That isn’t to say non standard biology is always involved, just that it can be.

Point is - no doubt there's something biologically and cognitively going on with these people (I'd frame it as there being something wrong with them, in the same sense that eating disorders are maladaptive and harmful).

Longwinded way of saying I agree with you.

Ex: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coverage/DeterminationProcess/D...

Also, though I'm trained as a lawyer, I also have a BsC with an interest in endocrinology and I'd suggest that nothing in the human body besides the brain is more complicated than one's hormones and their interactions inter se. I'm a big believer in modern medicine, but I do think we have too high an opinion of ourselves as a species when it comes to our ability to control outcomes vis-a-vis a person's hormones.

As to having a mental illness, that’s often how we describe issues we don’t understand or have the ability to treat. Stress ulcers are a great example of such classifications. I am not disagreeing that many of these people have significant mental issues, but calling something a mental illness isn’t specific enough to do anything with and tends to be used dismissively. Further once the underlying cause is discovered we stop thinking of say mercury poisoning as a mental health issue.

I should also add: the trans-rights thing is actually something that in my experience most people, even those who are otherwise socially 'liberal', generally find disagreeable. I've got gay friends and feminist friends who both get just as outraged as I do at the idea that men should be able to waltz into female bathrooms, or compete in women's sports, etc. My own view is that this is actually something that the large majority of the population thinks a certain way about, but as usual in this day and age a very small minority of people dedicate their existence to 'activism' and cause the movement to seem larger than it is.

> My own view is that this is actually something that the large majority of the population thinks a certain way about, but as usual in this day and age a very small minority of people dedicate their existence to 'activism' and cause the movement to seem larger than it is.

Agreed, but also that most people up until recently haven't really thought much about it at all. That the activism of this small minority is drawing more attention and scrutiny of late is probably a good thing in the long run, given all the harmful downstream effects of gender identity ideology, particularly on women and children.

I think this image post, from a radical feminist forum, makes this point well (with examples): https://ovarit.com/o/Radfemmery/67892/listen-to-tims

Like straight out the gate with "I support marginalized people but only the way I think is best for them, disregarding their own experiences and preferences." Then immediate followup with the 2011-era reddit style pseudo-evo-psych about how our current social order is fully justified because of science or whatever.

Hm why do men not want to go into some of these fields could it be the decades of ensuring they have low prestige, low wages, or both? No, it must be evolution.

These may pass for liberal positions in the US but they are moderate-to-hard right compared to things like "medical care is between an individual and their doctors" and "there are still barriers to equality in society and the workplace, and it takes generations for all the effects of social change to be realized so of course we'll be seeing the effects of past exclusions for decades."

There is also plenty of evidence that testosterone has effects on male aggression, caring instincts, bonding, etc. Pretending that gender hormonal differences don't exert massive effects on interests and social behaviours is not tenable, IMO. No doubt more men than currently do would would go into childcare if the wages suddenly became $200/hour, but that doesn't mean they'd be as good as it as women are on average, nor would it reflect a change in their natural desires/motivations.

Good day.

But there is a very big leap between identifying inclinations in primate infants and determining that the unjust structures of our society are caused purely by that. Especially when there are so many other easily observable factors in that inequality right now.

That aside, why even focus on it when there are more powerful incentives already at play? Let's get the wages evened out then see what people do, rather than decide in advance what we think they will do.

Take blacks and the black crime rate, for example. It's known that blacks are busted for, and convicted of, marijuana possession at rates exponentially higher than other races. Instead of concluding that perhaps blacks have some genetic predisposition for weed, or that they have cognitive differences that affect their judgment and self-control - either of which isn't an obviously unreasonable conclusion IMO - in many US states it's now been determined that, apparently, the laws themselves (viz., the laws the criminalise marijuana possession) are racist. Or take college admissions - because blacks are, on average, 1 standard deviation less intelligent than literally every other race, and hence do substantially worse on standardised tests, SURPRISE, they don't get into Ivy League universities, become lawyers and doctors and engineers, etc. But instead of considering that maybe, just possibly, there's a genetic difference - or a difference caused by them having been enslaved for a few generations - society has now apparently concluded that in fact it's the standardised tests that are racist, or the admissions process itself. Frankly I find all this laughably asinine, and if that's what you mean by the 'unjust structures of our society' then I'll have to disagree with you. Even if you want to blame their current problems on slavery, don't you think it's reasonable to call the slavery itself racist, and not today's current laws?

Regarding the gender pay gap, my understanding is that men literally work more hours than women per capita, therefore, logically, they do on average get paid more in lifetime earnings. Adding to that point, let's look at 'women's sports'. I've seen it said that WNBA players, for example, should as a matter of 'equality' be paid the same as men's NBA players. But men's players are compensated according to the market, and the market is based almost exclusively on the public's desire and willingness to pay to see men's NBA players play. People, apparently, do not want to see physically inferior females who are weaker, slower, less coordinated, etc., play basketball, and apparently people refuse to value the experience as highly as they do men's basketball. And if you find that objectionable, just look at how many females and female Olympians were outraged at the idea of having men who'd had surgery/hormone therapy compete against them in the Olympics. They know, just as I do, that there is a massive physical gap between the genders. As an aside, query whether those differences carry over into the cognitive domain (I think they do - as a start, men have 10% larger brains, and completely different proportions of important regions like Broca's area, the anterior cingulate, area 10, etc). What if they did, and men happened to be better at things that people find more valuable. Is that unjust?

Curious to know your thoughts on this, specifically whether you think 'sexism' is to blame for that market situation.

I bring that example up because, quite literally, it is one of those intractable problems (women being physically inferior to men) that we can do nothing about except accept and move on. Not every apparent inequality is a problem, IMO, nor can we fix them all.

Take care.

Definitely not busting out 'the white hood', but if you want to caricature me in that way I can't stop you, obviously. What I claimed was that I hold a number of views that are socially 'liberal' in the American sense, noting that liberal means something different in the rest of the world, including Australia (where I live).

Not sure how old you are, but at some age you'll realise that in real life the political beliefs people hold often don't conform precisely with those of any particular political party. Such is life, regardless of their political bent.

There are many reasons.

In the case that carrying a fetus to term would kill the mother: abort. One life does not merit the safety of another.

In the case that a fetus was conceived in rape: abort. Would you remind yourself, and even be beholden to, evil?

In the case that a fetus would be born unwanted: abort. It is better to be born into a loving family than raised in orphanages or worse: raised in a family who do not love you.

I don't. You asked why would anyone. I just presented some reasons that I know my lady friends have stated.

I do, in fact, think that you don't "need" any reason whatsoever. I think a woman has every right to choose whether or not to have a baby including to abort a baby for any reason or even for no reason.

I think it's normal that different people think differently. I think this is a very flame-inviting question as it stands.

I've certainly met vastly more people who want to preserve Roe v. Wade because they want to preserve a woman's right to choose than people who want to preserve Roe v. Wade because they think that we need more abortions. I can't recall ever meeting someone who was actually pro-abortion.

Even those who think we should significantly lower the population almost always want to do that through better contraception, not through more abortions.

- that is semantics (if you want the choice to exist, you're pro-abortion, existentially speaking)

- everyone knew what the poster meant

- this is the least interesting conversation derailment folks could choose. Maybe instead go to bat against the raging anti-trans statement included for some reason?

In most cases it takes a man and a woman to conceive a fetus. But if the fetus is finally born into a baby, the consequence of that is rarely divided evenly between the man and the woman. In extreme but not really uncommon cases, the division can be 100%-0%: that the man bears no consequences at all and the woman bears all the consequences. Abortion makes the consequence close to 0, so that it's more even between 100% and 0%.

I'm not necessarily in favor of any specific case of abortion, or wanting more of them in the world, or anything like that. "Pro abortion access" would probably be more technically correct but that opens the argument up to getting derailed by "well how much access" and shit. Plus the mild transgressiveness of the term is helpful sometimes, if it makes people stop for a second and ask like this.