Chairchucker

Thanks for explaining the distinction Bruce that's very valuable information that only you could have provided. And don't worry, I wasn't calling him a paedophile, I was suggesting he sexually assaulted children. It's entirely possible to sexually assault children without being specifically attracted to pre-pubescent children. And we already know that he raped E Jean Carroll, and was accused of rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment by at least 25 women going back to the 70s. And we've got audio of him bragging about being able to sexually assault women because he's 'a star'. And two of his acquaintances said they saw him have sex with girls that looked underage. And one of the women who accused him of sexual misconduct was, at the time of the allegation, a Miss Teen USA contestant who says he entered the dressing room. And he is on record as saying that as the owner of the Miss Universe franchise, he often walked into their dressing rooms unannounced. And there was a federal lawsuit alleging he sexually assaulted a 13 year old. But sure, I'm sure one of the worst human beings in the world, who is also on record as saying that the thing he and his daughter had in common was sex, and that she was a hot piece of ass, and that if she weren't his daughter perhaps he'd be dating her, yeah he's the kind of guy that deserves the benefit of the doubt. Especially if you happen to like the taste of fascist boot polish.

Well yes, Donald Trump almost certainly sexually assaulted children. That's what we're dancing around saying, here, right?

Is there a rhetorical point being made here and a reason to engage with this post other than to acknowledge how incredibly witty you are being?

I was mostly just being facetious about what a ridiculous joke the USA is, about how absurd it is that they've turned into (even more of) a fascist police state with a bunch of Nazis in uniform rounding up people of colour and shoving them in camps, and the ridiculous rapist in chief came up with a bunch of tariffs by throwing his own faeces at a dart board, including tariffs on a number of countries with a population of zero humans, and some of our politicians were still criticising our PM for not getting an exemption to the tariffs, like they think Trump is an actual human being that you can reason with. And then when the genocidal war criminals that are the current Israeli government decided to bomb Iran for possibly allegedly getting closer to having nuclear weapons (that Israel almost certainly have), the same felonious rapist ignored the advice of his own intelligence agency who said there was no evidence that they had nuclear weapons, and went ahead and bombed them as well. And then our politicians got mad at Iran for 'escalating', and said that the USA was totally right to also bomb them. You know, just cowardly boot licking nonsense like that. I mean, I kinda get it, our military alliance with the USA is important because our ADF is kind of a joke when compared against, say, China's, but I think it's time to accept that the USA is currently no one's friend and we should get some better ones.

So annoying that our (Australia's) politicians seem to feel the need to carry on treating the USA like it's still a proper country.

First point, no Bruce, 'biological woman' is not a technical term, it is a worthless one. Just don't use it, its only purpose is to be transphobic. The terms cis woman, cis man, trans woman or trans man are more useful, give more information. If you continue to use 'biological male' or 'biological female' or any term like it, you're choosing to be transphobic and/or unclear. And no, the exceptions demonstrate that the ability to give birth is absolutely not the physiological difference between men and women. TL;DR just stop calling people 'biological men' or 'biological women', it's a worthless term that serves only to play into the hands of hateful bigots. I think at almost every level, we don't need to care about someone's testosterone levels. The overwhelming majority of trans athletes are not trying to steal gold medals from cis athletes at the Olympics or whatever the narrative is, they're just trying to play social sportsball at the lowest community level. I've played a lot of team sport at that kind of low level, and not once have I thought the competition would be improved by having me or my fellow athletes tested to see if they're juicing. The top end professional level is frequently used as the justification for treating trans people like trash, but the implementation seems to be aimed at all levels. I think it's reasonable, specifically at those top levels of competition, for trans women to have done a certain amount of HRT before competing (as is almost always the case) but I don't have much interest in applying this to athletes with various intersex conditions, any more than I think we should penalise taller athletes for being taller, etc.

I would say that 'biological female' is not a remotely useful term, and frequently it is not used for clarity, (because that is not what it provides) it is used with the intent to hurt and deny the identity of trans women. Because frequently it is used in conjunction with calling a trans woman a 'biological male'. To demonstrate why I don't think 'biological female' is a particularly useful term, in this or any context, I'm going to talk briefly about Mack Beggs. Mack was the subject of an ESPN 30 for 30 documentary entitled Mack Wrestles. He was a collegiate wrestler, and in 2017 he beat Chelsea Sanchez to win the Texas Girls' 110 lb championship. If you're wondering why Mack, a person I've just used the pronoun 'he' for, was wrestling against a girl in a girls' championship, it's because Texas athletic rules at the time had a rule that you must compete in the league for the sex assigned at birth. Mack is a trans man, or as someone might ignorantly say, a 'biological female'. But, crucially, Mack is obviously not who people like the author of that crappy article are talking about when they refer to 'biological females'. Now they could say 'biological females who haven't transitioned to men', but guess what, there's already a term for that, and that term is 'cis woman'. So no, Bruce, I would say to anyone wanting to use the term 'biological females' to refer to women who are not trans, do not do this, say 'cis women'. You will be achieving a better level of clarity and as a bonus, not making trans women feel trash by the comparison. Of course a big problem with using 'capable of having children' as the definition is that many are not. Not after menopause. Not if you're sterile. Not, for many, if you've had certain conditions like endometriosis. Some people prefer definition relating to numbers of X and Y chromosomes, with the issue being that some people may instead be born with XXY, or XO, or have the usual expected chromosomes but not have the sexual characteristics to match. And for most people you or I interact with, their number or type of chromosomes or what sexual organs they have will never be any of our business. In my day to day life, in the ways I interact with someone, what someone is 'biologically' is as meaningless as it is hard to pin down. Socially, in terms of how I relate to people, I'm gonna find terms like 'man', 'woman' or 'non-binary' with adjectives like 'cis' or 'trans' if further clarification is needed, infinitely more useful. As it relates to sport, however: Sport isn't fair. Some people are taller. They have an unfair advantage over me in a bunch of sports like basketball or volleyball where height matters, and no amount of training will make that not true. Michael Phelps has an abnormally large lung capacity. I'm not averse to requiring a certain testosterone level at certain levels of competitive sport, but in the overwhelming majority of cases my stance is: let women play sport with women, let men play sport with men, stop proposing dumb stuff like a whole separate league for the three trans people in the state.

'Biological female' and 'biological male' are crappy dog whistley terms that also don't give enough information. Use the phrase 'cis women' you sorry excuse for a journalist. Also no actually trans women don't necessarily have levels of elevated testosterone, because most competitions require them to have been on HRT to reduce their testosterone for about two years, which was the case with Lia Thomas. On the Lia Thomas story, no again to that worthless excuse for a journalist, the placing does not tell the whole story. While competing in the men's comp, Lia was undergoing HRT from May 2019 until what appears to be her last swim in the men's comp in January 2020 before taking a year off before competing in the women's comp, as per competition rules. Her pre HRT accolades were pretty good, and included a 6th fastest time in the country in 2017. It's interesting that a lot of the dialogue about her 'rise' from some ridiculously off the pace ranking in the men's comp to 'one of the top-ranked' swimmers in the women's comp seems to have her soaring from a mid 500s ranking. One can only assume that ranking is from when she was on testosterone blockers, because a quick squiz at an archived version of the swimcloud site shows something of a different story. That archived page here: https://web.archive.org/web/20220318183249/https://www.swimcloud.com/swimmer/314430/rankings/ Starts ranked only 84th in the state in 2013-14, rises to 99th out of all high school students in 16-17, and 100th in the country in the 2018-19 season. Her current swimcloud page inconveniently lacks all that, in favour of showing only her 2021-22 ranking, where she apparently rose to 44th in the country. Meanwhile, Cora Dupre, who was 45th in the country that season, was 83rd the season before. So no, actually, Lia Thomas was an elite swimmer when she competed in the men's comp, became merely 'very good' when she was competing against men but taking HRT, and reverted to elite when she was temporarily allowed to actually compete as a woman.

Probably. I don't pay too much attention to what the book is they're flicking through.

Like I said, no voter ID required. Just use some common security questions I guess.

Condolences America, this sucks. Re: voter ID, not required here in Australia. They asked me my name, address, maybe my date of birth, I don't remember for sure, then ticked me off a list. But yeah the imaginary threat of voter fraud is less significant than the very real use of ID laws to suppress voting by, disproportionately, ethnic minories, poor people, elderly people.

Maybe he got lost on the way to the local school.

Probably just out walking his shotgun.

This feels like sarcasm but also reads identically to things I have seen people earnestly say, may I please have a hint as to whether you are serious?

No! I acknowledge that he SAID he doesn't agree with it once it became apparent that it was deeply unpopular! Again, he is a liar!

Yes. He is constantly lying. He supported abortion bans and suddenly walked it the heck back and tried to downplay it when he realised what a deeply unpopular move it was.

Paradoxically, while I think Trump being dead (or just, removed from the public consciousness and discourse and with his tiny sex offending hands kept well away from the nether regions of women everywhere) would immediately make the world an immeasurably better place, I don't think politically motivated assassinations are a good precedent to set. I also don't think we need to avoid criticising fascists for being fascists just because the fascist gun loving country they've helped create might use any excuse to shoot someone. Also, while we're on the subject of gun violence, there have been 527 mass shooting deaths in the USA so far this year, and if you picked any of those 527 victims at random, I would cheerfully and without hesitation swap them for any one of the predominantly Republican law makers who consistently refuse to pass legislation restricting the sale of firearms, because maybe if the violence was happening to them they'd feel it was worth taking action.

Trump being a threat to Democracy should not be a particularly controversial statement, unless you're particularly dedicated to the gimmick of enlightened centrism. He repeatedly refused to accept the result of an election, up to and including inciting a terrorist attack on the Capitol, he tried to convince his VP not to certify the election, he said that maybe his VP deserved to be murdered for not overthrowing the election, he said he'd be a dictator, (but only on day one!) he's repeatedly cosied up to and expressed admiration for dictators, including suggesting that maybe America should have a President for life like China has, he told people that after they voted him in they'd never have to vote again. I know for some reason you are relentlessly dedicated to giving Trump the benefit of the doubt that maybe his seemingly infinite bounty of statements that reveal what a corrupt, horrible person he is actually mean something else, but just once, why not listen to what he actually says, over and over and over again?

I think it'll be a little while yet before Republicans try to campaign on the subject of security at their rallies.

It can be simultaneously true that: 1. Donald Trump is the worse candidate for Palestine 2. Current Democrat policy needs to be better.

That's OK Bruce I wasn't really trying to start a new topic, I was just having a cheeky jab about your seemingly boundless enthusiasm for giving one of the worst human beings alive as much benefit of the doubt as you can possibly spare.

Oh yeah, do we also need to separately examine the context around all the rapes he did to see if he's a proper rapist or just a casual one?

This is a direct quote from one of your posts, and the part of it to which I was responding: "I base my views on politics around the policies of parties and outcomes, I dont subscribe to identity politics or personality politics." Because you claimed that you base your views on politics around policies and outcomes, I shared a number of outcomes. You appeared reluctant to discuss those outcomes. Since you would prefer to talk about whether or not Trump is racist, a thing you seemed to be claiming was not your priority, let's do that I guess. Donald Trump was super big on the 'birther' conspiracy theories. A thing that has coincidentally only been targeted at Barack and Kamala, but interestingly not Donald Trump, whose mother was born in Scotland and whose father was born to German immigrants. He continued arguing for these conspiracy theories years after the release of Obama's long form birth certificate. He called Mexican immigrants criminals and rapists. After two of his supporters beat a homeless Latino man with a metal pipe, he said '...the people that are following me are very passionate. They love this country and they want this country to be great again." He said that the federal judge who presided over the Trump Uni fraud case couldn't do his job because he was "of Mexican heritage." After four black men and one Latino were cleared of rape by way of DNA evidence, he took out a full page ad calling for New York to being back the death penalty to punish them. Trump signed a travel ban from seven Muslin-majority countries. He later claimed that this would protect the USA from terrorists. When he said that, in the fifteen years since the 11 September attacks, not one of the terrorists who killed people in American were from any of the countries he enacted a travel ban against. Also, for some reason he didn't ban travelers from Muslim-majority countries where he held large business interests, like Saudi Arabia or Turkiye. He referred to Elizabeth Warren as 'Pocahantas,' (on a few occasions including during a speech to Native American veterans of WWII) and said that the only reason she claimed Native American heritage was she had 'high cheekbones'. (WTF?) He reportedly said that Haitians "all have AIDS" and Nigerian immigrants would never "go back to their huts." His campaign chose a white nationalist to serve among California's delegates. After a bunch of white supremacists marched and shouted slogans like "The Jews will not replace us," a white nationalist drove his car into some counter protesters and killed one. Trump said that there was both blame and 'very fine people' on both sides. He complained about the removal of Confederate monuments. He pardoned a mayor who was convicted of criminal contempt for racially profiling Latinos. He called NFL players who protested police brutality against black people by kneeling during the anthem 'sons of bitches' and said they should be fired. He retweeted anti-Muslim videos from the deputy leader of a British ultranationalist hate group. He is reported to have referred to Haiti, El Salvador, and African nations as '****hole countries', questioned why the USA would want to allow immigrants from those countries, and suggested the US try to get more immigrants from places like Norway. He presided over a policy of separating immigrant children from their parents. He suggested that four congresswomen of colour, all of whom were American citizens and three of whom were born in the USA, go back to their countries. He kept referring to COVID-19 as the 'Chinese virus' even after the World Health Organisation advised him not to because it could give rise to racial profiling. He tweeted a video of his supporter shouting 'white power' at anti-Trump supporters. He called the phrase 'Black Lives Matter' a 'symbol of hate'. He promised to veto a Defence bill, over a provision for removing the names of Confederate generals from military bases. He declined to condemn the Proud Boys, white supremacists who endorse violence. If it's not clear to you that Trump is racist, that does not reflect well on you.

Good thing that's nowhere near what I said at any point. To recap, my original point, in direct response to your dubious claim that you "base [your] views on politics around the policies of parties and outcomes," was that among the outcomes of a Trump presidency was that in 2017, white supremacist propaganda on college campuses tripled, hate groups increased by 4% and hate crimes by 17%. Some other outcomes were the Department of Agriculture being banned from using the term 'climate change', executive orders gutting obamacare, withdrawal of federal protection for trans students, reductions of rights for federal employees, making it easier for fossil fuel companies to lay pipelines, and scaling back environmental reviews when building highway. So it is just super weird that you decided to ignore the actual point of my post and argue a barely relevant point using a source that didn't actually support your position, and now respond by arguing against a claim I never made.

I posted a reply a little while back that is somewhat lengthier than this one is gonna be and the forum ate it so I gave up and did other things instead but I'm back and will try again I guess. My original post was primarily addressing your claim that you "base [your] views on politics around the policies of parties and outcomes", and I listed a number of outcomes. It's curious that you ignored all of that and went instead for my side comment about Trump's racism. Almost as if your claims that the things you cared most about were policies and outcomes, was a lie. The main point in that paragraph wasn't about Trump's racism in and of itself, but the flow on effects of that. The 'record numbers' spoken of by the article you posted were 17%, up from 8%. Obviously even 8% is still too high, but I guess black people are just as capable of voting against their own interests as white people are. The article does not even attempt to argue that Trump is not racist, it moreso lays out some of the reasons that he is, as a contrast to the point that black people seem to be voting for him anyway. The article's point is not, 'black people are voting for Trump, therefore how racist could he be?' It is more, 'black people are voting for Trump despite his racism.' The actual given reasons for this change is things like younger black voters not having the same attachment to civil rights legacy movements, or disillusionment with the Democratic party not treating black voters particularly well even despite the fact that it's been black voters who have consistently been more likely to vote Democrat. The article is more an indictment of the way the Democrats have taken the black vote for granted, than it is remotely vindicating Trump from being racist.