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

[Tami]

Nice to see them getting defeated by technology. Still, stealing farming equipment is heinous, it seems to be a part of a plan to starve Ukraine. Again, as russia has been responsible for a huge famine there in the 1930's.

Much of the equipment was taken from John Deere Store lots, so I doubt it will affect farming in Ukraine any longer than it takes John Deere to ship new equipment there (once it makes sense to do so).

[Handsome men don't lose fights]

So. Disney isn't giving up self-governing in Florida unless DeSantis coughs up over a billion dollars to cover the debt they're currently managing. They're basically going to ignore any proclamation he makes and he can't do a thing about it.

What a big nothing burger.

[Mister Mets]

I'll try one last time to make this clear, just out of amusement to see how you twist it to mean something else.

The number that TheWeek quoted included Trans Women (born Male) in the 4.2% which they rounded up to claim that 1 in 20 girls identifying as transgender. Thus they lied.
The number also included many others who's birth gender wasn't revealed. Thus they lied.



Not really, but thanks for trying.



I've made the argument above many times to have it ignored/twisted to have him deny that TheWeek lied. That everything else based on that from Shrier's book to anti-trans policy is based on lies is an extension of that lie and spun to make it worse.

Did you not understand any of that from my posts?

I've addressed the point on birth gender several times. I've noted that the polling data includes trans men and trans women.

The 2018 University of Minnesota study is not the study the American College Health Association mentioned in the Week piece from October 2021.

I found it pretty easily by googling "American College Health Association" "trans" "survey"

https://www.acha.org/documents/ncha/...ATA_REPORT.pdf

Their comments on the matter.

4.2% of respondents identified as trans man, trans woman, genderqueer, genderfluid or nonbinary. Incidentally, two out of 32,000 respondents identified as intersex.

I noted that the data may be a little bit different based on assigned sex at birth, and that a 4.2% rate among students may end up being slightly higher among individuals raised as girls.

But the studies don't show that the 1 in 20 figure was a gross exaggeration. The percentage of students who are trans men, trans women, genderqueer, non-binary, agender, genderfluid or who do not have a listed identity is 4.2%. It's not a gross exaggeration to put that at 1 in 20 (5%) females, especially as the numbers are a bit different between the two sexes.

There are more trans men than trans women at the college, although there are also more women than men. However, there is a big increase in the level trans men compared to any increase in trans women, as trans women used to outnumber trans men by quite a lot.

I made this distinction again.

The definition of trans as I understand it is that someone's gender identity does not correspond to their sex at birth.

If someone in college identifies as agender, that is probably not the gender on their birth certificate.

I do want to note again that this is the definition of trans used by the Human Rights Campaign, as well as Planned Parenthood, the American Psychological Association and GLAAD.

The difference between 1 in 20 and 1 in 25 isn't really what anyone's arguing about when it comes to policy implications and exaggerations, especially as 1 in 25 in a general college population may end up being 1 in 20 among a non-random selection of college students (IE- those determined to be female at birth.)

And again...

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

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

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.

It seems you were suggesting that it's possible that a significant majority of individuals identifying as nonbinary, agender, etc were biological males/ raised as boys, and that this would skew the statistics. That is a fair question. I looked up the data, and there's no indication of this.

According to a survey of transgender youth from June 2017-June 2018 in the National Library of Medicine, two-thirds of those who identified as nonbinary were assigned female at birth. Incidentally, the percentage was higher for individuals who identified as having a binary gender (IE- male, female, trans male/ trans man/ trans masculine or trans female/ trans woman/ trans feminine.)

A few other studies have similar results. Previously, I had been agnostic about whether Trans AFAB (Assigned Female at Birth) individuals outnumbered Trans AMAB (Assigned Male at Birth) individuals, but looking at results among younger Americans, it seems there are more people under 30 grouped as Trans AFAB.

It's entirely possible that there are some nuances that mainstream reporters will miss, but it's definitely a stretch to accuse them of lying, or me for lying for quoting an article from The Week.

[Catlady in training]

I've lost track of the original argument regarding trans youth, since you seem to be going in circles. What was the point of those numbers?
Even if there were 10% of kids identifying as transgender or nonbinary these days, SO WHAT? Why do conservatives keep forcing themselves into issues that are none of their concern, like sexuality or identity of other people, women's uteruses, etc.

(Rhetorical question of course, I know they want to control everyone they consider beneath them, so everyone who is not cis, straigth, white, christian men.)

[ClassicalComics]

I was only talking about Presidential elections. The Republican Party doesn't mind one or two Black senators or congressmen in their caucus as long as they don't come even close to a majority.

Where do you even get this idea? I know the following case doesn't involve who's president, but I think if you'd ask any amount of random Republicans to name the best currently-serving SCOTUS judge, nearly all of them would say Thomas.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Politico is reporting that Roe v. Wade was overturned by the SCOTUS.

[Mister Mets]

Politico is reporting that Roe v. Wade was overturned by the SCOTUS.

At the moment they have an initial draft majority opinion.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...inion-00029473

The publication would be in two months.

This type of leak is quite unusual.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

At the moment they have an initial draft majority opinion.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...inion-00029473

The publication would be in two months.

This type of leak is quite unusual.

Unusual but I sincerely doubt it's fake. Politico would be risking way too much to publish this. I wouldn't be surprised if the Court leaked it themselves to get a reaction so they could use their opinion to respond to criticism that comes out in the next couple months.

The cynic in me however thinks this is possibly the biggest gift you could have given to Democrats for the midterms. There were few issues that could have mobilized them like this.

[Mister Mets]

Unusual but I sincerely doubt it's fake. Politico would be risking way too much to publish this. I wouldn't be surprised if the Court leaked it themselves to get a reaction so they could use their opinion to respond to criticism that comes out in the next couple months.

The cynic in me however thinks this is possibly the biggest gift you could have given to Democrats for the midterms. There were few issues that could have mobilized them like this.

I certainly don't think it's fake.

I'm interested in the rationale. Is it some effort to try to persuade the conservative justices to go for a more limited opinion? Is it Roberts trying to gauge the reaction before picking a side? Is it a conservative trying to get the public used to the idea?

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

I certainly don't think it's fake.

I'm interested in the rationale. Is it some effort to try to persuade the conservative justices to go for a more limited opinion? Is it Roberts trying to gauge the reaction before picking a side? Is it a conservative trying to get the public used to the idea?

It could be a number of things. Conservatives trying to see the reaction so they could respond in the opinion appropriately, the liberal side being pissed off and wanting it out there before the conservatives could do damage control, etc. It's consequential enough that there are many motives. Hell it could just be an overzealous clerk who couldn't resist some media bribe.

[Kevinroc]

Definitely feels like someone was upset, maybe a clerk, and leaked it well ahead of time to let the public know what was going to happen.

[Dalak]

It's entirely possible that there are some nuances that mainstream reporters will miss, but it's definitely a stretch to accuse them of lying, or me for lying for quoting an article from The Week.

You are doing everything you can to make up for them cooking the numbers and avoid admitting they lied. Quoting yourself saying it COULD be 1 in 20 just for females for example which isn't what TheWeek clearly stated. This is a textbook example of gaslighting at this point: Claiming that you've answered my issue multiple times when you didn't even realize what it was until now according to what you were saying, which is that they lied. You still haven't as saying they weren't as wrong as they could have been because of BLANK isn't excusing the fact that they cooked the numbers and lied, so thank you for playing!

I've lost track of the original argument regarding trans youth, since you seem to be going in circles. What was the point of those numbers?
Even if there were 10% of kids identifying as transgender or nonbinary these days, SO WHAT? Why do conservatives keep forcing themselves into issues that are none of their concern, like sexuality or identity of other people, women's uteruses, etc.

(Rhetorical question of course, I know they want to control everyone they consider beneath them, so everyone who is not cis, straigth, white, christian men.)

This all started with the issues surrounding Abigail Shrier's book which was shown to be based on misinformation when looked at, with this TheWeek article brought up to prove the spike in trans men which was it's bullshit premise and proved to be another lie. The reason for all the focus was that this sort of shit is what's being used to excuse the bigotry on display to otherwise reasonable people who don't think they have any anti-trans prejudices. I've tried to make that clear throughout, but now I see I was just getting strung along by someone for whatever reason they chose to do it and no one at all was really reading what I wrote.

[ed2962]

So. Disney isn't giving up self-governing in Florida unless DeSantis coughs up over a billion dollars to cover the debt they're currently managing. They're basically going to ignore any proclamation he makes and he can't do a thing about it.

What a big nothing burger.

DeSantis got what he actually wanted which was publicity.

[AnakinFlair]

DeSantis got what he actually wanted which was publicity.

That will prove to be a double-edged sword, especially when his opponents start airing ads showing how DeSantis's bill will raise taxes in the state. Ads that will most likely be funded by Disney.

As for the Supreme Court- if they go through with this (and they will), they will have given the Democrats a POWERFUL weapon for the midterms. "Do you really want the Republicans telling you what you can and cannot do with your body? Do you want to go to prison for getting an abortion for a pregnancy caused by rape or incest? Do you want to die because of a high-risk pregnancy that you were advised to terminate, but couldn't?"

If the Democrats pull out a miracle and make gains in the House and Senate in the midterms, I have to wonder if they Biden will take the chance to increase the seats in the Supreme Court. I'd also bet that there would be some legislation made to legalize abortions through federal law.

[CSTowle]

Where do you even get this idea? I know the following case doesn't involve who's president, but I think if you'd ask any amount of random Republicans to name the best currently-serving SCOTUS judge, nearly all of them would say Thomas.

Where people get this idea is from a rich history of dog-whistling and outright racism on the right, including Nixon's "Southern Strategy" to anger white voters that black folk were either coming for their jobs or not bothering to have jobs at all and living on the government dole off the sweat of their hard labor (the "welfare queens" of the Reagan era). Minority voters, and especially black voters, tend to skew Democratic and so Republican lawmakers make laws to disenfranchise them by closing polling places in their areas, enacting ID laws, and others.

Are there a handful of black conservatives that they jump to showcase as a living shield against criticism of the known and established things I spoke about in my first paragraph? Absolutely. Thomas is definitely one of those. He's also been a Justice a lot longer than most of the conservative wing of the Supreme Court. Understandable if he was the name known, maybe the only name known, to most Republican voters.