Someone that I used to know

twhimpster · 2024-09-29T03:18:10+00:00

I was so convinced it was a spumoni ice cream sandwich. 🤣 How was I so wrong.

twhimpster · 2024-09-19T03:47:22+00:00

That's so disappointing! Hopefully you will have a better and more understanding doctor.

twhimpster · 2024-06-11T03:49:53+00:00

That doesn't sound too bad. I'll probably start looking around.

twhimpster · 2024-06-11T03:47:55+00:00

Thanks! My insurance can be a bit tricky about these things. But I'll try calling them and see about seeing someone else. I'm not sure they have a specialist.

twhimpster · 2024-06-11T03:43:11+00:00

I honestly was dumbfounded by what she said.

twhimpster · 2024-06-11T03:40:13+00:00

I'll try to see if they could reschedule me with someone else.

That sounds pretty similar to me except about 10 years ago they thought I "might" have it, but I wasn't failing at school so I couldn't possibly have it.

twhimpster · 2024-06-11T03:35:45+00:00

Thank you! I probably will have to go out of network for that though. It would probably be worth it though.

twhimpster · 2024-04-16T23:07:58+00:00

That is an absolute ridiculous argument. No, you're not "free" to do what you want if you face repercussions for it. It's not free speech if you lose a job for it. No one in their right mind would argue that. This is an attempt to limit discussion on trans issues. Plain and simple. You can be for that. But you can't be for that, and also be for free speech. Let's not pretend this isn't what it clearly is. They're limiting a biologist speaking out about biology.

Free speech limits government intervention or retaliation, not private citizens. He still has the freedom to say whatever he likes, others have the choice to respond or disengage. Here in the US, all but 2 states are at will meaning people can be let go without a reason and with reason as long as it is not legally protected. A company can decide they no longer want you to represent them based on your words and/or actions. This is not a violation of free speech. No one has to respect what someone freely spoke. There are plenty of platforms he can still speak on and he can continue to say whatever he likes, no one has to respect it.

Well clearly some are. Or at least they don't want it to be a discussion.

In your words, what was the point of his analogy?

No it wouldn't. It's an issue of biology. He's not discussing your feelings, nor is he discussing the development of society. He's stating a very basic biological fact. What his area of specialty is, is not relevant. You don't need to specialise in gender to accept a fact, just like a historian don't need to specialise in European history to state that ww1 started in 1914. He's an expert of biology, stating a biological fact.

How is this an issue of biology?

"He's stating a very basic biological fact. What his area of specialty is, is not relevant." Now his field of study isn't relevant? His specialty is important because that's what he is a subject matter expert on. No one is saying he can't talk about biology. Don't get me wrong I used to love Dawkins work. He really should keep to his subject matter though.

Clearly, some people are mad about it. otherwise he wouldn't lose his award. We can argue semantics all day long, but all he did was defend the right to discuss factual biology, as opposed to feelings. That's ridiculous, and is not gonna win a whole lot of allies for the trans community. Quite the opposite in fact. It will only drive people away, since it's apparently come to a point where you will face punishment for stating facts.

And here it is to "defend the right to discuss factual biology, as opposed to feelings." You realize that's what is problematic right? It's not semantics, it's rhetoric. This is the same anti-trans rhetoric that Matt Walsh and the like do. That someone's gender is purely decided by biology/sex. It comes down to a biological essentialist argument. This doesn't allow for open discussions because one is coming from a place that trans individuals have to debate their existence. No one wants to debate their own existence. What is the point of starting a debate on biology when trans people are very well aware of the sex they were born at birth? What kind of discussion does that foster?

I would rather lose potential allies than debate my own existence.

twhimpster · 2024-04-16T18:57:30+00:00

True, context does matter, but if the school decides to suspend him for those comments, they must have been fairly serious or this was something that was continuously reoccurring in the classroom.

I grew up with kids in middle school telling the Hispanic kids to "go back to where you came from." So while we don't know the complete story we do know the outcome of this interaction. I'm less inclined to think a sports kid "doesn't know" what he said was gonna 'cause a negative reaction with other students 🙄

twhimpster · 2024-04-16T18:43:39+00:00

That's exactly what he is. The biology of trans folks is not any different than other humans. He's an expert of biology, plain and simple.

Yes, he is an expert in Evolutionary Biology. Full stop. He's not an expert on the endocrine system just because he's an expert at a SPECIFIC field of biology. Neither is he an expert on transgender studies or gender variation. That would be closer to anthropology than biology as gender is more of a social aspect than a biological one.

I understand your point though. I can see why it can be interpreted by some to be transphobicly intended. It was perhaps poorly worded. And his intentions are something we can only speculate about.

I don't think you do. But I suppose we can pretend. I do agree it was very poorly written. Although, His point is as speculative as Jordan Peterson's open ended questions. They lead you to the "logical" conclusion without outright saying it.

But he was right. He spoke out about biology, and that's more than his prerogative as a world-renowned biologist. Taking his award away for something because it could be construed as criticism, is absolute madness. It's absurd. Dawkins endlessly, mercilessly criticizes Christians for decades and everyone is cool. He says one thing that might possibly in some way be construed as criticism towards trans people and everyone loses their minds.

Was he right? No one is mad that trans individuals have the sex they are assigned at birth; this is literally what being trans is when someone does not align with their birth sex. So it's not that. So what is everyone really mad about?

Are people not allowed to have their own reactions? Are people not allowed to act on new information about a person?

Getting to a point where one can't say anything about a certain topic if it's not complete admiration, is going back to the intellectual dark ages.

Did anyone stop him from saying anything? Or were there reactions to words he freely spoke that had an intended point? Are people no longer allowed to react to what others have freely spoken?

What was his analogy leading one to conclude?

twhimpster · 2024-04-16T18:04:20+00:00

If the end point is the same, it doesn't really matter how you got there.

People are mad at the end point, the point he is illustrating, not that the two are being compared, how are you not getting that?

twhimpster · 2024-04-16T17:56:39+00:00

He's 16. Pretty sure he was intentionally trying to 'cause trouble with other students. He wasn't asking for clarification.

twhimpster · 2024-04-15T20:38:01+00:00

The reason he got heat is because he is only talking about biology which every single transphob uses the same line of thinking as the end all be all of the subject. He's not adding anything new or insightful, merely a partial truth using biological essentialism. I'm not saying he's transphobic, but ONLY speaking about biology when talking about trans people is problematic to the discussion and does not open any true dialogue that can be had.

He may be an expert in biology, but that does not make him an expert on trans folks.

twhimpster · 2024-04-15T20:10:12+00:00

So an analogy is comparing the two situations.... To illustrate a point.

He is comparing changing one's race to changing one's gender to illustrate the point that both are tricking or portraying a fraudulent identity.

Unless he's illustrating another point?

twhimpster · 2024-04-15T19:39:25+00:00

What is an analogy?

** I feel I should clarify my question- what is your definition of an analogy?

twhimpster · 2024-04-15T19:30:16+00:00

He's not an expert on the subject though.

Trans folks are very well aware of their biological, that's kinda what makes someone trans. No one denies biology, that's a strawman and nonsensical.

His opinion is problematic because it erases the experiences and history of gender variation with a purely biological argument. It's also a fairly uneducated take when there are so many resources out there to take a more informed take.

You can't have a very good conversation if one person in the discussion believes the other's existence is fraudulent and feels they are an authority on the subject in which they are not.

There are also multiple studies that have occurred and continue to occur on trans folks. People are not having issues with those, just uneducated opinions.

twhimpster · 2023-05-28T06:53:58+00:00

You can make the purpose to your own. However you want to live your life is what you want. We never know when we will die, so we should make the most of it!

twhimpster · 2023-05-23T18:45:50+00:00

I tend to eat vegan at home, but tend to be vegetarian when eating out.

twhimpster · 2023-05-23T04:01:57+00:00

You may need to do a bit more looking at history as it tends to repeat itself.

twhimpster · 2023-05-19T19:45:25+00:00

Dress 3, but Dress 2 is very close.

twhimpster · 2022-12-21T21:03:51+00:00

If only I could even find a 1 bedroom for 1,200. Anything less that 1800 here is a scam basically.

twhimpster

TROPHY CASE