CouchPotato

So, either Kamala Harris was the border czar, or they gave her some little bird project because she is incompetent. Which is it? Because border czar wasn't our term. The mainstream media was using it to describe her a few years ago.

No, I think comparing a politician to a bail bondsman is not appropriate. One is a businessman. The other is someone who campaigning is to be a public servant. You would hold the latter to a higher standard. You don't even need a subsequent crime to make this an area of concern for people. It has nothing to do with her views on bail reform. She was not supporting just any poor random fools who could not afford bail. She was supporting a group that was bailing out people from a left wing protest. If Poilievre were to have done something similar with the freedom convoy, this would become an immediate talking point from the Liberal party. In one sense, it may be dumb to blame her for the subsequent crime, but politicians have to wear this sort of thing all the time. You don't think a Republican would have to wear something like this?

Ultimately, though, I think that is what Trump should focus on. Let things like Kamala's accent change speak for itself.

How did Hitler tie his shoes? In little nazis! My older brother told me that when I was kid.

Suppose a biological man walks by. He has a beard, a big beer belly, a MAGA cap on, and he lets out a big belch in your face. Is it possible for him to identify as a woman? Suppose a woman walks by. She's not demure. She has on a MAGA cap and she also belches in your face. Can she still identify with the female gender? Suppose a man wears dresses. He is very demure. He is accommodating and nurturing. Can he identify as a man?

What are the social components? Give me a few examples. What are defining factors of woman as a gender?

So there is woman as a sex and woman as a gender, then?

I don't know if I agree with that. In one respect, yes. Trump would be the one more likely saying "booger" over and over again. He uses childish insults and has a nickname for every opponent. On the other hand, I think Democrats have sunk to extreme lows in making fantastical claims about their political opponents. They have engaged in a lot more fear-mongering. Now, I think this was the reverse during the Obama years. I think Republicans were doing that far more. They were focused on Obama being a communist and a secret Muslim. Maybe Romney and Ryan didn't do that, but Republicans in general.

So what is a woman? Is it a sex or a gender identity?

I'd say in about ten years that's what political debates are going to be.

Yes, I have decided that reality is not something based upon how you feel. If it were, there would be no reality at all. I can have whatever discussion I want.

No it isn't. Venus and Serena Williams both lost in a tennis match to a man who was ranked 203rd in the world. There is a clear difference in how men and women perform in sports. If the top players in male tennis suddenly decided they felt like women and wanted to play women's tennis, they would dominate the sport for years. That's why there is a distinction. And yes, I suppose money would factor in there, too, because fans would quickly find such a ridiculous discrepancy in talent not very entertaining to watch.

I am not stopping anyone from calling themselves a certain gender. I don't think I should be required to suspend reality for them, though. And I do not think it is good to give minors puberty blockers. Because these discussions are important. I am referring to discussions about gender and sports. This one is a really difficult one, because as the OP mentioned, it is a muddy area. I mean there are cases where biologically male power lifters are dominating in female leagues. You can choose to ignore that if you wish. Who are you to say we can't have a discussion about it?

I don't know the answer. But I think it is worthy of discussion. I can sympathize with the situation. I am not really qualified to discuss how much of an advantage one has to have to be considered too good for a certain league. I don't have the scientific knowledge. I don't know much about boxing. I would think it would be more concerning in a pugilistic sport than basketball.

There are tall male swimmers. There are tall female swimmers. There are tall basketball players as Black Dog has pointed out. For some reason that has never been an issue. Yet, there are male and female leagues for sports. Why do you suppose there is a that distinction in the first place? Is it an outdated distinction?

It was poorly articulated. The point is he isn't just paying for it. He makes money. He is not supporting a certain cause. And he is not running for office--- presumably?? I mean you can argue about Harris' views on bail reform. I don't think that has any relationship as to why she donated to the Minnesota non-profit. What she did here was to support a fund bailing out a left wing group of protestors. She has every right to. Maybe you even think it is a good thing. A lot of people might not. If Pierre Poilievre were to, let's say, provide some sort of financial support to the legal benefit of people from the freedom convoy, this would become a Liberal talking point overnight.

They don't belong to one.

Yes, there are very rare instances where people possess genetic attributes which make it impossible to classify them as being more one than the other. Given that close to a hundred percent of the population is either biologically male or female, those genders are pretty much the standard. A rare anomaly does not constitute a new gender. Furthermore, if you are attempting to draw a line from these extremely rare genetic cases to the trans phenomenon at large (and I do not know that you are, but it sounds that way), then I think you are on shaky ground. Is the existence of people with extremely rare genetic conditions an argument for giving kids puberty blockers? Is this evidence of a multiplicity of genders? No.

Feelings have nothing to do with reality. If a schizophrenic feels he was born on Pluto and was sent here to be our messiah it does not make it so.

I am not claiming that I make decisions, but I don't see anything wrong with using the word "we". If you would prefer I could rewrite the post and say "society" or something like that.

The point is not whether the bail comes from a for-profit or non-profit entity. The point is that she is neither. She is a politician who represents the public. She has a legal right to support the non-profit. People also have the right to question her suitability as a leader after donating money to help protestors who were breaking the law. That's why it's not the same.

A rare genetic anomaly is not a gender.

Perhaps. I mean individuals do have different testosterone levels than others. Things are relative. But to totally dismiss any conversation over this sort of thing is pretty ridiculous. Does Serena Williams have a condition which makes her testosterone so high that she ought to be in a different league? The OP has admitted that this particular case is a bit muddy given that the boxer is not actually a man. There is a reason we put men in different leagues than women in the first place. There is a reason we put people of different ages or weight classes in different leagues. We do make decisions like this based on advantages and physical differences, even though to some extent you could argue that they are relative. We do this for the sake of a safety as well maintaining a reasonable level of competitiveness. What is the point to having women's boxing when a woman can't last an entire minute against this person? She is an experienced female boxer. She made it to the Olympics. She says she has never felt a punch like that before. Do you not see the obvious detrimental effects this can have on women's sports?

Who are you to decide what are quality discussions? If it is so burdensome to you, one would think you would just ignore it. Are you on the high road, Mike, or a high horse?

This is a pretty weak. I didn't enter a thread I felt was unimportant to tell everyone I thought the topic was unimportant. You are really quite full of yourself to think we care.