This stupid bullshit will continue until Women decide to make it stop.

[Crom]

I am willing to concede the word "berated" might not be appropriate, as long as we stay on topic. I regretted that as soon as I posted. Perhaps "sarcastically tormented", or "smugly teased" would be better. I am referring to your response to one of his posts at the top of page 32.

]
Thanks for clarifying.
I am sure that when logic and reason reveal that a person's statements are either "completely unsupported" or "illogical" or "just plain silly" that they FEEL "sarcastically tormented" or "smugly teased", but I assure you that I am responding only to THE IDEAS, and I have no desire to create or perpetuate personal battles in any way.

Your premise of liberals making decisions because you perceive them to 'allow one to run from responsibility' is shallow and misguided, just as your tendency to lump liberals and leftists together. That would be like me saying that the decisions of all conservatives are based on squashing the little guy, minorities, people who don't believe in jesus, etc for the greater good of America and big business, and most importantly, money in the correct people's pockets whether they deserve it or not. But that's simply not true, I know that's not true. And I think you know what you're talking about isn't true, either. I would say "correlation is not causation", but the truth is that there isn't even a correlation.

Well, I simply disagree. That is why find the "fundamental premise of liberalism" so insightful: simply because it seems to work in every topic that begins being discussed. I showed, in great logical detail, how it predicts the position on THIS SUBJECT: transgendered "rights". What you cite about conservatives is mere "generalization". It is not connected by a fundamental logical premise.
If you wish to present a logical premise to all conservative positions, and discuss how it predicts the outcome on this subject, we could go down that road.
I "tend to lump liberals and leftists together" (Modern liberals in my terminology) because they are virtually identical.
When asked point blank and directly by Chris Matthews (generally considered a "liberal" interviewer) in separate interviews, neither Debbie Wassername-Schultz, nor Hillary Clinton could articulate any difference between "the ideals of socialism" and "the ideals of the Democratic party". They were both stunned into silence, and just stared like deer caught in the headlights.

What you fail to understand is that while the responsibilities of someone may change with their gender, they gather other responsibilities that they had probably never conceived before their transition, especially by your traditionalist definition. Saying that someone goes from a man to a woman or vise versa because they are "running from their responsibilities" sounds like an oversimplified, copout excuse for a lack of understanding, 'oh it must just be this because nothing else makes sense'. Saying a man becomes a woman so that he can be a woman and not get pregnant is equally ludicrous. If you only knew the number of transgender women who long to be able to get pregnant. Put bluntly, these people would give their big toe to go back in the womb, get their chromosome changed, and come out a woman. That's what we are talking about here, Crom. That's the depth of these people's psyche.

OK...it is clear that you are confusing two parallel issues:
1. Why a person becomes transgendered and
2. Why the Modern Liberal position of supporting (glorifying?) transgenderism is consistent with "The Premise". .

On 1: People become transgendered for a multitude of reasons. NOT just because they want to escape responsibilities, although I do not discount that as one plausible reason. My belief is that the biggest reason is simply "mental illness" and would have all the complexities associated with the onset of any "delusion" or "psychosis".
On 2: I note that the fundamental premise of Modern Liberalism just happens to predict the liberal position on this issue with perfect logical consistency. What are the odds ?

The level of generalization you dish out towards transgender men is quite comical. "Shorter, weaker, fatter, less attractive". Than what, than who, to whom? Most men? Most women? Some men? Some women? Come, man, come. Come out of your head for a moment if you would, please.

Better reread that part. I was not referring to the men.

And despite this revelation from you which I do actually appreciate, you STILL have yet to explain where in the world you came up with the idea that the ideology of the "modern liberal" (aka, a gross oversimplification of every single person to the left of what is seeming more and more like where you place yourself) revolves around deposing responsibility! HAH! It gets funnier every time I type it.

Laugh if you wish! I will laugh with you!

But also, just start noticing which side of the issue the "liberal" is on vs which side a "conservative" is on. Let me know if the rule works (as it does on this issue).

But now that we have that out of the way, it is my turn. I am beginning to become suspicious of what you personally define as "responsibility", and am almost ready to call it quackery and delusion, but I will not stoop so low on a whim. Perhaps it is me looking through my liberal lens, unable to see clearly what the hell you are talking about. You talk of evolution, you talk of traditional gender roles as "responsibilities" as if they were given by god himself, as if the law books of nature (whatever that means) had these words scribed. I could obviously dismiss this as personal belief and say "agree to completely disagree", a idyllic American value, but since this is America after all, what wouldn't be more American that trying to sway this narrow paradigm you have through discussion. I can think of nothing more so. I am liberal, but I hold libertarian values extremely close. You obviously do not.

I specifically pointed out that "gender roles" had been dictated by evolution and the necessity for SURVIVAL in a PHYSICAL REALITY. I didn't mention god at all.
So I don't know how to respond to your invalid statements about my position.

Gender roles are a social construct generated out of logical resource management. They are not laws of the universe, moses did not carve a third stone tablet talking about gender roles. Gender roles were a simple means for survival in incredibly harsh conditions - out of necessity. Chances of survival were higher if the men went out and hunted and the women stayed home, because testosterone levels are higher in men. Women are biologically more suited for rearing children, because estrogen. And thus, tradition was intertwined over thousands of years. There was no room for individual thought, self exploration. Now that you can order steak through amazon and have same day delivery... little bit more room, I'd say...

OK....so your position is that the millions of years of evolutionary adaptation, resulting in a physical difference in form and biochemistry, can be changed on a whim....as if ordering a new "gender" from Amazon ?

Well...you are entitled to your opinion. I simply disagree.

See how easy it is to disagree without getting your panties all in a bunch ?

(I am not implying that YOUR panties are in a bunch. It is a general statement intended for anyone who might have their panties in a bunch.)

Thanks.

[Brodie Butland]

No. I don't see that.
I supported my assertion with a complete chain of logic and examples from premise to conclusion.

Evidently not. Let me spell it out. I get your premises, and I somewhat understand your attempt at a syllogism. But what tfranc and I have been asking for is support for your PREMISES.

I can define a conservative as a racist, and then develop a valid syllogism explaining why conservatives would naturally support the death penalty because it disproportionately is applied to black defendants. But that would be a pretty silly syllogism, because my premise was silly (and offensive). It's what the philosophers call the difference between a valid and a sound argument. Garbage in, garbage out.

So again I'll ask--where can I find this Liberal Codex that specifies that I shouldn't believe in any personal responsibility, and must believe in equality of result?

[Michael Wolf]

Meanwhile, back in the real world where mid-pubescent testosterone meets the best women in the world, and wins easily:

USA women's team suffer 5-2 loss to FC Dallas' U-15 boys | Daily Mail Online
The FC Dallas U-15 Academy team beat the U.S. Women? s National Team, 5-2 | USA Today High School Sports

To me, it's unfortunate that because some would use this to deny or limit trans people's basic human right to be treated equally under the law by the government, that the overreaction on the other side is that we have to let them compete against biological females who usually don't stand a chance.

As others have pointed out, this issue would be eliminated if we didn't have men's and women's sports, but rather just "sports," where the best players compete regardless of sex, gender, or anything else. Of course, then there'd be almost no opportunities for women in sports at all. Maybe that's what will ultimately end up happening, but that's unfortunate and kind of reminds me of this:
When Equal Access Equals Zero Access for All, in which Berkley's 20,000 free online lectures had to be taken down because some weren't compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act to be accessible via closed captioning.

It's not exactly the same of course, as there would still be sports - but you'd basically be removing 99.9% of women from professional sports in the name of "equality," if that were the result. But I can't think of another way that's actually fair, unless people stop pretending MTF women are biologically the same as women who have been women their whole lives, even if the MTF test levels are now below that of men.

ETA: Just remembered another option: multiple competing private sports organizations, each of whom can choose their own policies regarding competition, which the participants all know in advance and can choose to be a part of, or not. This would probably never fly in today's America with our now 50+ year old laws against discrimination, because you'd have to let the organizations discriminate against anyone they wanted for this to be viable. Maybe, maybe it'd work because they'd have to publicize their rules, which better allows the market to sort things out than when a random hotel in Nowheresvile, USA suddenly decides they won't let the [insert group the hotel owner hates here] stay over and they end up freezing in the cold outside. It also doesn't involve any potential life or death. But still, I tend to think the country wouldn't accept this. The national inclination that government should protect against private discrimination is probably now too strong.

[Crom]

So again I'll ask--where can I find this Liberal Codex that specifies that I shouldn't believe in any personal responsibility, and must believe in equality of result?

Particularly appropriate on this topic:

“Openness used to be the virtue that permitted us to seek the good by using reason.
It now means accepting everything and denying reason’s power.”
― Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind

[Steve Hill]

It's not exactly the same of course, as there would still be sports - but you'd basically be removing 99.9% of women from professional sports in the name of "equality," if that were the result. But I can't think of another way that's actually fair, unless people stop pretending MTF women are biologically the same as women who have been women their whole lives, even if the MTF test levels are now below that of men.

Actually, it would be 100%. But otherwise you are spot on.

[LiftingToLiveToNinety]

So again I'll ask--where can I find this Liberal Codex that specifies that I shouldn't believe in any personal responsibility, and must believe in equality of result?

I don't think the liberalism issue is really that on topic (transgender MTF competing against women) but I imagine Crom might use this an example of a Liberal Codex...

Capital: Critique of Political Economy - Wikipedia

Not really taking a side on this one but if I were looking for a written document as an origin of liberalism, this isn't a terrible staring point.

[Crom]

I don't think the liberalism issue is really that on topic (transgender MTF competing against women) but I imagine Crom might use this an example of a Liberal Codex...
Capital: Critique of Political Economy - Wikipedia
Not really taking a side on this one but if I were looking for a written document as an origin of liberalism, this isn't a terrible staring point.

And note that its' beginning, as "Marxism" is significantly later than what was, until then, referred to as "Classical liberalism".
Modern Liberalism is, economicallly, indistinguishable from socialism.

Theban93:
No, really. Some of us are eager to read that liberal codex, Crom. We are waiting. Or was that simply your very own source material, crafted from your imagination and selected alt-right media?

The premise was explained fully.
A video, explaining the concept was linked.
The logical connection to the Left's enthrallment with "transgender rights" was explained fully.

So, if you don't understand by now, I can only point out that willful ignorance is a self-imposed condition.

[Strega]

Great video loosely based on Hans Christian Andersen's "The Emperor's New Clothes"
The parents being in denial is expected however the coach's comments are priceless.
Seriously dude, like WTF.

[Mark Rippetoe]

A fascinating time in the history of Western Culture, when we all came to agree that up is in fact actually down.

[Crom]

A fascinating time in the history of Western Culture, when we all came to agree that up is in fact actually down.

Really, we just can't be judgmental and bigoted in our definition of "up" or "down".
Chinese and Africans have a different orientation. So forcing a definition of up or down is an act of bigotry.
We can't allow Verticalists to impose their unidirectional prejudices on our children.
Don't be an invert-o-phobe.