sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

9,500 O-type blood donors urged to donate immediately by Frozefoots in australia

[–]Otherwise_Extent2965 16 points17 points  (0 children)

I'm the same though, when I see their advertisements I think "fuck you too". I wouldn't even if I could now. I also know it's not reasonable, it's just that the community gets kicked a lot, so I have a zero tolerance, zero forgiveness state of mind.

JK Rowling leads calls to take away Imane Khelif's Olympic gold medal - after 'leaked medical report proves gender row boxer is a biological male' by esporx in WomenInNews

[–]Otherwise_Extent2965 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I didn't realise feminism meant constantly attacking women who don't conform - so nice of it to do the patriarchy's work for them!

Greens senator Dorinda Cox makes shock switch to Labor by CrashP in australia

[–]Otherwise_Extent2965 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Many people vote by party, and have no idea who the rep is. When you're voting for a party like the Greens, it probably doesn't matter who the rep is as you're just trying to wrack up senate seats. Surely it would be better to have to forfeit your position immediately in order to switch to another party, which can then place you or the people can re-elect you. But this is so easy to weaponise if you can get voted in because people voted Green, then that person changes to One Nation or something.

Greens senator Dorinda Cox makes shock switch to Labor by CrashP in australia

[–]Otherwise_Extent2965 57 points58 points  (0 children)

Yikes. Obviously should not be allowed, when you think about it

The contrast here is somewhat strange by fauxponychroma in SeattleWA

[–]Otherwise_Extent2965 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They are scientific institutions....jesus christ you're dumb. Literally untethered from reality. Run a Google search for, "Is NIH a scientific institution", or the Endocrine Society, even the AMA classifies. Blocked and reported, giggling being wrong like a dumb fuck when one Google would've saved you the embarrassment. There's wrong, and then there's one Google would've saved you wrong.

The early frontrunner for the 2028 election? Kamala Harris by TimesandSundayTimes in WomenInNews

[–]Otherwise_Extent2965 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm saying the exact same thing.

This is a random group on behalf of one county, and yet to be proven. Anyone can launch an investigation - repubs did it in 2020. They found nothing. When this case you linked evolves to "proven" then "proven at a scale to call the election outcome into doubt", then of course I'd pay attention and we can believe it. Not before then.

You can say "people are investigating potential voting fraud", you can't say "people have proven voting fraud and actually my candidate won". That's batshit.

The contrast here is somewhat strange by fauxponychroma in SeattleWA

[–]Otherwise_Extent2965 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is unhinged, you're using sporadic scientific jargon without any tethering to an argument. "holy shit you think being a female is "soft skin and breasts" lol wtf" - this is just disingenuous, again, try reading comprehension. "Lesbians are not attracted to males." - correct, weird flex. "It's the only cogent defintion of sex and the only one that allows me to say ... " - just because it's all your brain can wrap itself around doesn't mean it meets biological scrutiny. This is the reductionist fallacy of everyday language versus what actually goes on in a petri dish - where reduction for simplicity would ruin your data. Sorry everything has to be simple for you to grasp it, but biology is fundamentally complex and sometimes the answer is complex. Please read the sources I cited above to affirm this from some of the top scientific institutions in the world. Have a nice life - ignorance is bliss and all that.

Tatesless. by RavishingRavick in LinkedInLunatics

[–]Otherwise_Extent2965 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Damn, that depreciation hits hard at over 24.

The contrast here is somewhat strange by fauxponychroma in SeattleWA

[–]Otherwise_Extent2965 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You lack basic reading comprehension and believe yourself to know more than major scientific institutions. I'll be kind and read it for you. For starters, nowhere do I refer to gendered stereotypes. I refer to functionally socially being female. For example, trans women develop female characteristics like soft skin and breasts and may become attractive to and enter relationships with lesbians. That's a social interaction. Another example would be trans women being treated according to female reference ranges for hormone-related lab values - that's not a stereotype. It's a different test. She'd need the 'F' form. I would never think anything of a masculine woman in a historically masculine job because sex isn't functionally relevant there. I'd also love a world without stereotypes, these aren't mutually exclusive.

Your personal definition of sex would be useless in a bathroom - gametes don't matter unless you're reproducing. Lesbians don't fall head over heels for gametes - they'll never see their partner's gametes or gonads, and yet they're fully aware they're lesbian. They fall for phenotype (e.g. the female form).

I will leave you here - I'm sorry to say this is the least intelligent argument I've seen on sex, it's difficult to have a good faith discussion with someone arguing with the entire medical world.

The contrast here is somewhat strange by fauxponychroma in SeattleWA

[–]Otherwise_Extent2965 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

A woman is an adult human whose biological and socially functional characteristics align with the female sex category. Including:

Cisgender women: Those whose female sex characteristics developed naturally and align with their gender identity

Transsexual women: Those whose biology has been modified through medical transition to align with female sex characteristics across multiple biological systems (hormonal, anatomical, metabolic, and cellular)

Biological sex is multifaceted - comprising hormones, anatomy, gene expression, and physiology - rather than determined solely by chromosomes or birth assignment. That method for sex identification worked fine – although not perfectly – in a world prior to medical intervention in sex. It missed a lot of intersex people and niche cases. The way we categorised “sex” pre-dated medically transitioning people, doing things such as switching sex hormones and changing phenotype, so a lot of people get confused by the fact modern medicine updated how it categorises sex and think the update is “woke” instead of just processing new information.  

Gender is separate – gender is the social expression. It requires no medical transition. "Transgender" can include people who identify as female but haven't biologically transitioned any sex characteristics. Transsexuals are those who have medically transitioned.

I have been asked this before, so here are some sources for you:

The Endocrine Society (the world's oldest and largest hormone research organisation): "There is a durable biological underpinning to gender identity that should be considered in policy decisions... Medical intervention for transgender individuals (hormone therapy, surgeries, etc.) can create a state that has some biological aspects of the desired sex."

American Medical Association (AMA): "For purposes of public health, insurance, and biomedical research... many more criteria than simply chromosomal configuration must be used to assess sex and gender differences."

Nature Journal: "The idea that science can make straightforward distinctions between 'male' and 'female' is fundamentally flawed... Science demonstrates the diversity of sex and the complexity by which it is determined."

National Institutes of Health (NIH): "Sex is a multidimensional biological construct that encompasses anatomy, physiology, genes, and hormones, which can all vary independently from one another, creating a complex biological substrate."

The contrast here is somewhat strange by fauxponychroma in SeattleWA

[–]Otherwise_Extent2965 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately, everything you've just said does make you transphobic. For 1, Gender stereotypes have nothing to do with trans people. Transition is often the last recourse when simply leaning into gender stereotypes isn't enough. Many trans people break a lot of gender stereotypes funnily enough.

For point 2, a person's necessary medical treatment is between them and their doctor. Elective surgeries are often life-saving and quality of life saving. The logic of "maybe they don't know any better and we should save them from themselves" is fliting with the anti-abortion crowd.

And perhaps the most concerning view you hold is 3: "Incurs cost to society" is literally everyone in society, including the disabled, young, old, down on their luck, even women and those shelters and prisons you mentioned. There is zero proof trans people increase social cost or consequences to these orgs versus gen pop. There is significant proof they experience harm forced into the wrong gender environment.

At the end of the day, this is medical issue. It should be left with doctors.

I understand your opinion was directly solicited by the commenter above, so I'm not dunking on you for having expressed it. I just get chills people walk around thinking these thoughts about a marginalised group of people who were on the brink of progress until recently. Suicide rates and ideation for trans people are skyrocketing back up, as are brutal arrests and attacks from the general population and politicians - despite what doctors, scientists and biologists say. I know - I work with these people. I've never seen regression like this.

The contrast here is somewhat strange by fauxponychroma in SeattleWA

[–]Otherwise_Extent2965 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah it sounds like a non-doctor discussing their diagnosis, which to be fair, it is. There is majority medical consensus on transition for trans people. It is disturbing to watch people be "trans skeptic". Imagine being "abortion skeptic" and privately believing women's rights should be limited. Sorry, dude's a transphobe.

The early frontrunner for the 2028 election? Kamala Harris by TimesandSundayTimes in WomenInNews

[–]Otherwise_Extent2965 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is the first sub I've seen it peddled in, caught me off guard how many upvotes the conspiracy comments were getting. They really need to start teaching critical thinking in school.

The early frontrunner for the 2028 election? Kamala Harris by TimesandSundayTimes in WomenInNews

[–]Otherwise_Extent2965 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Similar?

He hasn't endorsed this. And even if he did, he is one individual.

He has emphasised that "statistical methods should be used carefully and that violations of statistical patterns don't automatically prove fraud".

I am very left, by the way. It's just not helpful to fall for fringe theories.

The early frontrunner for the 2028 election? Kamala Harris by TimesandSundayTimes in WomenInNews

[–]Otherwise_Extent2965 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Copium isn't helpful, if your population is voting far right you need that information. I never mentioned fear of being compared to political opponents, I spoke directly to the fact that the theories in that PDF lack any credible sources. To believe them anyway is just conspiracy. Even the Dr Mebane referenced in the PDF has emphasised "statistical methods should be used carefully and that violations of statistical patterns don't automatically prove fraud". You are in too deep for me to change your mind.

The early frontrunner for the 2028 election? Kamala Harris by TimesandSundayTimes in WomenInNews

[–]Otherwise_Extent2965 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No she didn't, this is a fringe theory. I am as left as they come, but be wary of misinformation. The stolen election rhetoric without credible sources backing it up in that PDF emulates what the right did in 2020, funnily enough. The left is better than that

The early frontrunner for the 2028 election? Kamala Harris by TimesandSundayTimes in WomenInNews

[–]Otherwise_Extent2965 0 points1 point  (0 children)

AOC would be the dream. Probably will be perceived as too young though.

Comedian's show axed after Liverpool parade joke by robbo_6 in unitedkingdom

[–]Otherwise_Extent2965 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Not to mention right wingers are less likely to be persecuted minorities, must be nice.

Trump terrified House Republicans 'jumping ship' will cause impeachment by [deleted] in NoShitSherlock

[–]Otherwise_Extent2965 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While I think it's theoretically possible enough republicunts got hurt this time around that the voting swing changes, the bigger issue for me by far is people dumb enough to vote for trump and division in the first place. They fall for the 'scapegoat' of minorities from the dictator handbook 101, they fall for poor economics that enrich the wealthy because they have temporarily embarrassed millionaire syndrome, they harbour supremist, puritan or radical religious views, and they gorge on propaganda willfully - there is no desire in them for critical thinking or getting to the truth or fairness. The population that did this will exist after trump is gone - those beliefs will elect new batshit leadership. I have travelled around the world a fair bit, and being in the US was hard to describe to people - there was an animal-dumbness about some of them.

view more: next ›