AlBUNDY4TDS Posted September 22 Posted September 22 1 minute ago, ComradeKayAdams said: So let me get this straight: you’re apparently too lazy and incurious to do a basic keyword search in a prominent science journal, but I should somehow believe that you’ll take the time to carefully peruse the highly cited peer-reviewed research papers that I would have taken the time to arrange for you?? This was always a “gotcha!” situation, really, because anyone genuinely open-minded about this subject would have already done the individual inquiries to arrive at the same scientific determination that other learned people have already done. I’ll reiterate and (drastically) simplify the science with new words: gender identity is a neurobiological construct. Transgender people are those whose brain scans show female-looking brains inside male bodies, and vice versa. Understanding what causes this incongruency (prenatal development, genetics, etc.) is an active area of research. The main scientific takeaway here is that “T” is no more a mental illness than are “LGB.” I've taken countless biology classes and only learned about 2 genders. Should I demand my money back? 1
yall Posted September 22 Posted September 22 8 minutes ago, ComradeKayAdams said: So let me get this straight: you’re apparently too lazy and incurious to do a basic keyword search in a prominent science journal, but I should somehow believe that you’ll take the time to carefully peruse the highly cited peer-reviewed research papers that I would have taken the time to arrange for you?? This was always a “gotcha!” situation, really, because anyone genuinely open-minded about this subject would have already done the individual inquiries to arrive at the same scientific determination that other learned people have already done. I’ll reiterate and (drastically) simplify the science with new words: gender identity is a neurobiological construct. Transgender people are those whose brain scans show female-looking brains inside male bodies, and vice versa. Understanding what causes this incongruency (prenatal development, genetics, etc.) is an active area of research. The main scientific takeaway here is that “T” is no more a mental illness than are “LGB.” I'll take that as another "no" then. I think your reluctance to post something specific, is that I'll be able to easily find something that refutes it or at least provides a contrary, peer reviewed opinion, thus demonstrating that it's far from being settled in the scientific sense as you seem to somewhat acknowledge. Maybe more importantly, I don't so much care why someone may have gender dysphoria, because I would treat them like anyone else. I'm happy to use people's preferred pronouns and treat them equally. It doesn't mean I have to pretend a biological male can get pregnant, or want one competing against women in the Olympics, but beyond that they are free to live their lives as they choose and should be able to do so without harassment. 1
Royale with Cheese Posted September 22 Posted September 22 21 minutes ago, ComradeKayAdams said: So let me get this straight: you’re apparently too lazy and incurious to do a basic keyword search in a prominent science journal, but I should somehow believe that you’ll take the time to carefully peruse the highly cited peer-reviewed research papers that I would have taken the time to arrange for you?? This was always a “gotcha!” situation, really, because anyone genuinely open-minded about this subject would have already done the individual inquiries to arrive at the same scientific determination that other learned people have already done. I’ll reiterate and (drastically) simplify the science with new words: gender identity is a neurobiological construct. Transgender people are those whose brain scans show female-looking brains inside male bodies, and vice versa. Understanding what causes this incongruency (prenatal development, genetics, etc.) is an active area of research. The main scientific takeaway here is that “T” is no more a mental illness than are “LGB.” Are you really saying this is conclusive, 100% of scientists and doctors would agree with your opinion? This is a UNIVERSAL truth and any doctor or scientist that believes there are only 2 genders is incorrect? Is this what you are saying?
Neo Posted September 22 Posted September 22 On 9/17/2025 at 12:02 AM, Big Blitz said: Interesting to me. For years, I had business with several of its leaders and was on campus from time to time. It’s as progressive as college campus as I have experienced. Now, it’s also traditionally liberal, as that word had meaning before it was used to describe an ironically un-liberal political philosophy. I’d like to think that what we’re seeing, here, is what we’re so very sadly not seeing in many other places. That is, amongst a group of people most would find themselves sitting on the opposite side of the table from, Kirk’s views are respected. On a cautionary note. The Florida replaced much of New College’s Board of Trustees two years ago. Progressives were out, and conservatives were in. The climate may be different and, in this case, the statue’s reception will be interesting to watch. The students can certainly debate. Fun Fact … New College isn’t very well known, even in Florida. Some twenty years, or so, ago, the New York TImes was investigating undergraduate college programs that disproportionately placed students in the country’s most prestigious graduate schools. This “New College” in Florida showed up as the school with the highest, per capita, placement in the country. The Times had no idea who New College’s was and picked up the phone, called the school, and asked “who are you?”. It is an awesome school. Fun Fact number 2 … when I was working with the college, Donal O’Shea was President. Learning I was from Buffalo, O’Shea talked to me about his youth. He was a Calasanctius Preparatory School graduate. Old timers will remember that school as a place for the gifted and a champion of the liberal arts. 1 1
BillsFanNC Posted September 22 Posted September 22 Anyone who attempts to scoff at or minimize what this man accomplished is a total laughingstock. Also, X doesn't allow embedding of this tweet? Really....REALLY? Much work still to be done there Elon. https://x.com/TPUSA/status/1969992243596730784?t=S2bEOMfF-WHp3B1z-PWvZw&s=19
The Frankish Reich Posted September 22 Posted September 22 1 hour ago, Neo said: Interesting to me. For years, I had business with several of its leaders and was on campus from time to time. It’s as progressive as college campus as I have experienced. Now, it’s also traditionally liberal, as that word had meaning before it was used to describe an ironically un-liberal political philosophy. I’d like to think that what we’re seeing, here, is what we’re so very sadly not seeing in many other places. That is, amongst a group of people most would find themselves sitting on the opposite side of the table from, Kirk’s views are respected. On a cautionary note. The Florida replaced much of New College’s Board of Trustees two years ago. Progressives were out, and conservatives were in. The climate may be different and, in this case, the statue’s reception will be interesting to watch. The students can certainly debate. Fun Fact … New College isn’t very well known, even in Florida. Some twenty years, or so, ago, the New York TImes was investigating undergraduate college programs that disproportionately placed students in the country’s most prestigious graduate schools. This “New College” in Florida showed up as the school with the highest, per capita, placement in the country. The Times had no idea who New College’s was and picked up the phone, called the school, and asked “who are you?”. It is an awesome school. Fun Fact number 2 … when I was working with the college, Donal O’Shea was President. Learning I was from Buffalo, O’Shea talked to me about his youth. He was a Calasanctius Preparatory School graduate. Old timers will remember that school as a place for the gifted and a champion of the liberal arts. Thanks for the comment. I was aware of New College if only because I found it intriguing way back when, when I was actually starting to apply to college. There's plenty of room for it to tack away from 20th Century "progressive" ideas to traditional Liberal (of the Great Books kind) of education. I'm hoping they are able to pull that off instead of becoming some kind of conservative parody of a liberal education. 1
B-Man Posted September 22 Posted September 22 BYRON YORK: Conflict in aftermath of Kirk killing. There are two epic battles going on in the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk. One is the battle to define Kirk. The other is the battle to define his killer. There are significant voices trying to portray Kirk as a hateful, divisive figure. At the same time, there are voices trying to portray Kirk’s alleged assassin, Tyler Robinson, as a confused, apolitical young man. In simplest terms, the point for both is to absolve Kirk’s political adversaries — Democrats, the Left, progressives, antifa, trans warriors, furries, whatever — of complicity in Kirk’s death. If Kirk was divisive and hateful, then he might have, in some portion, brought his terrible fate on himself. And if the suspect was indeed confused and apolitical, then he was not acting in any directed way on behalf of an ideology that might then bear some blame for the assassination. It’s instant absolution for the Left: We didn’t do it, and even if we did, he kinda deserved it. Weird how the people claiming that Kirk’s assassin wasn’t one of their own are the same people celebrating his murder. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/daily-memo/3818510/conflict-aftermath-killing-charlie-kirk-suspect-tyler-robinson/ Anyway, read the whole thing. 1
JFKjr Posted September 22 Posted September 22 8 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said: Are you really saying this is conclusive, 100% of scientists and doctors would agree with your opinion? This is a UNIVERSAL truth and any doctor or scientist that believes there are only 2 genders is incorrect? Is this what you are saying? Are they offering more options than two in the gender 'reassignment' surgeries?
Orlando Buffalo Posted September 22 Posted September 22 20 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said: Just do an online keyword search in Nature, Science, Psychological Review, Cognitive Science, etc…and reverse order your results by citation number. The neural activity of subjects experiencing gender dysphoria show that what they experience is real and innate. Moreover, there is no medication nor brain surgery that can rewire one’s brain so that their experienced gender becomes congruent with the rest of their body. Thus, it is not an “illness” that needs to be “cured” any more than LGB sexual orientation is an illness to be cured. The classification of gender dysphoria as a mental illness remains controversial because having to navigate our society as a member of the transgender community, to no one’s surprise, does greatly increase the risk for depression, anxiety, etc… My question is this: why do so many scientifically illiterate MAGA dullards care so much about people’s gender identity?? Mind your own business and stop being so weird! I have several transgender people in my network of friends. It is never an issue worth discussing. They are perfectly normal human beings in every way that matters. They are certainly no more liable to carry out mass shootings or political assassinations than any other demographic. Now if you want to talk about transgender participation in women’s sports or gender transitioning for minors, those are perfectly legitimate arguments to have…but these arguments shouldn’t be laden with LGBT bigotry. Rape is a physically and psychologically traumatic act of violence; forcing a woman or a child to carry a rapist’s fetus to term is a nine-month extension of that initial act of violence. For the sake of argument, I will concede your rather extreme** “life begins at conception” position. Our society does legally allow for murder in instances of self-defense from violence. Therefore, aborting a fetus due to rape can easily be argued as a legally justifiable act of self-defense, with the fetus the unfortunate transmitted agent of said violence. Let’s also stop pretending like the pro-life position is about the sanctity of all life… It’s about controlling female sexual autonomy and treating female fecundity as a man’s property asset. Regarding your “motherhood versus career” argument: why don’t YOU stay at home then while your wife works full-time?? ** - 80-90% of regularly polled Americans are in opposition to pro-life absolutism in instances of rape and i n c e s t. you are either a liar or mentally deficient if you think I or 90% of the pro life movement care in the least about your sexuality. I think you say something so obviously stupid because you know from a moral stand point that murdering your own children for convenience is horrendous. I know you aren't on here much but your comments are pathetically ignorant of me, which I am open about, I used to have the high paying job but I took a job teaching to be there for my wife and kids on a daily basis. Lastly as for abortion laws, I disagree with him but your calling it "psychotic" is much more telling. Let me ask you, what are your abortion limitations ideally?
Neo Posted September 23 Posted September 23 On 9/20/2025 at 8:04 PM, ComradeKayAdams said: Charlie Kirk thought women (AND girls) should be legally forced to carry a fetus to birth in cases of rape and i n c e s t. That is f*cking psychotic, dude… His opinion on the “motherhood versus career” debate is completely worthless. It is up to an individual woman and no one else to decide what’s best for her own life. My own mom, like so many other moms in America, successfully managed both: raising 3 children as a full-time civil engineer, with sufficient help from an awesome dad! I intend to do the same someday. Charlie Kirk types should be free to voice their regressive opinions without threats of violence, obviously, but the inherent fallacy in this particular opinion is thinking one knows what’s best for ALL women. When outrage replaces argument … Life’s funny, sometimes. I’m in Santorini celebrating forty years with Mrs. Neo. Three days ago I was in Athens and visited the Lyceum and the Ancient Agora Marketplace. Inspired by Aristotle and Plato, and by Kirk, I seek the clash of ideas and offer the following. You wrote that Charlie Kirk “thought women (AND girls) should be legally forced to carry a fetus to birth in cases of rape and *****.” and called this view “psychotic.”. You went on to dismiss Kirk’s commentary on motherhood and career as “completely worthless.” The post wrapped up with a personal anecdote about a mother who successfully combined engineering work with raising three children. The post was emotionally powerful, but as an argument it fails. It misstates Kirk’s position, assumes away the core moral dispute, and trades careful reasoning for insult. In Aristotle’s terms, it relies almost entirely on pathos—emotional appeal—while neglecting logos (reasoning)and ethos (credibility). First, accuracy. Charlie Kirk did support laws banning abortion, even in cases of rape and *****. That is a position many Americans oppose, but it’s not the same as “wanting to force” women. Laws against abortion prohibit a procedure; they do not create squads to conscript women into pregnancy. Kirk’s stated rationale was protecting unborn life, not punishing or controlling women. He frequently spoke of fostering a culture of family, faith, and mutual support in which abortion would be unthinkable. You can reject his vision, but at least represent it honestly. You miss the forrest for the trees and avoid the crucial clash of ideas. Second, the post assumes what it needs to prove. It declares “it is up to an individual woman and no one else to decide,” which is a coherent moral principle—but only if you deny the fetus has rights of its own. Kirk’s view, shared by many pro-lifers, is that abortion ends a human life. Unless that premise is confronted head-on, simply invoking autonomy is circular. Third, the anecdote about a working mother, while inspiring, is irrelevant to the abortion question. A single personal story cannot settle broad sociological or moral debates. Nor does disagreement on abortion automatically disqualify someone from offering insights about work–family balance. That’s a non sequitur. Finally, calling a moral opponent “psychotic” is not argument. It may satisfy the already-convinced, but it alienates anyone on the fence and undermines the your credibility. If the goal is persuasion, not catharsis, the better path is to acknowledge Kirk’s sincerity and then show—using evidence and empathy—why his position produces unjust outcomes. America’s deepest disagreements can’t be resolved by caricature. We should want debates in which competing visions of life, liberty, and responsibility are tested against one another’s strongest arguments, not their weakest stereotypes. When outrage replaces argument, nobody learns, and nobody moves. Aristotle taught that persuasion requires credibility, logic, and measured emotion. That remains true, even—or especially—on questions as morally charged as abortion. I promised Plato. Plato wouldn’t dismiss you, he was always careful to distinguish between the interlocutor and the argument—but he would classify the argumentative style as sophistic: persuasive but not concerned with the underlying reality. In his view, such rhetoric corrupts the civic dialogue because it prizes winning over wisdom. Tomorrow, wine country and the blue domes of Oia. 1 2
JDHillFan Posted September 23 Posted September 23 The left needs to keep talking. As much as humanly possible. 1
Recommended Posts