better clarify the complex
inter-action between genes, anatomy, and hormonal
influences on psychosexual development.

__________________________________________________________________

Talking about Galileo?

Galileo was put under house arrest by the Vatican for saying
that the earth moved around the sun. In fact, in 1633 the
church made him recant his theory of the universe.

As we can see, while Galileo's and other wonderful
discoveries were being made not much had been learnt by the
political elite in 2000 years since Socrates' -murder by the state
with CSIRO in 2006 being forbidden to publicly discuss
the implications of climate change.

New ideas, instead of being welcome as Prof. Hundloe said -
were seen as threats to those who had become comfortable in
their ideologies (religious or otherwise).

For some - nothing changes. However, scientists will, and do,
carry on regardless. Because that's what they do.
And that is more important than all the naysayers put together.

Cuts to CSIRO?

Really?

Cuts to research into neuroscience, colorectal cancer, to
water safety, advanced manufacturing, and much, much, more.
Cuts would have a detrimental impact in so many areas. The
public would not stand for it.

Why would anyone suggest a cut in resources at a time like this?

Cuts to our national broadcaster - the ABC?

Also - really?

Cuts to the delivery of original investigative journalism,
local and regional news gathering and reporting, cuts would
also pose a dangerous threat to the creation of original
Australian TV productions, particularly drama.

Again, the public would not stand for it. We need more
innovation, greater choice in this country. The Murdoch
Press controls enough as it is.

Everyone, please refrain from referring to gender and/or sexuality as "identity".

Foxy, for example, just wrote:

«Our gender identity, the sense of whether one is male or female is...»

A sense is not an identity, and the sense of gender is no exception.

We may be playing the social role of a male or a female, or we may wish to play some different such role in society - fair enough, that can be referred to as our "gender".

But that gender of ours is not us, it is just something that some of us may have, and if we do then it is OUR gender:
please refrain from speaking of it as "identity" because something we have can never be identical to us who have it!

Our identities are made up of many parts.
Things like our culture, sexuality, religion,
age, our body, gender, and lots more.
Our identities are personal, no one can tell us
how to identify.
We are who we are.

Regarding gender identity?

Taken from the web:

"Gender identity is your sense of whether
you are a man, woman, nonbinary, gender fluid,
or a combination of one or more of these
identities. It's part of your sense of self. It's how you
understand who you are and how you inter act with others."

" For many people their understanding of who they are, their
gender identity will match their sex. This is called being
cisgender (pronounced - sis-gender). For some people, this
gender identity might not match the sex they were assigned at
birth and those individuals might choose to identify as
transgender. For example being assigned female at birth but
idendifying as a man."

" It's important to remember that there is more to gender than just
being "male" or "female." Some people understand their gender as
being a combination of both, male or female, or neither. These
people might choose identity as being gender diverse or non-
binary. There are many words people choose to describe their
gender identity."

" The words people choose to describe their gender identity are
very personal. Other ways of expressing gender identity refers
to the way people publicly express their gender and may include
how they behave, their appearance, what they choose to wear.."

"Gender identity like sexuality is fluid. It can change with
time. This is completely normal. You don't have to label your
gender identity. However if you choose to label your sexuality
or gender it's your choice. It's what feels best for you. And
when you're ready - embrace and celebrate it."

Dear Foxy,

«Our identities are made up of many parts.»

Things like our culture, sexuality, religion,
age, our body, gender, and lots more.
Our identities are personal, no one can tell us
how to identify.
We are who we are.»

We HAVE culture(s).
We HAVE sexuality(s).
We HAVE religion(s).
We HAVE an age.
We HAVE a body.
We HAVE a gender (some of us).
We HAVE a mind.
We HAVE sense(s).
We HAVE feeling(s).
We HAVE a family.
We HAVE home(s).
We HAVE car(s).
We HAVE furniture.
We HAVE clothes.
We HAVE books.
We HAVE electronic gadgets.
We HAVE lots more.

None of these identify us, the ones who have the above, they are just some of the things we happen to have, not us!

Yes of course, we are who we are - but that is none of the above.

Yes, nobody can tell us how to identify - we are allowed to make any kind of error, we may for example identify ourselves as the Queen of the night, or as the fifth shoe of an alien king from the galaxy of Nimrod, but those who seriously do are considered schizophrenic and are normally locked up in a mental hospital.

[continued...]

[...continued]

«Regarding gender identity?»

Just drop the word "identity", then your words will make perfect sense, so please allow me to rephrase:

<<Gender is your sense of whether
you play the social role of a man, woman, nonbinary, gender fluid,
or a combination of one or more of these.
It's part of your sense of how you fit in society. It's how you
understand your place in society and how you inter act with others.

For many people their understanding of their social role, their
gender will match their sex. This is called
cisgender (pronounced - sis-gender). For some people, this
gender might not match the sex they were assigned at
birth and those individuals might choose to consider their role as
transgender. For example being assigned the role of a female at birth but operating as a man.

It's important to remember that there is more to gender than just
being "male" or "female." Some people understand their gender as
being a combination of both, male or female, or neither. These
people might choose a diverse or non-binary gender. There are many words people choose to describe their gender.

The words people choose to describe their gender are
very personal. Other ways of expressing gender refers
to the way people publicly express their gender and may include
how they behave, their appearance, what they choose to wear.."

"Gender like sexuality is fluid. It can change with
time. This is completely normal. You don't have to label your
gender. However if you choose to label your sexuality
or gender it's your choice. It's what feels best for you. And
when you're ready - embrace and celebrate it.>>

Yuyutsu,

I told you earlier - I have no wish to argue with you.

You can object to the use of the word "identity," all you
want. The fact remains that Gender identity is the gender
with which a person identifies.

I've given links to the Hudson Institute of Medical Research
studies and to Prof. Vincent Harley and his projects on the
subject. I've also clarified that there is a difference
between "sex" and "gender." Sex being biological while
gender is psychological. That a person's gender can be
different from a person's sex. That any individual is free
to identify their gender as they see fit. That gender identity
is internal and a person's gender identity is not necessarily
visible to others.

People are not fixed beings, with fixed natures.

If we want to understand people, we must look at them as
individuals.

Whether you like or do not like the term "gender identity<"
is irrelevant. You're welcome not to use it.

Dear foxy,

I have no issue with the difference between sex and gender which you mentioned, nor with the unfixed nature of people or their individuality which you mentioned as well.

However, identifying with something you are not, is madness.

You may like flowers very much, but identifying with a flower does not make you a flower!

Yuyutsu,

Madness to you. Belief to someone else.

Gender identity is the person's personal sense of their
own identity. It can correlate with a person's assigned sex
or can differ from it.

In most of us the various biological
determinants of sex are in agreement (harmony) and are
consistent with our gender identity. For others that's
not the case. However -

I'm in no position to judge how and why others identify.
The same as I don't make judgements about the religious
beliefs of others (as long as they don't hurt anyone) .

May I politely suggest you do the same. If you believe that
God made Adam and Eve, then you must also recognize that
he also made Adam and Steve, and a whole batch of other
variants.

Cheers.

Dear Foxy,

Firstly, I have no problem with the idea that God also made Adam and Steve and the batch of other variants - in fact, I believe that in our overpopulated planet we presently need more of those!

Now to the subject-matter:

What would you make of someone who identifies as a horse, believing that they are that horse?

Suppose they tell me:
- "Don't you believe me? I bought this horse for $5,000 and if you doubt it then I can even show you the receipt".

To which I respond:
"You don't need to show me the receipt, I believe you that the horse is yours, I believe you that you bought it for $5,000 - the horse is yours, but it is not you!"

Yes, you may have this or that gender and yes, it might be complex and it might be different than your sex, yet this gender is yours, it is not you!

Yuyutsu,

Every single person deserves to be treated equally regardless
of their biological sex, their gender identity, or their gender
expression.

Your validation is not required.

Dear Foxy,

«Every single person deserves to be treated equally regardless
of their biological sex, their gender identity, or their gender
expression.»

Really? Every single person deserves to be treated equally?
Even Putin or Stalin deserve to be treated equally to your husband and children?

Anyway, that has nothing to do with the topic, which you avoid.
Gender, just like the colour of our hats, is a property some of us have, not an identity.

We are who we are.
But what are we?
We are essentially a computer programme.
This is located in, and runs in, the brain.
The brain is housed in a protective vessel.
This is attached to a 'body', which supplies 'nourishment' to the brain.
If the body fails, or the brain ceases to function for some other reason, we die.
That means the computer programme stops.
When that ceases, we cease to be, completely.
We do no linger round in some supernatural state.
Those who think so are letting their imagination control them.

The brain has an operating system, and additional programmes.
These latter are our instincts.
They are located in fixed memory.
Learned behaviour is in what I call volatile memory.
This can be changed.
The operating system calls on both kinds of memory.
In fact it can do this selectively, and control our behaviour.
We all have a slightly different operating system.
This is what makes us unique.
Some, unfortunately, are born with a 'kinked' operating system, which leads to strange behaviour.
We need to remember too that animals generally have no conscience about what they do.
We have developed conscience, but it still doesn't exist in every one of us.
So some can do very harmful things without a thought for the consequences.

Overall, we are a remarkable, living, machine.
We can explore our many aspects with great benefit to us.

Dear Ipso Fatso,

A computer can be programmed to do everything it does without the need for consciousness or awareness.
As far as computing is concerned, consciousness is superfluous.

A computer can be programmed to behave as if out of pain, fear, desire, boredom, envy or joy, even as if it has a conscience, but in reality there is nobody there to experience any feelings. No amount of programming can produce awareness.

If you are presently aware of reading my post, and nobody but yourself can ascertain whether you are aware, nobody else can prove or disprove it, then you are not a computer!

This brain computer idea is I think very valid.
Here is my reason for such belief.
First there is a logical theory called "Control Theory".
This is the theory behind the control of oil refineries. automatic
pilots on aircraft, the control of rockets on takeoff and indeed
why we can stand up and not fall over.
This theory requires calculation of proportional changes, derivative
changes and integral changes.
Proportional; how far we are out of balance.
Derivitave; how fast we are going out of balance.
Intigral; all the little changes that are taking place.
Known as three term control.
Our brain requires these three calculations to be running continually.
They enable our brain to decide which muscles to tension or relax to
stop us from falling over.
Next time you see a video of a rocket launch watch the engines under
the rocket. Usually they are moving about by small or larger amounts
because they are driven by the three term controller which has input
from various sensors of the position and movement of the rocket.
Watch a gymnast and think how fast that computer in your head is running !
Likewise they keep us standing up.

Yuyutsu,

I don't believe your comments uphold the rights of
individual people. Remember that your words have
the potential to dehumanize people. You run the risk
of stereotypes and you obscure the personal
experiences that help us to relate to one another.

How about just accepting people as people first and
foremost and listening when they tell you about their
feelings and needs. Why is that so hard?

Their gender identity is their business and it's just
our business to respect that because they're a human
being deserving at least basic decency.

Dear Foxy,

In my previous response to you I was not speaking of sex and/or gender at all.

When it comes specifically to sex and gender, I fully agree that nobody should be ill-treated because of their sex, sexuality, or gender, etc.
I have no issue with these (could you possibly be confusing me with other forum-members who do?).

But I was stating the obvious:
It is not humanly possible to treat everyone the same.
Just not possible and nobody is expected to do that.
Do you, for example, treat Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir the same as you treat your children?
I find nothing wrong about treating good people and evil people differently - don't you?

«How about just accepting people as people first and
foremost and listening when they tell you about their
feelings and needs. Why is that so hard?»

Is that something you practice?
Is that reasonable?
Would you listen to Netanyahu calmly and patiently to hear all about his feelings and needs, why he "needs" to keep the war in Gaza going and having daily more people killed, wounded and displaced on both sides so that he can avoid prison and remain in power?
Or to Ben-Gvir explaining why he feels bad that Arabs still exist and how he "needs" to kill all gentiles so that Jews will not be tempted to marry them?
I certainly am not expecting you to do so.

«Their gender identity is their business and it's just
our business to respect that because they're a human
being deserving at least basic decency.»

Just drop that ridiculous word, "identity" - gender has nothing to do with identity, and then I will agree as well:

Their gender is their business and it's just
our business to respect that because they're a human
being deserving at least basic decency.

Yuyutsu,

The topic being discussed is gender identity.
Not flowers, horses, Netanyahu, or any other diversion
you want to bring up. And if you object to the word
"identity" which is fundamental here - you're more
than welcome not to use it.

I'm not going to continue to argue with you.

Cheers.

Dear Foxy,

«The topic being discussed is gender identity.»

So I am right on the topic then - there is no such thing!

«Not flowers, horses, Netanyahu, or any other diversion
you want to bring up.»

Flowers and horses were used as examples:
There are flowers - but there is no flower identity.
There are horses - but there is no horse identity.
Similarly there are genders - but there is no gender identity.
If someone claimed that they are a flower or a horse, or are identical with a flower or a horse, then wouldn't you agree that they lost some marbles?
Believing that one is a gender, or identical to a gender, is no different.

As for Netanyahu, that was indeed off topic, but it was in the context of replying to an off-topic diversion that you raised first.

Yuyutsu,

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Dear Foxy,

«We're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue.»

This discussion is not about you and me, agreeing or otherwise,
there are many more people reading this,
and there is much at stake:

Should government ask in the 2026 census, "Which gender are you?", or "which gender do you identify with?" and answering that question be compulsory, then I may have to part with lots of money, perhaps even go to prison, because I could not answer that question.

Why? Because I am not a gender and do not falsely identify myself with one.

If you think that you are a gender (doesn't matter which), then good on you because come 2026 it will save your money, but as Galileo said: "And yet it moves". Law cannot overrule science, but it can make certain sciences illegal, including the science of logic, and make people pay dearly for adhering to it.

Yuyutsu,

You're right. This is not about you.

And, I do not wish to argue with your logic.

Dear Foxy,

«And, I do not wish to argue with your logic.»

Nor are you required to argue, yet you do.

Perhaps I should not address you in the first place, so you are do not feel pressured to argue - I thought it polite to address you when quoting your words, but my responses here are for all the readers, not just for you, alerting them to be careful with comments which defy logic so they don't blindly fall for them.

Will it help if in future I only refer to the contents of your posts without referring to you personally?

Yuyutsu,

Historically gender in Western societies has been a simple
thing to define because it was seen as an extension of
biological sex. " Women" were seen as human females and "men"
were seen as human males. Male and female were understood as
biological categories.

This was the norm and this view espoused that sex predetermines
or limits a host of social, psychological and behavioural
traits that are inherently different between men and women.

This is where you get stereotypes like "Men are rational
and unemotional" while women are "passive and caring."

Many people today still don't distinguish between sex and
gender.

Hundreds of traditional cultures around the world have
conceptions of gender that extend beyond the binary of men
and women. Our perceptions of masculinity and femininity can
vary between societies and cultures. Sex is scientifically
observable, but it is being questioned because there are
over millions of inter-sex people all over the world.

That's why I said that we shall have to agree to disagree
on this subject.

We simply see things differently. And I see no further point
in arguing. I have no wish to convert anyone.

You may certainly continue to address me - however I may
subsequently choose to ignore your logic if I don't see anything
constructive in continuing the conversation.

Enjoy the week-end.

Dear Foxy,

«That's why I said that we shall have to agree to disagree
on this subject.»

There is nothing I disagree (or previously disagreed) with in your last post on the subject of gender.

I only ever disagreed when you referred to gender as an "identity" - in your last post you did not do so and I actually think that it was a very good post.

Yuyutsu,

In the United States there's a move for legislation
for gender to be determined solely by the genitals that
a person has at birth. Strictly male or female and that
this be made unchangeable.

This proposal would eliminate the very idea of a transgender
person.

It's one thing for people to have to defend their very
existence and who they are, but quite another on the
frequency and degree to which transgender people experience
negative emotions. This significantly increases especially when
they feel that their identity is under increased threat.

In other words people who are already under stress become
even more so . There's clearly a negative impact on the
mental health of transgender people when their identity is
decried in this way. Suicide rates increase.

It is for that reason that gender identity is important to
transgender people to be at least acknowledged.

I'm probably not putting it very well but I hope that you
will understand what I am trying to explain and why
for transgender people the recognition of their gender
identity matters.

Dear Foxy,

«In the United States... This proposal would eliminate the very idea of a transgender person.»

I agree - so far so bad...

«It's one thing for people to have to defend their very
existence and who they are»

They may have to defend their gender alright,
but one's gender is not one's very existence.

One never needs to defend who they are - because nothing others do or don't could ever in eternity change who you are and turn you into someone else!!

«This significantly increases especially when
they feel that their identity is under increased threat.»

If that is so, if that is how they feel, then they are completely deluded: absolutely nothing, neither in heaven nor on earth can ever threaten one's identity.

«There's clearly a negative impact on the
mental health of transgender people when their identity is
decried in this way.»

Their identity is not decried, only their gender is.
I also do not approve of decrying their gender, yet it has nothing to do with their identity.

If transgender people realise this, that their gender is not their identity, then while it may not in itself directly alleviate their objective social problems, their mental health can improve dramatically.

«It is for that reason that gender identity is important to
transgender people to be at least acknowledged.»

Quite the opposite: identifying themselves with their gender (being transgender in their particular case) is what give them most anguish.
It can still be important for them to have their gender acknowledged, but if they stop identifying with their gender then it won't be as painful for them when it is not acknowledged.

«I'm probably not putting it very well but I hope that you
will understand what I am trying to explain and why
for transgender people the recognition of their gender
identity matters.»

Recognition of their gender matters, I do understand that, even agree, but identity is something else altogether, completely completely different.

Yuyutsu,

Gender is a personal choice. And I accept people who say
that they identify differently to their biological sex.

Nature isn't simple. Not only are some people homosexual but
they're also transgender and fluid and several other
choices on the spectrum. Does it matter? Yes. it matters
to them. In time I hope that it will matter less.

We can reject the identities and choices of others - however,
these we can't change who they believe they are and how
they identify. End of story.

Nuff said.

Dear Foxy,

Yes, gender is a personal choice and I fully accept those people who say that their gender is different to their biological sex. No problem there.
Same for homosexuals and the whole spectrum, no problem at all.

We should indeed accept everyone, but should we accept their words too when they say nonsense?
- No, we are quite capable of accepting others without accepting all they say.

So suppose someone SAYS, "I am a cucumber" or "I am a broom", would you accept their words as correct just because they said so?

If someone says, "I am horse" and you observe, "No, you are not", and they reply, "Can't you see, I am a BROWN horse".
- Oh well, you have no problem with brown horses, but still they cannot be a brown horse because they are not a horse!

Same if someone says, "I am a gender" and you observe, "No, you are not", and they reply, "Can't you see, I am a TRANSGENDER gender".
- Sorry, you may fully accept their gender being transgender, but they are not a gender because nobody is a gender, neither those whose gender is male nor those whose gender is female, nor those who have no gender at all; and yes, nor those whose gender is transgender.

To identify with X means to say or think: "I am equal to X".
Well sorry, no one is equal to their gender (if they have one), whatever that gender may be.

Yuyutsu,

Personally, I don't feel qualified to question another
person's sense of self. Afterall their identity encompasses
their own personal experiences, relationships, values,
memories, and so forth - all of which when amalgamated creates
for them a sense of who they are over time even as new
facets may be developed and incorporated into their identity.

All I can do is accept them for who they say they are.

You of course are welcome to disagree.

For me this discussion has now run its course.

Yuyutsu,

Just a bit of light humour:

I really don't know anyone who claims to be a horse, flower, or
a cucumber. But if anyone of us believes in reincarnation,
I guess anything is possible. I can imagine walking
across some field and seeing piles of animal dung on the
grass and thinking to myself "Hello (insert a name). I see you
haven't changed a bit!"

(Smile).

Dear Foxy,

Exchanging humour with Jewish humour:

As you probably know, during the Middle-Ages, many Jews faced the grim choice between death and converting to Christianity.

One such Jewish convert was still covertly observing the Jewish Sabbath as much as he could, by making the Friday-night meal the best meal of his week, which included meat.

That was at a time when Christians were still not allowed to have meat on Fridays.

So as he was enjoying his meal, he was startled by a knock on his door.
- The very worst: that was the bishop, catching him red-handed!

"What is this?" asked the bishop pointing at the meat on the man's plate.

Then the convert quickly dipped his finger in a bowl of water and sprinkled the water 3 times over the meat, mumbling something.

"What is it you were mumbling?" asked the bishop.

- "Well", said the man, "I was repeating: `You were meat, now you are a fish; You were meat, now you are a fish; You were meat, now you are a fish`, same as you did when you sprinkled water on me the other day, remember, saying: `You were a Jew, now you are a Christian; You were a Jew, now you are a Christian; You were a Jew, now you are a Christian`".

---

To the editor:
Please do not delete my post on the grounds of being off-topic.
If you read carefully and contemplate between the lines, you can find that it pretty much belongs in this thread.

Yuyutsu,

Thanks for your joke.

Talking about Jewish jokes?

Here's another one.

A Jewish man was very upset. His son left home one day and came
back a Christian. The man went to his rabbi for advice. The rabbi
was also upset because his son had done the same thing. He'd
left home a Jew and came back a Christian.

"What should we do?" the man asked his rabbi. The rabbi said
we'll have to go to a higher authority for the answer.

So the rabbi decided to ask God.

To which God replied:

" You're not going to believe this..."

Dear Foxy,

It goes (for all three, the man, the Rabbi and God): "I sent my son to Israel so he can become a better Jew and then instead he came back a Christian".

Yuyutsu,

Each of us follow what we choose to believe in.

Yuyutsu,

I've always been fascinated with other cultures and beliefs.
Plus, I've always wanted to visit Israel. Many of my teachers
as well as mentors at work, were Jewish. I'm deeply indebted to them
and value their friendships to this very day.

Yuyutsu,

Talking about Jews and Christians?

I just remembered another joke:

In the 1920s some establishments in New York City did not
allow Jews as guests. Well, Mrs Goldstein decided she
was going to stay at one of the most exclusive hotels
for an evening.

She signed in and the concierge seeing her name said - "You
can't stay here!"

Mrs Goldstein asked - "Why not?"

The concierge pointed to the sign which was clealry marked -
"No Jews allowed!"

Mrs Goldstein firmly said - "I'm not Jewish."

The concierge replied - "Really? with a name like Goldstein?"

"I'm not Jewish,"Mrs Goldstein replied firmly.

"Ok, tell me where Jesus was born?" asked the concierge.

"Bethlehem," replied Mrs Goldstein.

"Where in Bethlehem?" asked the concierge.

"In a manger," replied Mrs Goldstein.

"Ah, why was he born in a manger?" asked the concierge.

" Because, schmucks like you wouldn't rent out a room to a
nice Jewish couple," replied Mrs Goldstein smiling.

Dear Foxy,

«Each of us follow what we choose to believe in.»

These are only jokes - I don't think that anyone today believes that God sent Jesus to Israel in order to become a better Jew... but this is the version of this joke that I heard.

Here is an adult Jewish joke:

Three men argue in a pub about the looks of Jesus:

One said: "See me, I am tall, blond, handsome - Jesus must have looked just like me!"
The second said: "See my muscles, See my broad arms, Jesus looked strong just like me!"
The third said: "No, Jesus came from the Middle East so he was thin, his skin was tanned and his eyes black just like mine!"

There entered a Jew - small, weak, short and hunched, dull balding hair, eyes drooping, wearing glasses and with unsymmetrical features. Watching the argument he exclaimed in a creaky voice:

"Jesus? You want to know how Jesus looked? He was a Jew like me, he looked exactly like me and I can prove it!"

Well the guys had nothing more interesting to do than to mock that Jew, so they told him, "Yes, you better prove it or we beat you into pulp".

So the Jew said, "follow me" and led them out in the streets, there he entered the red-light precinct and with the three following behind he approached a two-storey house and climbed the stairs facing a fancy door labelled "MARIA".

"Now the proof, said the Jew and knocked on the door".

Maria opened the door and exclaimed: "Jesus, are you here again for the third time today?"

Yuyutsu,

My earlier comment "Each of us follow what we choose
to believe in," was not a reference to anything specific.
It was a general comment.

Cheers.

"Each of us follow what we choose to believe in,"
Foxy,
I'm afraid that kind of thinking is what causes so many problems because people with that mentality chose not to see reality & demand others respect that ! This is just so terribly, terribly wrong & utterly selfis