It's not about left wing politics.

It's more about the fact that the CIA and other law enforcement agencies, lean heavily to one side. Some of that side are funded by people or organizations whose stated goals and ideals don't really align with human rights, open markets, democracy, etc. I don't trust such people to be ethical stewards of some of the most powerful tools mankind has created to date.

I'd rather it be open sourced and the people at the top be 100% truthful in why they are there, what their goals are, and what they (especially a former CIA operative) are influencing on a corporate level relative to the product.

Disclaimer: registered independent, vocal hater of the 2 party system.

But if it says a woman is "anything that identifies as a woman", then it's still a vast right wing conspiracy?

Statistically, the odds are overwhelming that the answer is, "No effect whatsoever."

Then who benefits from keeping the subject front-and-center in your thoughts and writing? Is it more likely to be a transgender person, or a leftist politician... or a right-wing demagogue?

How does it affect me?

In a non-clown world, it wouldn't. In fact I'm happy to let anyone identify as anything, as long as I'm not compelled to pretent along with them.

But we live in a clown world and now, in some places, the truth is illegal.

Dead naming (even if the legal name) is a crime. Using the wrong pronouns is a crime. Men are competing against women (and winning) Men are winning awards and accolades meant for women. Men are going into women's changing rooms. There is a concerted effort in public schools to normalize this abnormal behavior.

Why the gender crowd hasn't caught on to replacing the first person pronouns "you", I don't know. But they will and when it happens it's going to be delicious.

If a person legally changes their name (forget gender, only name), and you refuse to use it, and insist on using the old name even after requests to stop, at some point that would become considered malicious and become harassment.

But ultimately because society and science deems that "name" is not something you're born with, but a matter of personal preference and whims, it's not a crime. You'd be an asshole, but not a criminal.

However, society and science have deemed that sexuality and gender are things you ARE born with, mostly hetero and cis, but sometimes not. So if you refuse to acknowledge these, you are committing a hateful crime against someone who doesn't have a choice in the matter.

You can disagree. But then don't claim that "you are happy to let anyone identify as anything", because you're not, not really.

> Men are competing against women (and winning). Men are winning awards and accolades meant for women.

One woman. Almost all examples everyone brings up are based on Lia Thomas [0]. I have yet to see other notable examples, never mind an epidemic of men competing against women in sports.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lia_Thomas

> Men are going into women's changing rooms. There is a concerted effort in public schools to normalize this abnormal behavior.

Are you talking about transgender people, or are you talking about bad faith perverts abusing self-identification laws to do this?

Because if it's the former, are you asking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaire_White to use men's changing rooms, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_Angel to use women's?

If it's the latter, no denial that perverts and bad faith exceptions exist. But those people never needed an excuse to hide in women's toilets. Trans people have been using the bathrooms of their confirmed gender for decades. The only thing that's changed recently is conservatives decided to make this their new wedge issues so butch women and mothers with male children with mental handicaps that need bathroom assistance have been getting harassed.

1) I'm happy to let anyone identify as whatever.

2) I may not agree with their self identification.

I disagree with your assertion that misnaming people is harassment, as in the illegal kind. I once worked with a guy named Michael who would get bent when you called him Mike.

As you can imagine he could be tricky to work with and, on those occasions, I would call him Mike.

I repeatedly misnamed him on purpose, it wouldn't have even made HR bat an eye.

As for sports, this isn't a complete list, but I think it defeats the "one women" narrative:

"woman of the year":

Rachel Levine - USA today

Caitlyn Jenner - Glamour Magazine

Laverne Cox - Glamiur Magazine

MJ Rodriguez - Times Magazine

Men in women's sports:

Laurel Hubbard - took a spot in NZ women's team.

Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood - CT state Champs track and field

Austin Killips - wins $35k prize in bike race.

Tiffany Thomas - wins bike races at 46 against women half his age.

And there's more. A lot more.

Tell me, how do you tell the difference between who is trans in good faith and someone who claims to be trans in bad faith?

What about gender fluid people who are men one moment and women the next?

We don't know who is being accused of taking their glory, we don't know if it's 1 person or 100. We don't know if the people that supposedly defeated them is even Trans, or a CIS victim of the Trans Panic like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caster_Semenya

We don't know if the women who beat these "she won" women are self-identified, have been on hormones for 2 weeks, or 20 years.

What a ludicrous transphobic panic.

Also, Caster Semenya is male, with a male-only DSD. This is a fact that was confirmed in the IAAF arbitration proceedings. Semenya's higher levels of testosterone, when compared to female athletes, are due to the presence of functional internal testes. Semenya has since fathered children.

So, your career at Dell didn't go as well as you'd hoped. Being a jerk isn't illegal, AFAIK, but at some point you run out of other people to blame for the consequences of your own beliefs and actions.

Still missing the part where the existence of Caitlyn Jenner and the relatively small number of others who were born with certain unfortunate but addressable hormonal issues is negatively affecting your life.

And it's utterly crazy to think that someone would adopt a transgender posture in "bad faith." That's the sort of change someone makes after trying everything else first, because of the obvious negative social consequences it brings. Yes, there are a few genuinely-warped people, but as another comment points out, those people are going to sneak into locker rooms and abuse children anyway.

You want to take the red pill, and see reality as it is? Try cross-correlating the local sex-offender registry with voter registration rolls. Observe who is actually doing the "grooming." Then, go back to the people who've been lying to you all along, and ask them why.

Hmmm, not sure I like that line of thinking. Plus, I already outlined how it affects me and my family members, one of which runs track in CT.

Seriously though, I did get an LOL from your Dell joke. And another one for "addressable hormonal issues". That was a new one for me.

I am truly curious about the voter role thing, I've not heard that claim before, though I have no doubt that sexual derangement comes in all forms. Can you cite a source?

Hard to find a source you'd likely accept, but maybe start here: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/04/from-hastert-to-...

It's one of those cases where it's safe to say "Do your own research," because the outcome will be unequivocal if considered in good faith (meaning if you don't rely solely on right-wing sources for the "research.") The stats aren't even close.

I'm not Jewish, so if we had a holocaust in the US I should do nothing because it doesn't affect me?

I think we're pretty much done here. Good luck on your own path through life, it sounds like a challenging one.

Most males who adopt an opposite-sex identity reach that point through repeated erotic stimulation. This is a psychological issue, driven by sexual desire.

Correlation, causation, etc.

A liberal Republican? Will Hurd's voting record speaks otherwise. In the 115th Congress, Hurd voted with Donald Trump 94.8% of the time. In the 116th Congress, that number dropped to 64.8%. That's an 80.4% average across Trump's presidency. [0] Agreeing with Donald Trump 4 times out of 5 across all legislative activities over 4 years isn't really being critical of him or his administration.

[0] https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/wi...

It's like calling Dick Cheney a liberal because one of his daughters is lesbian, even though he supports all sort of other far-right legislation.