pulsewidth

So if you want to convince me with those arguments, you have to first give a definition of man/woman that satisfies me.

Its not my job to educate you, and nobody ever changed someone's opinion forcibly. If you want to learn about scientific facts of gender then read about it - nothing I've written above is scientifically controversial.

Good luck on your journey, here's a couple starting points.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heres-why-human-sex-is-not-binary/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

I didn't presume you were in the US, all of the examples I used of recent trans oppression apply to more than just the US but it's true I was thinking of them while writing it. I'm not in the US either.

Mate, your five examples of trans demands are literally all wrong.

Gender is not sex. Gender is not binary, nor is sex. These are not scientifically controversial ideas. They are long studied norms.

1. Some (very few) trans women want to play in women's sports. There have been trans athletes for many decades. It only became an issue when conservatives started complaining that they were in sport. Then the rules have been changed to ban them. Literally the opposite of your claim.
2. As above you're wrong about gender.
3. Never heard of this would love an example. Seems like an incredibly niche issue.
4. Trans women are women. They ask to be named as such on their forms. Who does this affect?
5. So in the past, in countries with good social support networks for healthcare governments have offered to pay for gender affirming care. Its recommended by psychologists, psychiatriaata and was the standard of care recommendes by leading health bodies. Im aware of governments now beginning to stop offering these surgeries and gender care based on pressure, again, from anti-trans folk.

What is the impact to you or anyone else of 2,3,4,5? Remember we're discussing issues that are not falling into the category of "if this isn't hurting anyone then hey none of my business" and "everyone deserves equal care". Very, very few women are impacted by 1, most female (at birth) athletes are trans-inclusive - can easily Google hundreds of examples.

You have it flipped. Trans people weren't asking for shit, dude. They just got turned into the scapegoat of the right wing. I pay my taxes.. And if some guy gets testosterone therapy because he's 50 and his testosterone has started to decline and he needs gender affirming care, that's fine - that's good. Same for an older woman needing oestrogen therapy - great, help her out. Why would I suddenly give a crap if some struggling person wants trans treatment and it's recommended by the medical establishment?? Likewise if some lady who used to be a boy 20 years ago is really embarrassed and harassed every time she passes through an airport by customs and security questioning why her passport says 'male' - fair enough, that must suck.

And then there's people like you, who unquestioningly accept these 'demands' as unreasonable - because someone told you they are.

Reconsider.

P. S. Love that it's ok for you to gloss over direct questions, but for me to accept points and not respond to every single one is to "completely ignore" them. I do not have to acknowledge every single point in long comments. We'd be here forever.

if trans were just saying "we exist, let us exist, don't hate us just for existing" like the rest of LGB, I don't think it would be an issue. Instead they say "we exist, and even if we are the 0.001% (made up number), we demand 50% of society's focus, and if you don't treat us exactly the way we want, then you're a nazi".

I realize you're being flippant and over-exaggerating, but statements like this make you look exactly like the right-winger you claim not to be. Trans people do just want to exist without being subjugated and stigmatized (which is definitely currently happening). None are making any such overbearing demands as you claim.

So, a thought. The mechanical manufacturing school your girlfriend goes to wants to encourage more women to enrol in the majority male class. How do they do it?

Do they promote the women actually already in the class in advertising, or.. Do they take photos of the men in the class, which implies it's mostly men, or do they photo the entire class, which shows it's 80% men?

As you said, 'the left' will generally first point out that your story is anecdotal.. Because it is. What makes it essentially useless to a discussion is that we don't know the drivers for the decisions of the school.. they are only inferred by our biases. Maybe the marketing team just chose the most attractive people, and that happens to be the two good looking girls in a class full of guys with neck beards and barrel chests?

Whatever they choose depends on their marketing degree advice and their professional experience. Is this womens privilege or is this just marketing exploitation of what they know will drive demand?

Bias is only a privilege if it helps the person experiencing the bias. Does it help these ladies to be in the adverising material? Will it help them land a job? Do you think them adding it to their resume will give them any meaningful benefit? Because I doubt it. As someone who has been responsible for hiring people if I saw them include this in a resume I would think it was an odd thing to mention, it has no merit on their skills. Meanwhile, they'll go into the manufacturing workforce and then they'll get a job where they get paid ~85% of what a man does in the same job, statistically. That is not a thing of the past.. It exists today in the USA. Earning 15% more because you were born male is a privilege that actually does have significant benefit. https://www.forbes.com/sites/josiecox/2025/03/05/over-the-last-two-decades-the-us-gender-pay-gap-has-hardly-moved/

I note you have no examples for the demands trans people have made. Yet their demands are a big enough problem in your initial comment to warrant first mention.

Gotta say, these big unfair reverse-bias microsexisms you cite seem pretty damn insignificant in the grand scheme of society. Meanwhile.. trans people are literally being murdered quite regularly for being trans, being told which bathroom to use by legislation (and then regularly being attacked and beaten for using the legallg mandated bathroom), being banned from sports, banned from military service, constantly maligned in the mainstream media (sadly OAN and Fox are mainsteam), etc. Women are being legislated against using birth control and dying from easily preventable complications of childbirth due to draconian anti-abortion laws. Still experiencing domestic violent and sexual assault at rates absolutely dwarfing those of men.

Right wing guys: society hates men. Left gone too far. Ladies and trans get so many the benefits. Lady got to be in photo! 😡

No, because they are not hunting bird and small animal species to extinction.

They're also part of the native ecosystem so anything they do kill is generally for subsitence, and not impactful to the ecosystem they've existed with for thousands of years.

Barn cats just kill for fun.

OPs comment was not very constructively phrased.. But it actually pretty much is that simple.

However, most right-leaning young men will not be brave enough to actually ask women their opinions on divisive issues, and open enough to listen and consider their own assumptions could be wrong ('maybe my dad is a misogynist.. maybe I was raised to believe things that just aren't accurate'). Those ideas are confronting and take a lot of emotional maturity.

You've hit the nail on the head but not in the way you think. Let's dig into the things you state made young men no longer accepting of the, (1) "let people do whatever they want if it doesn't affect you" and (2) "every human should be treated equally".

The goalpost-moved, "we have to change the rules for the trans". What do you mean? The whole trans issue was invented by the right wing as a new bogeyman to attack. Gay people were accepted (after many decades of abuse) by the general public - so they were no longer an effective target. New target: trans. I had honestly heard about trans people about a couple dozen times in my life prior to 2010, and I knew two of them. It was just not any kind of big deal. Very easy to file under (1) and (2). Zero impact to anyone's life but their own. Then all of a sudden: bathroom bans, Jordan Peterson talking about them a lot, Trump banning them from military service, and so on.. And so forth. There was no great request that trans people suddenly made to society - they were just thrust into the spotlight as a new target for people who are scared of anything they're not familiar with (conservatives) to fearmonger into the right ("teachers want to let your boys wear dresses to school and turn your kids trans!").

Next "we have to give women privilege to compensate for misogyny". What privilege? Honeslty. I'm really at a loss on this one. The privilege of police having to actually take reports and follow then up when they claim they're sexually assaulted or raped, as opposed to the 90s & prior standard of "are you sure you weren't asking for it?" & filing it in the back of the drawer to never see light again? The privilege of MeToo which is where many women came forward about sexual assault that they were pressured against mentioning in the past? Again, anyone on the left was fine with the 'privileges'? as they firmly slot into (1) and (2).

Please elaborate, because details matter on these two issues you list as prime examples of the left moving the goalposts 'beyond their original principles' - because to me, a leftist, they seem perfectly in line.

Yeah, fuck the local wildlife if it means you don't have to deal with the hair of your pet being on your couch.

You should change your username to PermanentlyPedantic

Yes. The other person said they were "carnivorous" though. Giant tortoises are not carnivorous.

Horses are also not carnivorous even though they do eat meat on rare occasions to survive.

Words mean things.

You're also wrong about horses. Put a steak on the ground in field of plentiful grass, horses will ignore it until it's rotted away to nothing. They do not just eat stuff outside of their regular died because its risk free and easily obtained.

Joke not funny, advice dumb. People no haha, give better advice.

Judging by those advice posts being massively upvoted - seems most agree.

What you're missing is that the ingredients of tattoo ink have changed dramatically in the last 100 or so years.

Prior to then tattoo inks were made mostly with soot or black ash mixed with plant oils.

Nowadays the inks are almost entirely synthetic, sourced from the same companies that make industrial paint, and have been tested and some found to contain carbon black nanoparticles, Texanol, BHT, 2-phenoxyethanol, and various other things that are confirmed (or reasonably suspected) to be toxic and which definitely wouldn't be in historical inks.

The proof should be entirely on the suppliers and administrators (tattooists) to confirm their ink and tattoos are safe, not the users. Yet their regulations are very lax in most countries, requiring no pharmaceutical testing even though they are injected into people's skin.

Some refs: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25833640/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38387033/
https://theconversation.com/whats-in-tattoo-ink-my-teams-chemical-analysis-found-ingredients-that-arent-on-the-label-and-could-cause-allergies-22481

Not a biologist but I believe the latter. If the ink could be broken down by the macrophages in your lymph nodes it would likely be broken down in its intended location in your skin too, as there are lyphatic capillaries and vessels throughout our skin.