Those who would rather lose elections so that they can feel better about themselves leave the real suffering to the people they claim to fight for.

Really sums up the mood in here. I forsee a continual slide to fascism in the US even after Trump is gone because the progressives would rather be righteous than elected.

There isn’t a shred of masculinity in that fat sack of shit.

A lot of men will say whatever they need to so they can get laid.

There is a word for people who make this sort of negative stereotyping of a whole sex.

at his happy dance?

You mean the idiotic cavorting of a dipshit who thinks he’s being handed the power to write regulations for his own companies and fuck over the workers who actually produce the value?

I have been calling for the left wing to do this in Australia for years.

We will not beat these weirdo dipshits by pretending they aren’t weirdo dipshits.

Calling them out with direct language at every opportunity is the path to victory.

“Male” and “female” are, biologically speaking, not distinct and mutually exclusive categories in humans.

They are and you repeating a claim without evidence does nothing.

Sexual dimorphism is real and artificial means of changing or replicating some parts of sexual dimorphism does not invalidate the underlying biology at play.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism

Male and female are so indistinguishable that it’s possible to identify them by their pelvis alone.

It’s a term coined by bigots to misgender trans people

Unfortunate origins aside male is jot a gender and therefore not misgendering. Biological man is misgendering.

What do you think will be the outcome of arguing that sex and gender are the same? That’s literally the side of the argument you have chosen.

Either they’re separate and gender can be changed or they’re the same… and you disagree with trans rights.

The hormones aren’t native to the person

And therefore are artificial. Take them away and what happens? Secondary sex characteristics return to their baseline…. Mostly.

I provided you with my definition of biological sex. If you are so interested in continuing this discussion the least you could do is provide your definition as I requested.

how would giving you the function go a credit card not make you a credit card?

I would still be a human, because changing one part does not change the whole.

If you have the outcome of male attributes, you are in effect a male.

A poor argument given that FTM cannot get real testes, again being artificially mimicked at best.

The primary sex characteristics, that you seem so fond of, can be removed.

But not functionally replicated by artificial means. Also I haven’t based my definition of sex, or argument against sex change being possible, on primary sex characteristics.

You do seem fond of this ‘counter argument’ though. Shame its not counter to anything I have said.

I have only stated that changing secondary sex characteristics is not sufficient to change a persons sex.

Biological sex, as determined by a number of factors during development, is unchanging. Gender however can be changed.

Im surprised I have to repeat that at this point.

being able to change the body with HRT.

Artificial changes to a body are just that, artificial.

Inserting an rfid chip under my skin doesn’t make me a credit card. Taking some hormones doesn’t make you female.

This incessant boundary shifting and virtue signalling that everyone must play along with the artificial and pretend it is reality will never see broad public acceptance.

Changing gender is real, changing sex is not and you could go ahead and provide a definition of sex that is holistic and entirely changeable with current technology if you disagree.

If you think you were right, which part of biology is the sex identifier? You haven’t answered that.

I have already very clearly articulated my answer to this. Go back up a couple of comments and read it again if you need to.

though I would argue it potentially changes your sex

Then you are arguing against the prevailing medical and scientific opinions, gender affirming care can assist with aligning secondary sex characteristics but does not change the patients sex.

It has long been an argument of the trans community that gender and sex are different, which Im not disputing at all but you are trying to make unclear.

Feminizing hormone therapy is used to make physical changes in the body that are caused by female hormones during puberty. Those changes are called secondary sex characteristics.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/feminizing-hormone-therapy/about/pac-20385096

For your convenience you can check the difference between primary and secondary sex characteristics here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_characteristics

HRT is gender affirming care and is not a ‘sex change’ which is outdated and offensive.

It’s odd that you’re trying to ‘debunk’ what you see as a bigoted term and you’ve come full circle to something even worse.

You should look up the difference between sex and gender before you continue arguing down this route.

If you can’t pinpoint a single specific one

So my answer must be simple, when discussing a complex topic, but you will circle back to claims of complexity to dismiss anything I say.

That is hardly a good faith response.

I would say it is the sum of biological processes that result in the expected sexual dimorphism observed within the majority of the population, resulting in biologically male or female traits.

If their hormones are such that they are growing in the manner you’d expect for a male or female then they are biologically that sex

Show me a research paper that makes this claim. It is called gender affirming care and not sex affirming care for a reason.

AFAB/AMAB is for the original status.

You’re literally splitting hairs when the phrases mean the same thing.

“Biological male” is a scientifically misleading phrase

The phrase seems to be very clear in meaning, could you tell me what you find misleading about it?

If that’s the case, then aren’t they *biologically* women?

Biologically male or female would be more correct as gender is a social construct. Also the term is referring to their original status pre-hormonal or other gender affirming care so no.

that you probably failed

Sorry to disappoint you but I have never failed a subject and have completed higher education.

”basic biology”

You’re the only person here who has used that term.

Reality disagrees with you lol

The framing being a fact check on a GOP claim, that a Dem is now being disparaged for including in their ad, that dispells the misinformation.

Lefties hurting themselves in their confusion is just classic.

and the inclusion of a fact check stating it is “false” that Sherrod Brown “voted to let transgender biological men participate in women’s sports.”

It was relevant to the ad to clarify the politicians voting record and counter misinformation being spread by their opponent.

This is very simple and I’m concerned that so many are completely incapable of

1. Reading the article and
2. Comprehending it
3. Understanding that this ‘narrative’ line is targetting the Dem ad but it was from the GOP misinformation.

This language reinforces the narrative that transgender women are “biological men,”

What narrative? This is mostly true, and only untrue in cases of transgender women who are intersex AFAIK.

Wait till the conservatives find out about Privates