All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Mister Mets]

No spike is not the same as no increase at *all*. *there is no spike*. Not a sudden one, not one specifically afflicting girls, which again, is the thesis of Shrier's book. The entire book hangs on the idea of all this being a social contagion that is happening because of social pressures.

A reminder, Glaad already weighed in on this:

This seems to something that can be objectively measured.

What is the cutoff for when something is a spike? Would a fifty percent increase count? Would tripling count?

Does this change based on earlier figures? For example, someone could say that an increase of fifty percent from 0.02% to 0.03% is not a spike, but an increase of fifty percent from 1% to 1.5% is a spike.

The answer to these questions should be the same regardless of how you feel about it (Is it good? Is it bad? Is it concerning? Is the main response indifference?)

Speaking of social contagions, though, let's talk about the susceptibility of conservatives to misinformation.



https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf1234

I can certainly agree that too many conservatives believe misinformation, but a measure of viral stories on social media isn't necessarily going to demonstrate that conservatives are worse than Democrats.

An easy explanation is that stories that favor Democrats are likely to appear in multiple places, so the odds that any one story will go viral are reduced. Julie Swetnick says that she witnessed Brett Kavanaugh participate in habitual gang rapes in Suburban Maryland when he was a teenager, and that's covered in a lot of places.

A few years ago a science blogger went viral based on an interesting concept (the most recent winter solstice is the longest night in Earth history because tidal friction is causing the Earth's rotation to slow down at a rate of a millisecond a century) that had obvious flaw he was unaware of (there is variability from other causes that means some days are milliseconds longer than others as measured.)

https://www.vox.com/2014/12/21/7424371/winter-solstice
https://colinschultz.wordpress.com/2...y-of-the-year/

A big reason the story went viral is that it was unique. No one else was reporting it. The reason for that is that others did their due diligence and would realize the error.

If CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Vox and BBC are all reporting something big, their website's version is unlikely to go viral because it is covered by everyone else.

If we really wanted to compare how informed Democrats are compared to Republicans, we could ask about things that progressives are more inclined to believe. For example...

How much student loan debt is held by the median 30 year old American? (The answer is zero)
Was the material on Hunter Biden's laptop fabricated? (Nope)
What percentage of homicides are committed with so-called assault rifles? (Roughly four percent which has implications for the effectiveness of an Assault rifle ban)
Does the median blue state resident pay more in taxes due to the removal of the SALT deduction? (Nope)
Are young African American men more likely to shot to death by police than to die in traffic accidents? (Nope)

Then we could compare the results to false things that conservatives are inclined to believe.

[CaptainEurope]

The AP reports:

Evidence mounts of GOP involvement in Trump election schemes

WASHINGTON (AP) — Rioters who smashed their way into the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, succeeded — at least temporarily — in delaying the certification of Joe Biden’s election to the White House.

Hours before, Rep. Jim Jordan had been trying to achieve the same thing.

Texting with then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, a close ally and friend, at nearly midnight on Jan. 5, Jordan offered a legal rationale for what President Donald Trump was publicly demanding — that Vice President Mike Pence, in his ceremonial role presiding over the electoral count, somehow assert the authority to reject electors from Biden-won states.

Pence “should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all,” Jordan wrote.

“I have pushed for this,” Meadows replied. “Not sure it is going to happen.”

Lock! Them! Up!

Also: Remember how some people said Pelosi made a mistake by not allowing Jim Jordan to sit on the Jan 6 committee?

[Mister Mets]

Only .5% of the 4.2% not identifying as a specific gender have any sort of biology tied to their answers, and the quote assumes they are all female aka girls identifying as transgender. Thus the interpretation is a lie.

In Math, if someone says .5% of the 4.2%, they typically mean 0.021%. You're multiplying one percentage of the other. So that's why I wasn't quite sure what you were going for.

I'm going with the GLAAD, Human Rights Campaign, APA definition of trans. This is not an effort to mislead anyone. I can appreciate why there was a misunderstanding.

It is odd that I'm accused of going in knots here when I'm the one going with the accepted definition.

As this is a distraction from the point that being Gay isn't abnormal and treating them with respect shouldn't be objected to, I'm going to stop responding.

We should strive to treat more people with respect. But this tangent seems to be dead.

All of this matters if you think that Democrats are suddenly going to flip and subvert Democracy and enforce some sort of alternate sexuality on our kids or other nonsense aka ridiculous exaggeration. However if I've made a statement that's too far from the truth in what you replied to here please point it out and we can discuss it, because so far you have brought up very little to disprove the blatant and horrible actions of GoP members defended by other GoP members & the Conservative press.

That's a bit of a gish gallop, in that I would have to respond to at least nine different points in addition to everything else in the post.

It's an unreasonable ask on a hobbyist forum.

I very explicitly did not, and if you think so I'd like to see the quote. I've been pretty adamant about the goalpost being who you support and vote for.

I gave that answer and you kept asking.

It's also mainly going to be politicians most people on this forum have never heard of as I live in Queens, where the Republican party is not very active. I found some links listing preferences in political races which gives people a better sense of my views, as they are more likely to know who Tim Kaine is than who a Republican candidate for city council is.

For most people, remembering who they voted for it pretty sure. In most cases, it's going to be a member of one party with potential exceptions for popular moderates (Joe Manchin, Phil Scott, Phil Bredesen, Larry Hogan, Susan Collins, Joe Hogsett, etc.)

But this seems to be a dead tangent. There isn't much else to say on this question.

And I don't believe that it's as big a jump as you are portraying as you are only repeating misinformation and defending it despite it being clearly wrong. The difference in questioning and the changes in public opinion in the last 20 years can explain much of any increase in self-reporting.

It is entirely possible that an increase is due to self-reporting.

That is a different question from whether there is an increase.

They don't all count as biologically female, especially the trans women included in the figure which is quoting them all as female and rounding up from 4%. You are using every attempt to defend this quote that's so obviously wrong that it's becoming worrying.

Biologically female would mean someone was determined to be a girl at birth.

When calculating roughly what percentage of biologically female students are transgender, we would exclude the male (and trans woman) college students from the figures, as we're not looking at what percentage of students are trans men, but what percentage of students assigned female at birth are trans.

They already do on many campuses, and you were asking how if it was different if a left wing religious elected official wanted to increase spending to feed the poor so I provided an example that was simple and didn't infringe on anyone's rights. You so far have been unable to provide one about the right wing religious individual against Evolution and Abortion.

A right-winger could work for some private organization supporting alternatives to abortion, which would be similar to your left-winger who works for a private charity.

But it's a different story when we're dealing with elected officials. If a few Democratic legislators are inspired by their deeply held religious convictions increase spending on the poor, this may be a good thing, but they would also be taking taxpayer money, so the same questions about religious influence apply. Tradeoffs don't only exist in situations involving Republicans.

If this corrupt factchecker is being false when there is a requirement to show the evidence while fact checking then it will come out sooner than later and thus they are proved wrong, punished for it, and discredited along with all their claims. This is not as abusable as you are going on about. I don't see how a factchecker can force anyone to answer questions as their job is to ensure that what IS said is true - Making them answer questions is a reporter's job. I also don't see how any factchecker can replace republican officeholders.

A corrupt factchecker could be selective. They don't have to make up facts, just to focus on things that primarily help Republicans, by punishing Democrats and serving as an excuse to kick out the likes of Lauren Boebert and Madison Cawthorn.

The quotes you provided include:

-The biased TheWeek article including the quoted misinformation you are tying yourself in knots defending.
-You saying that the increase in trans women compared to trans men (based on the above article) is a widely known feature without evidence
-References to the study which is quoted above and doesn't show what it was said to in TheWeek or by you.

The disagreement with the Week article is largely about whether we should go with the same definition of trans as GLAAD or whether we should go with a more old-fashioned definition of trans from a time when people were not authentically considered trans until they had surgery and/ or hormones.

You're trying to change goalposts (trans men VS individuals who were assigned female at birth who are classified as trans) but even in this case, the increase is a well known feature. There have been no data points to suggest that there were a similar percentage of people identifying as trans men, or individuals who were assigned female at birth who are classified as trans in 1985 (picking a random year) as there are now. There have been no data points to suggest that an increase in trans women, or individuals who were assigned male at birth who are classified as trans, is greater than in increase in trans men/ individuals who were assigned female at birth.

If you're unaware of this statistical change regarding a topic that is discussed in the news and in wider policy circles, that is an indictment of your media sources.

[Catlady in training]

And, I must point out, the *only* reason we're on this subject is because of the claimed 'spike' in trans masculine identity which *doesn't frigging exist* and has been shown not to exist multiple times now, thus disproving the entire thesis of Abigal Shrier's book. Are we now onto 'there are too many transwomen'?

Sadly, I think there are too many people who think 1 would be too many trans women.
Double sad, because trans women usually lead statistics for being murdered.

[Malvolio]

Most of them would have been happy with him winning because they preferred him to Clinton.

If he ran and lost the primary, it wouldn't help on allegations of racism.

They would have been happier with Herman Cain or Ben Carson in the White House because they were more conservative.

Easy to say all of this, since Colin Powell never actually ran. However, if the Republican Party really wanted Herman Cain or Ben Carson to win, wouldn't they have tried a little harder to encourage people to vote for them in the primaries?

[Iron Maiden]

The AP reports:

Evidence mounts of GOP involvement in Trump election schemes



Lock! Them! Up!

Also: Remember how some people said Pelosi made a mistake by not allowing Jim Jordan to sit on the Jan 6 committee?

It's astonishing the more you read about the goings on at the White House leading up to January 6, 2021. I don't see how this isn't an insurrection. The GOP has become a nest of traitors and weasels.

[Dalak]

In Math, if someone says .5% of the 4.2%, they typically mean 0.021%. You're multiplying one percentage of the other. So that's why I wasn't quite sure what you were going for.

I'm going with the GLAAD, Human Rights Campaign, APA definition of trans. This is not an effort to mislead anyone. I can appreciate why there was a misunderstanding.

It is odd that I'm accused of going in knots here when I'm the one going with the accepted definition.

The definition of trans has nothing to do with TheWeek article conflating that the entire 4.2% were born female regardless of there being trans women included in that number, and the vast majority of it not having a gender attached to the answer. Then they inflated it further and claimed an increase of 2 orders of magnitude in the number of females undergoing transitioning when the vast majority of the answers were from those who had not said they were going to undergo the procedure. I hope that is technically correct enough for you to finally understand & admit the quote is a lie.

That's a bit of a gish gallop, in that I would have to respond to at least nine different points in addition to everything else in the post.

It's an unreasonable ask on a hobbyist forum.

And yet you asked one of Tendrin in the post right before this one. I feel it's highly unreasonable and very disrespectful to expect anyone to accept "You're wrong but I'm too busy to say why when you ask" as any sort of decent response when you are willing to use the same tactic you say is unreasonable.

I gave that answer and you kept asking.

It's also mainly going to be politicians most people on this forum have never heard of as I live in Queens, where the Republican party is not very active. I found some links listing preferences in political races which gives people a better sense of my views, as they are more likely to know who Tim Kaine is than who a Republican candidate for city council is.

For most people, remembering who they voted for it pretty sure. In most cases, it's going to be a member of one party with potential exceptions for popular moderates (Joe Manchin, Phil Scott, Phil Bredesen, Larry Hogan, Susan Collins, Joe Hogsett, etc.)

But this seems to be a dead tangent. There isn't much else to say on this question.

I kept asking because you could name a Dem but not one Republican. You finally did and he was one who left the party over Trump as opposed to staying with them and defending that which he didn't agree with. BTW I don't care if I've never heard of them because I'm sure someone on the internet has, and will have put information on a wiki or wrote a story about them at least once and so they could be looked at. If you think the question of what sort of republican you support is dead because of that reasoning then I must say I disagree even if I can't force you to reply to it.

It is entirely possible that an increase is due to self-reporting.

That is a different question from whether there is an increase.

And I didn't say there was no increase, just questioned the size of it considering the source you are quoting and the blatant misinformation involved.

Biologically female would mean someone was determined to be a girl at birth.

When calculating roughly what percentage of biologically female students are transgender, we would exclude the male (and trans woman) college students from the figures, as we're not looking at what percentage of students are trans men, but what percentage of students assigned female at birth are trans.

And when TheWeek and Shrier and others claim that the students are transitioning the definition of Trans doesn't matter. What does matter is as I said above - they are claiming all the students in the 4.2% were undergoing the procedure of transitioning and were born female without evidence.

A right-winger could work for some private organization supporting alternatives to abortion, which would be similar to your left-winger who works for a private charity.

But it's a different story when we're dealing with elected officials. If a few Democratic legislators are inspired by their deeply held religious convictions increase spending on the poor, this may be a good thing, but they would also be taking taxpayer money, so the same questions about religious influence apply. Tradeoffs don't only exist in situations involving Republicans.

A tradeoff in money being moved is not the equal of deliberate action towards infringing on the right of others, as both of us could posit where that money is coming from in order to show it is or isn't harmful but deliberate action is still just as deliberate.

A corrupt factchecker could be selective. They don't have to make up facts, just to focus on things that primarily help Republicans, by punishing Democrats and serving as an excuse to kick out the likes of Lauren Boebert and Madison Cawthorn.

A 'corrupt' republican factchecker working to get the outrageous and dangerous elements of the GoP out of office isn't as bad a thing as you seem to think it is, nor can they punish Democrats if they don't lie or otherwise spread misinformation.

The disagreement with the Week article is largely about whether we should go with the same definition of trans as GLAAD or whether we should go with a more old-fashioned definition of trans from a time when people were not authentically considered trans until they had surgery and/ or hormones.

You're trying to change goalposts (trans men VS individuals who were assigned female at birth who are classified as trans) but even in this case, the increase is a well known feature. There have been no data points to suggest that there were a similar percentage of people identifying as trans men, or individuals who were assigned female at birth who are classified as trans in 1985 (picking a random year) as there are now. There have been no data points to suggest that an increase in trans women, or individuals who were assigned male at birth who are classified as trans, is greater than in increase in trans men/ individuals who were assigned female at birth.

If you're unaware of this statistical change regarding a topic that is discussed in the news and in wider policy circles, that is an indictment of your media sources.

See above, you are entirely wrong in what you believe this disagreement about, about the changing of goalposts, and considering I have carefully explained it several times now and you keep seeming to have the same misunderstandings I'm not sure if it's deliberate. TheWeek lied, Shrier lied, and pundits and politicians are using those lies (and others) to justify to otherwise reasonable people the bigotry and oppressive policies they are enacting against Transgender folks currently. That this is still not understood at this point is odd to the point of being worrisome if it's not deliberate.

Am I using words or phrases that are confusing or something else that's misleading you to this extent?

E: Now if I am wrong about them directly claiming that the students in question are undergoing the procedure to transition, what other purpose is there in bringing up how many are identifying as transgender before going on to describe the process of transitioning and/or the permanence of consequences tied to transitioning if NOT to claim that every one is going to transition?

[WestPhillyPunisher]

It's astonishing the more you read about the goings on at the White House leading up to January 6, 2021. I don't see how this isn't an insurrection. The GOP has become a nest of traitors and weasels.

And all to keep a man in power who’d push those aforementioned traitors and weasels under the nearest Greyhound in a New York minute if he thought they weren’t kissing his ass enough.

[Tami]

She told her Christian college she was raped. Then she was banned from campus.

When Mara Louk told an administrator at Visible Music College, where she was a senior, that a male classmate had choked and raped her last November, she expected that school officials would help her file a police report and arrange a safety plan.

Instead, she said in a federal complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Education on Wednesday, administrators at Visible, a Christian college in Memphis, Tennessee, accused her of breaking school rules against premarital sex with a different student, an ex-boyfriend. She denied having sex with him but said the school threatened to expel her unless she signed a confession and finished the school year remotely.

Visible Music College administrators also told her they would not remove the accused student from her classes because police didn’t arrest him, nor would they conduct a Title IX investigation, because the alleged assault happened off campus. And administrators attempted to bar Louk from telling anyone else at the school that she had been raped, she said.

“I just felt like, why did I even speak up?” Louk, 22, said. “That’s truly how I felt for a long time because everything seemed to keep getting worse.”

Louk’s complaint asks the Department of Education to conduct two investigations of Visible Music College. One would evaluate whether the school violated the Clery Act, a federal campus safety law that requires colleges to advise students who report a sexual offense of their rights and assistance options. The other would examine whether the school discriminated against Louk under the gender equity law Title IX.

[Mister Mets]

The definition of trans has nothing to do with TheWeek article conflating that the entire 4.2% were born female regardless of there being trans women included in that number, and the vast majority of it not having a gender attached to the answer. Then they inflated it further and claimed an increase of 2 orders of magnitude in the number of females undergoing transitioning when the vast majority of the answers were from those who had not said they were going to undergo the procedure. I hope that is technically correct enough for you to finally understand & admit the quote is a lie.



And yet you asked one of Tendrin in the post right before this one. I feel it's highly unreasonable and very disrespectful to expect anyone to accept "You're wrong but I'm too busy to say why when you ask" as any sort of decent response when you are willing to use the same tactic you say is unreasonable.



I kept asking because you could name a Dem but not one Republican. You finally did and he was one who left the party over Trump as opposed to staying with them and defending that which he didn't agree with. BTW I don't care if I've never heard of them because I'm sure someone on the internet has, and will have put information on a wiki or wrote a story about them at least once and so they could be looked at. If you think the question of what sort of republican you support is dead because of that reasoning then I must say I disagree even if I can't force you to reply to it.



And I didn't say there was no increase, just questioned the size of it considering the source you are quoting and the blatant misinformation involved.



And when TheWeek and Shrier and others claim that the students are transitioning the definition of Trans doesn't matter. What does matter is as I said above - they are claiming all the students in the 4.2% were undergoing the procedure of transitioning and were born female without evidence.



A tradeoff in money being moved is not the equal of deliberate action towards infringing on the right of others, as both of us could posit where that money is coming from in order to show it is or isn't harmful but deliberate action is still just as deliberate.



A 'corrupt' republican factchecker working to get the outrageous and dangerous elements of the GoP out of office isn't as bad a thing as you seem to think it is, nor can they punish Democrats if they don't lie or otherwise spread misinformation.



See above, you are entirely wrong in what you believe this disagreement about, about the changing of goalposts, and considering I have carefully explained it several times now and you keep seeming to have the same misunderstandings I'm not sure if it's deliberate. TheWeek lied, Shrier lied, and pundits and politicians are using those lies (and others) to justify to otherwise reasonable people the bigotry and oppressive policies they are enacting against Transgender folks currently. That this is still not understood at this point is odd to the point of being worrisome if it's not deliberate.

Am I using words or phrases that are confusing or something else that's misleading you to this extent?

E: Now if I am wrong about them directly claiming that the students in question are undergoing the procedure to transition, what other purpose is there in bringing up how many are identifying as transgender before going on to describe the process of transitioning and/or the permanence of consequences tied to transitioning if NOT to claim that every one is going to transition?

As a general rule, I think we shouldn't expect anyone to spend more than ten minutes on a post on politics in a hobbyist forum.

Sometimes we may accidentally have exceptions. I might ask about sources on something obscure that's remembered from years ago, and it may take a while to find a link to an article about an earlier controversy.

If someone makes a claim that is bs and is called out on it, the ten minute rule is out the window, as it takes much longer to argue for lies. But generally ten minutes makes sense.

In the mainstream media, gender is not limited to men and women, but also includes nonbinary people, genderqueer people and others.

It's reasonable to ask a question or two. Asking for comments on nine points is a stretch. I asked Tendrin for his views on when something becomes a spike. That's something that he should be able to answer quickly, and it doesn't require any research or reading earlier posts.

If you want specific names of Republicans I voted for, George W Bush in 2004, John McCain in 2008 (primary as well), John Kasich in the 2012 Republican primary, the Republican candidate for, Mike Bloomberg when he was on the ballot (I was too young in 2001), the candidate for comptroller in 2006, councilman Bob Holden (he lost a Democratic primary, got the Republican nomination, won the general election, rejoined the Democrats, runs for both parties), congressman Bob Turner after the Weiner mess and in a subsequent Senate primary.

I haven't said anything about the 4.2% undergoing procedures for transitioning.

The corrupt Republican factchecker would also go after Democrats. There are ways to sneaky about it like getting them to comment on the record on contentious issues.

I still don't see how The Week lied.

My nine minute timer just ran out so that leaves me a minute to proofread. I'll answer up to three specific non-loaded questions if there's something that's unresolved.

[Mister Mets]

Easy to say all of this, since Colin Powell never actually ran. However, if the Republican Party really wanted Herman Cain or Ben Carson to win, wouldn't they have tried a little harder to encourage people to vote for them in the primaries?

Herman Cain was leading in the polls until his mistress started giving media interviews.

Establishment Republicans wouldn't necessarily want to support either of them, given their lack of typical qualifications.

Granted, they didn't care for Trump either, and he still won.

My comments were in a general election context. Most Republicans would prefer Herman Cain to Barack Obama or to Hillary Clinton or to Joe Biden. Likewise they would prefer Ben Carson in the White House to any Democratic Senator or Governor.

[Dalak]

If we really wanted to compare how informed Democrats are compared to Republicans, we could ask about things that progressives are more inclined to believe. For example...

How much student loan debt is held by the median 30 year old American? (The answer is zero)
Was the material on Hunter Biden's laptop fabricated? (Nope)
What percentage of homicides are committed with so-called assault rifles? (Roughly four percent which has implications for the effectiveness of an Assault rifle ban)
Does the median blue state resident pay more in taxes due to the removal of the SALT deduction? (Nope)
Are young African American men more likely to shot to death by police than to die in traffic accidents? (Nope)

Then we could compare the results to false things that conservatives are inclined to believe.

However as one party is supporting the facist takeover of elections based on lies of fraud being used to subvert Democracy, supports philanderers regardless of the circumstances, has supported members who took pictures to engage in sexual blackmail, accuses others of grooming while covering up and supporting those of their own who are guilty of it, claim to protect children in order to wallow in their anti-trans bigotry after having no problem with Trump keeping children in filth covered cages which resulted in several deaths, and engage in more hypocritical stances involving illegal and immoral acts than I can hope to post here, the Dems ARE far more impressive when it comes to moral stances. Yet you act as if the Dems are barely any better, likening them to doing the same crimes at simply a lesser rate.

That is telling.

As a general rule, I think we shouldn't expect anyone to spend more than ten minutes on a post on politics in a hobbyist forum.

Sometimes we may accidentally have exceptions. I might ask about sources on something obscure that's remembered from years ago, and it may take a while to find a link to an article about an earlier controversy.

If someone makes a claim that is bs and is called out on it, the ten minute rule is out the window, as it takes much longer to argue for lies. But generally ten minutes makes sense.

In the mainstream media, gender is not limited to men and women, but also includes nonbinary people, genderqueer people and others.

It's reasonable to ask a question or two. Asking for comments on nine points is a stretch. I asked Tendrin for his views on when something becomes a spike. That's something that he should be able to answer quickly, and it doesn't require any research or reading earlier posts.

If you want specific names of Republicans I voted for, George W Bush in 2004, John McCain in 2008 (primary as well), John Kasich in the 2012 Republican primary, the Republican candidate for, Mike Bloomberg when he was on the ballot (I was too young in 2001), the candidate for comptroller in 2006, councilman Bob Holden (he lost a Democratic primary, got the Republican nomination, won the general election, rejoined the Democrats, runs for both parties), congressman Bob Turner after the Weiner mess and in a subsequent Senate primary.

I haven't said anything about the 4.2% undergoing procedures for transitioning.

The corrupt Republican factchecker would also go after Democrats. There are ways to sneaky about it like getting them to comment on the record on contentious issues.

I still don't see how The Week lied.

My nine minute timer just ran out so that leaves me a minute to proofread. I'll answer up to three specific non-loaded questions if there's something that's unresolved.

As the above quote shows, you were doing pretty much the exact thing I did, and in that I count 6. In yours is 5. Now you are putting an arbitrary limit on time and number of questions, once again quite disrespectful to put such limits up for the first time in the middle of this debate/conversation/argument/whatever.

As it was TheWeek making out all 4.2% to be transitioning, the only thing you had to do with it is quoting them.

3 Trans woman 0.2
4 Trans man 0.3
5 Genderqueer 0.5
6 My identity is not listed 0.5
7 Agender 0.3
8 Genderfluid 0.5
9 Non-binary 1.9
10 Intersex 0.0

How many of those answers have a gender attached to them? I count 2. TheWeek, Shrier, and everyone who believes that quote must characterize them all as born female and transitioning, including the Trans Women at the top (Born Male). There is no evidence that 5 of those categories would even be interested in transitioning.

1 + 1 = Lie.

Now if you want to wait until you have more time to reply you can do that, like I sometimes take days to get around to replying when I have the time to do it, but don't ration out 10 minutes to give another half-assed reply that disrepects me further if you genuinely care about that sort of thing.

[Mister Mets]

As the above quote shows, you were doing pretty much the exact thing I did, and in that I count 6. In yours is 5. Now you are putting an arbitrary limit on time and number of questions, once again quite disrespectful to put such limits up for the first time in the middle of this debate/conversation/argument/whatever.

As it was TheWeek making out all 4.2% to be transitioning, the only thing you had to do with it is quoting them.

3 Trans woman 0.2
4 Trans man 0.3
5 Genderqueer 0.5
6 My identity is not listed 0.5
7 Agender 0.3
8 Genderfluid 0.5
9 Non-binary 1.9
10 Intersex 0.0

How many of those answers have a gender attached to them? I count 2. TheWeek, Shrier, and everyone who believes that quote must characterize them all as born female and transitioning, including the Trans Women at the top (Born Male). There is no evidence that 5 of those categories would even be interested in transitioning.

1 + 1 = Lie.

Now if you want to wait until you have more time to reply you can do that, like I sometimes take days to get around to replying when I have the time to do it, but don't ration out 10 minutes to give another half-assed reply that disrepects me further if you genuinely care about that sort of thing.

I appreciate that, but it can be annoying to find time to respond to a fellow hobbyist.

I still maintain that's unreasonable to hint at an expectation that someone else give you free labor for more than ten minutes. I think I've benefitted from your responses, and it gets me to think about some stuff and develop my own understanding, but it can be frustrating if there are multiple points on minutiae to respond to. This is why prioritizing can be important.

The post you quoted is one of examples of questions that would be uncomfortable for Democrats. I know the answers and included these.

As for the Week entry, the figures were about individuals raised as girls who identified as transgender, not who said they were transitioning.

In surveys by the American College Health Association, the number of students brought up as girls identifying as transgender soared from 1 in 2,000 in 2008 to 1 in 20.

I'm not trying to police who counts as trans, or what they need to do to prove it.

I am unaware of Abigail Shrier saying that every biological female who is considered trans is a trans man, or making an effort to obtain medical interventions.

The AP reports:

Evidence mounts of GOP involvement in Trump election schemes



Lock! Them! Up!

Also: Remember how some people said Pelosi made a mistake by not allowing Jim Jordan to sit on the Jan 6 committee?

There is a distinction between legal maneuvers and riots.

Politicians and aspiring politicians sometimes make bad legal arguments.

The New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff knew he was technically ineligible to run for Governor of Oregon as he did not meet the residency requirements and still made an effort at it.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/arti...-governor.html

A judge ruled that likely Democratic Senate candidate Abby Finkenauer in Iowa did not meet the signature requirements to get on the ballot. She successfully appealed to the state supreme court, who argued that while rejected signatures were not dated, that is not explicitly required by statue.

https://apnews.com/article/2022-midt...ae06ec7f1c09b5

These can be tough questions.

[Malvolio]

Herman Cain was leading in the polls until his mistress started giving media interviews.

Establishment Republicans wouldn't necessarily want to support either of them, given their lack of typical qualifications.

Granted, they didn't care for Trump either, and he still won.

My comments were in a general election context. Most Republicans would prefer Herman Cain to Barack Obama or to Hillary Clinton or to Joe Biden. Likewise they would prefer Ben Carson in the White House to any Democratic Senator or Governor.

I don't think so. I think Cain and Carson were just window dressing to deflect from any charges of racism, and the same would have gone for Colin Powell. I think there are many Republicans, not necessarily a majority, but at least a significant number, who would not want any Black person as President, even if the only other choice was a Democrat.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

I don't think so. I think Cain and Carson were just window dressing to deflect from any charges of racism, and the same would have gone for Colin Powell. I think there are many Republicans, not necessarily a majority, but at least a significant number, who would not want any Black person as President, even if the only other choice was a Democrat.

If you put a gun to the heads of most Republicans, they’d rather vote for Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden before they would ANY black person.