I mean, are there truly no limits at all to the insanity into which they will descend? Even I in my leftie days knew better :-/

This one did make me laugh. Only a biological female can give birth...I as a man can identify as an Apache attack helicopter, but that doesn't mean I can go hover over a treeline and target an armored column with Hellfire missiles.

Twitter is basically arguing for something that science knows to be impossible.

Are people still pretending not to understand that there is a difference between sex and gender? Yawn.
https://www.healthline.com/health/sex-vs-gender#TOC_TITLE_HDR_1

Based on what those words mean you can be a biological male/female with a gender of man/woman. Sorry (not sorry) but that's the definition of the words.

What is the benefit of attacking people over this? How would it be any different from going to a church and making fun of people who are 'born again'?

That said, suspending an account over that seems heavy handed. Although, Spain's hate speech law has been criticized for being vague as it "forbids ill-intended speech against individuals" and I'm not sure how that is interpreted there. Twitter may simply be trying to obey the law. Its hard to say since they have won't elaborate on the original suspension notice.

It's very simple, my tired reptilian friend. The guy probably doesn't care about the distinction between 'male' and 'man'...I for one try to be respectful of the difference, but the degree to which people enforce it is excruciatingly infuriating sometimes. There is no room for nuance in this world these days.

Anyways, the substance of his post (that a human being without a uterus or eggs cannot become pregnant) cannot possibly be anything but the absolute truth because we know by basic anatomical proof that this is so. This is not hate speech. It is, as some say, 'spitting factz'.

With the obvious exceptions of XX Male syndrome, XY female syndrome, and other intersex conditions.

You might want to look up the party he belongs to, because twitter may have jumped the gun because of other statements made by that group. I'm not saying that is necessarily fair, but the party has a history of making remarks that have gotten them banned.

"Twitter disabled the tweet function on Vox’s official account in Spain more than two weeks ago, after - in an apparent reference to a gender equality program for schoolchildren - the account sent out a post accusing the governing Socialists of using public money to encourage paedophilia."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spain-farright-twitter/spains-far-right-vox-party-takes-twitter-to-court-over-tweet-ban-idUSKBN20125P

I think they should have left the post up. Personally, I like for the things people say to stick around for the sake of accountability. I would give politicians the ability to get a bit more leeway with their tweets, but I would make them agree that they can't delete their posts either. With great power...

But I'm not twitter and I'm not even qualified to give an opinion when talking about US laws. Let the Spanish courts decide.

Those conditions are rare enough to where we consider them exceptions worthy of special consideration, not rule-defining (and it doesn't mean I consider them 'subhuman' or anything...just that someone shouldn't be expected to account for every nuance in a generalistic statement).

I get that someone's background should be considered when evaluating them, but it can't be that hard to judge a tweet on its own value...Just me though. Like you said, it's a ball thoroughly in the Spanish court (heheh) and we'll see how they field it.

And even in the case of XY female syndrome, (according to Google) those people are born without ovaries...so they still shouldn't be able to become pregnant.

You could use in vitro, I suppose, but that's not really a natural occurrence so I deem it to be a non-factor for our purposes here.

So, someone born with a va**na and breasts, but no ovaries - male or female? Would this apply to XX woman who also can't get pregnant for other biological reasons?

Its actually not necessarily as easy to come up with a definition of sex that meshes with reality. Especially when you start to consider certain conginital conditions, surgeries to remove overies due to cancer or other medical reasons. Most people end up landing on the plumbing being the clearest answer, in which case a sex change is in fact a sex change.

Honestly, these are all words. Words describe the world, not the other way around, so how we define things matters. We (not me and you, more of a communal we) can decide what these words mean. Language evolves.

There are also cultures with more than two genders - Hijra in India, there were various native American terms for a third gender, etc.

Quite literally, the dictionary definition of a male and female is someone who can produce sperm and eggs respectively...obviously though, as you noted, there are folks who've had such necessary organs to fulfill those functions removed...Yet last I checked they are considered to still be of that sex. So clearly there is some nuance beyond the base definition of something.

The key point to remember here is the spirit of the tweet; a male body cannot become pregnant because it by definition does not have the organs to do so. Anything else which you discuss, though interesting, is simply irrelevant here.

The overwhelming majority of "trans" are people with fully functional organs. Saying that what they do should be acceptable in society because of a franctional percentage of anomalies resulting from generic mutation is insanity.

They do the exact same game with abortion. A fractionally small number are "to preserve the life of the mother." But hells bells man! On demand abortions should be available as easily as a Frapuccino!

There is a fractionally small number of people born with six fingers. Am I strong and brave to insist that the medical industry make this available to me so that I can compete in the Van Clyburn piano competition?

There are people born without legs. Am I strong and brave to demand I have mine removed so that I can enjoy sweet parking spots and compete in the Paralympics?

How about Rachel Dolezal?

How about Shawn King?

Exactly. Hence why I've found this entire episode so ludicrous. The dude was in no way wrong. lol

Oops Genetixlc mutation, not generic.

Curse you, auto-cucumber!

that is one definition, but there are multiple dictionaries and definitions.
1. a person bearing an X and Y chromosome pair in the cell nuclei and normally having a p**is, scrotum, and testicles, and developing hair on the face at adolescence; a boy or man.

2. an organism of the sex or sexual phase that normally produces a sperm cell or male gamete.

Unless you are looking at a different source, I never actually saw the tweet. Just a description of it. I would prefer to know if he just said that out of the blue, or if it was part of a longer engagement or in response. Did he tag some people? Context can make a difference.

That said, with the admitted lack of information, I'm moving on. There aren't a lot of sites covering this as it seems to only be right leaning sites. Which isn't a problem on its own, but lacking the original tweet, I would like an opposing opinion.

Entirely fair, I presume it's out there somewhere.

I spent about 20 minutes trying to find it on the wayback machine yesterday. It was my first time trying to use it to find a tweet. Pain. In. the. Ass. Anyway, I gave up.

Further proof of "What is wrong with liberalism".

Citing the 0.00000001% physical anomalies (+/- whatever zeroes to be accurate) does not change the overarching fact that there are two genders, your difficulty with objective truth notwithstanding.

But your unwise remarks are proof of a larger problem- when you reject God as Creator, anything goes. The problem with your embracing of evil, for at the heart of mankind is a sin nature, is that anything DOES go. You have essentially stated that "majority rules", which then means that you approve of slavery and genocide, along with discrimination, so long as the "communal we" approves of it. And eventually, the "communal we" always does approve of such atrocities, which in turn require bloodshed to fight it back.

At the heart of liberalism is a hatred of God and His holiness. God created man, male and female, and set the standards for this relationship. Apart from that we have the chaos we see in societies- the breakdown of the family, which in turn is leading to more and more chaos.

No matter how small the number, there are quite clearly people who don't fit into either category. If you beleive that God is the creator of all things, I'm not sure how you can ignore that.

I generally go with the Good Samaritan philosophy mixed with judge not, lest though be judged. I love the Good Samaritan. The priest walks by without helping, another Jew walks by without helping. A Samaritan (who were the enemies of the Jews at the time) not only helps he goes above and beyond. The good Samaritan tells us that words are cheap. Actually showing charity is what counts. Especially when you have no reason to be charitable.

But, sure, hatred of god. Why not? That doesn't feel like a dodge and attempt to just dismiss all arguments. /

"If you beleive that God is the creator of all things, I'm not sure how you can ignore that."
There is nothing to ignore. God has told us how creation ended up cursed, and we see the results of it all around us. This does not negate the overriding facts of what we see, nor of what we are told.

As for "judge not", you have the typical misunderstanding of that passage that most liberals do. Ironically, everything you say in disagreement is based on you making judgments. Still, we are to judge all things according to the same Word of God, but, as the passage you loosely refer to says, we are to render right judgments, "for in the same manner in which you judge, you will also be judged".

I have no problem being judged fairly, but this rarely happens when conversing with a liberal: "That doesn't feel like a dodge and attempt to just dismiss all arguments." In this instance, you made a judgment concerning my motivation- you were incorrect. You should try harder to "not judge".

As for the Good Samaritan, there can hardly be a better passage to tear down the typical liberal approach to charity, that being that someone else does it rather than me making the actual sacrifice. The GS helped the person in need *voluntarily* and without the intervention of The State. Liberals see "their" charity as the reason they pay taxes, and they are quick to vote to raise someone else's taxes as a way for them to be "more charitable". "God loves a cheerful giver", and yet liberals insist on giving at the point of a gun (don't pay your taxes and see what happens next).

You may be the rare exception (I doubt it), but the annual averages bear out that those who hold to a religion, false religions included, give on a level much higher than those who are liberal.

So, intersex and transgender people are cursed and it isn't their fault?

Can you explain to me what Deuteronomy means when it says that a girl must marry her rapist? That's one that has always confused me.

I think you are judging someone based on something you haven't experienced and with pride.

I'm not interested in arguing the tax thing. I could point to judges where you are told to obey the law. Or that it is easier for a camel to pass through a needle... But you are giving me the vibe of someone fully convinced of his own righteousness.

I support programs that will raise my taxes because I think its the right thing to do. Because too few choose to be cheerful givers. You can pay your taxes cheerfully, or not. It makes no difference to me.

OK- so it's settled then that you don't actually believe in charity, you believe in confiscation of other people's property so someone else can handle charity for you.

As for intersex people, again, that is a true rarity, but it cannot negate how they choose to live. I do not need to be one to understand the implications, anymore than you have a right to defend them without similar firsthand knowledge; either I can put forth my opinion as you do, or we both need to shut up. But I do not agree with your misguided premise.

As to being convinced of my own righteousness, nothing could be further from the truth. Telling you the truth about a matter that the Bible makes clear has NOTHING to do with my own righteousness or lack thereof. A true Christian is only one to begin with because that person has acknowledged their complete LACK of personal righteousness, and therefore is in need of the work of the Savior. Just because you do not like God's message, does not mean you should presume such an attitude on the messenger.

On this, at least, we agree: "Because too few choose to be cheerful givers.", but raising taxes is not the right solution as all it does is create a whole lot more "cheerful takers".

As for the typical liberal appeal to Deuteronomy, as is always the case, you do not understand the soundbites you have picked up from other liberals. I will admit that I do not fully relate to those passages, but they a.) apply only to an ancient Israel, and b) were commands given at a time when women were treated as throwaway property. Such a command by God saved many women from certain starvation, etc., and overall the act of rape is condemned. God also gave commands like the stoning of children that disparaged their parents. It is not likely that many parents found the need, nor the desire, to follow through with that, but as we see today, commands/laws without consequences are at best mere suggestions. You have not thought through the implications and how these commands would have changed that ancient society, and how incredibly different this made it compared to its contemporaries.

I make it a point of not getting caught up on word semantics if I can help it. I do believe in charity. But taxes aren't charity.

However, to quote my brethren across the isle - if you don't love it, leave it. I'm willing to pay my share and there will be elections. I'm not worried about it. In the end you can always leave the country if you don't love it (I just love it when I'm told that).

Intersex - between .05% and 1.7% of the population is intersex. That discrepancy depends on whether certain conditions are considered intersex.

That's an estimated 166,173 intersex people in the US even if we use the low number.

That's more than the population of Kansas City, KS.

I don't know either - true. But lacking firsthand knowledge, I'm going to go with the person who does have experience.

Perhaps righteous wasn't fair. But you seem awfully sure of yourself on verses that I've had long conversations about what they mean in context of their respective books and as a whole. You came off like you were talking down. Written words can be difficult in that regard, so I'll try to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Why does it have to be about me being liberal?

Are people still pretending that mental disorders are normal and should be encouraged instead of treated?

Yawn.

Its no longer considered a mental disorder. Like hysteria, Dysaesthesia Aethiopica (afflicts only slaves, weird), the vapors before it. We've moved on.

There are criteria for considering something a mental disorder, and it was decided that it didn't check all of the boxes.

"Just because something is atypical or unusual does not mean it is disordered. A person may experience atypical inner experiences or exhibit unusual behaviors, but she would not be considered disordered if they are not distressing, disturbing, or reflecting a dysfunction."

Or to put it more simply, no harm, no foul.

Are we adding psychology to the sciences that conservatives are now denying? That list is getting pretty long.

I mean, it probably doesn't matter to you that there have been studies that show actual neurological differences where transgender people actually exhibit a profile that matches the gender they identify as, not the one they were assigned?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-020-0666-3

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200205084203.htm

Nah who cares, right?

Truth be told, it wouldn't matter to me if the studies had found the exact opposite. No harm, no foul. If someone tells me in their heart/spirit/soul/whatever they are a female...what business is it of mine? Where is the victim? You want to be called ma'am instead of sir. Whatever.

But there is evidence of biological differences and I would think that would make a difference.

Some people claim to be 'born again' and I don't make fun of them for that biological impossibility - because I know that isn't what they mean and I try not to be an asshole.

Asonishing that in all your "quick, Google stuff to shore up my opinions" searching, you glossed right over all the articles about trans regret, continued high suicide rates even after transitioning, and stories about the many who blow tens of thousands on surgery only to wish they never had and now have nothing left to try and out their body back to the way it was originally made.

Nope. No victims AT ALL from this societal failure to recognize and treat vulnerable citizens suffering from mental disorders.

Exit question - why aren't anorexics celebrated and supported in the name of body positivity? They feel fat. They identify as obese. Who are we to tell them they aren't?

My gender is king. You must now give me all your money or go to jail for hate speech.

Cool. I am CIS and my pronouns are he/him. I think you may be misunderstanding the process, as we also have gender equality. Have a great night!

You didn't call me "your majesty" or send me your money. That's misgendering and therefore a hate crime.

I'm just identifying as whatever I want to be. ;P

Oh, that's fine. I was referring to misgendering and hate crimes.

"How would it be any different from going to a church and making fun of people who are 'born again'?"

Why would you do that? Jesus made it crystal clear that only those who are born again will enter the Kingdom of God; all others will be cast into eternal damnation. I am not sure what there is to make fun of, but it is akin to making fun of someone wearing a parachute when everyone knows that the plane is going to crash.

Perhaps you misunderstand what it means to be 'born again'? It would not be unusual- even the Jewish leader, well educated in the Scriptures, was confused by it when Jesus told him this.

That's my point. When someone says they are born again, we know what they mean. We don't think someone took another trip through the birth canal.

And you know what people mean when they say gender vs sex.

Both are about spirit, not biology. Being transgender is a very spiritual belief when it gets down to it. Something you believe but cannot prove. Something you feel but cannot see.

Transgender, like liberalism, is a mental disorder. I guess it should not surprise me that you would attempt to defend it. If we were to only approach this under the auspices of the fairy tale known as the theory of evolution, we would have to conclude that such behavior is abhorrent as it hardly promotes survival of the species, but given how we are now ignoring things that were once obvious, that being that there are only two genders, really anything goes. You can change the definitions of words, but that does not make it any more real.

But I do agree that it is in fact a spiritual matter. It is open rebellion towards the God Who created them.

Generally speaking, I say 'live and let live', but unfortunately most liberals cannot live by that axiom. Part of the "live" part for a believer is to be able to tell the truth, and live according to our conscience. It is an interesting endeavor, albeit a dangerous one, to watch how liberals cannot allow opposing viewpoints to exist. And it is in such behavior that you comply with what God's Word has to say about you, though you ("you" as in all liberals) have little to no clue what that is.

Wow. Well, I don't think conservatism is a mental disorder. Though a fair number of you seem to be living in a paranoid fantasy world.

I'm not surprised you don't, because it's not. The truth is, liberalism is just the natural outgrowth of sinners who refuse to repent. The mental disorders seem to follow, to the point where the line is so blurred as to be unable to see where it all started for the individual.

Does this fit into the global liberal Marxist plot to provide 5G to everyone?

Imma guessing you have the weirdest dreams . . . are there unicorns where you live?

I don't dream often. No unicorns. Lots of Mosquitos.

https://people.com/human-interest/wyley-simpson-pregnant-man-baby-boy-texas/

That dude is trans and therefore has female reproductive organs that a 'normal' man would not...

A "trans dude." Also known as a "woman."

I don't care how you like to dress.

I don't care what you do in the bedroom.

You. Are. Female.

If I take a 20 ounce Coca-cola and a 20 ounce Pepsi... Then took the label off the Coke and put in on the Pepsi, am I drinking Coke or Pepsi?

I mean the outside says Coke - but the inside is Pepsi.

Beautiful. Logic. Common sense is not Common among the left.

It's a riot how you guys keep projecting your own BS onto others. You spend your time attacking the left so you never have to address your own BS

Take BLM for example. They in fact should also be addressing crime in their areas.

But you and those like you? You will never address the crimes cops commit every single day. The violations of rights and brutality.

You would rather rant about gay people or other stupid shit

Who's projecting? We want to be left out of the fantasy world that others have created. If you are born with a p**is, then you are a male and therefor cannot give birth. This is a simple logic.

It must drive you insane having nipples for no reason

Nipples don't determine gender - and never have, so no.

LOLOLOL Thanks you people are wound so tight you can only laugh at others never yourseleves

Besides making a general statement on a specific topic, what is your issue here?

It's fun watching people who are utterly full of shit pathetically trying to rationalize their own moral double standards and hypocrisy.

Step 1. Project all their own BS onto everyone else by attacking them for the exact same crap you do

Step 2. Lie about what it is your actually doing

Step 3. Repeat step 1 and two until you die

This is something you can post on every meme. It is your opinion without examples. That's fine. AND it can be true for the Left as well.. But...did you have anything for this meme?

Not true. I did memes calling out BLM and Antifa. I also did one on Seattle cops plowing into a guy on the street and then pressing charges against him.

I've always been for consistency.

yOu oFfEnSiVe jErK

Soda makes genetics simple.

They're all tools

I thought he was a man who got female reproductive organs?

May have misread the source article.

That is the point. MEN CAN HAVE BABIES

No, the point of the tweet was that a male, someone without female reproductive organs, cannot.

If you want to bring up the semantics of male/man as it relates to sex/gender, then I'll preemptively stop you because the tweet did not differentiate and therefore we can assume he was using the terms interchangeably, as the vast majority of us do.

Well I am American so I don't care 2 f**ks about some spanish guy who does not know shit about mordern science

I'm American as well, and for one am understanding enough to not hold everyone to this insane standard of absolute perfection the world demands these days.

And again, basic science proves beyond all doubt that someone with male reproductive organs cannot possibly perform a function that requires female reproductive organs. It is not transphobic or anti-science to say this. It is a basic acknowledgement of the reality related to human anatomy.

He was still born male and according to busy bodies like Ben Shapiro it's all the same

I don't recall Ben Shapiro being a part of this conversation.

Using him as a reference he spends a lot of time gas lighting fake Christians with his hate for anything he does not agree with

It still wasn't necessary, makes you seem more interested in hating on folks like him than holding a productive dialogue about the matter at hand.