Tea Ess

I googled "yahoo Drexel professor" and found the article. I'm guessing Yahoo moved it to a different news section or something and the link changed. I'd share it, but I'm not allowed to post links without mod approval.

This is the case in literally every state. Areas with high population density usually lean Democrat, and more rural areas usually lean Republican. Going by our current winner-takes-all method of distributing states' electoral votes, a certain portion of the population in every state is going to get overruled, like Republicans in California, or Democrats in Texas. I'm not necessarily against large states being split up, but I'm very against it when the main purpose is to mess with the electoral votes. There's no way that it's going to be executed in a logical and fair manner. Splitting a state would be a logistical nightmare even if it wasn't highly politicized.

I'm not arguing against that; I'm disputing your claim that women have always worn pants, which is incorrect. Again, pants haven't even existed for all of human history, and they haven't always been an acceptable and common garment for women across all eras and societies. In the US specifically, pants were considered a male garment up until the 1920s or so, and there have been rules enforcing that segregation, such as in schools and even in the US Senate, which prohibited women from wearing pants while on the floor up until 1993. Then I apologize for misinterpreting your comment. The rest of my post still stands for clothing and behaviors seen as masculine/feminine. What is your opinion of sports not segregated by gender, like a co-ed soccer league? I asked about toy guns and you responded with something about real guns, so I misunderstood your meaning. Those aren't actual disorders.

No, women have not always worn pants. Pants haven't existed for all of human history, and they haven't been an acceptable and common garment for women in some eras and societies. In the US specifically, pants were considered a male garment up until the 1920s or so. If I'm understanding you correctly, sports that are seen as masculine by society aren't okay for girls to play, but sports that are seen as feminine (or maybe not strongly leaning either way) are fine. Basically, it completely depends on society's arbitrary feelings on any given piece of clothing or sport at any given time. Therefore, to make a certain piece of clothing, a specific sport, or a behavior acceptable, all we have to do is change society's view of it. In 50 years, it could very well be considered acceptable for men to wear full faces of makeup or paint their nails. Or, *gasp*, for boys to play with easy bake ovens and dolls. How do you feel about certain occupations? Is it permissible for men to go into female dominated fields, or women to go into male dominated fields? So it isn't acceptable for girls to play with toy guns, but using real guns is totally fine? Conservatism, not even once. What are the names of those disorders?

A few hundred thousand dollars a year is nothing compared to the millions being spent on vacations. The local areas also provide security, no it's not all the secret service.

The question I wanted answered was: why don't you apply the same standard to girls wearing male clothing and doing activities seen as masculine? You say that men should be men and women should be women, yet you seem to only care about clothing/toys when it comes to boys. Is it a perversion for women to wear pants, play with toy guns, or compete in athletic events? If not, why?

I don't think this was ever addressed.

The most effective means of reducing/eliminating gender disphoria is by physical transition. It's certainly better than ostracizing or invalidating trans people, prompting many of them to suicide. Or, as you suggested, we could give them easy bake ovens and dolls for a cheaper and faster fix. Gluttony is a sin, yes? People are born with Prader-Willi syndrome. Symptoms include unstoppable and neverending hunger. Many overeat and become obese and diabetic. Do you think they living a life of sin? Oh yes, conversion therapy has such a compassionate, Christian history. Shocking people's genitals, driving them to suicide, castration. How wonderful. Also, Exodus International closed its doors and apologized to those it 'treated.' Conversion therapy is not a rational or humane option.

I guess this solves the whole transgender bathroom debate, then. All we need to do for Male to Female trans people is give them easy bake ovens and dolls and then there shouldn't be an issue with them using the girls' restroom, as they are indisputably female now. That was easy. Sex education should be about providing information and promoting consent. Encouraging heterosexuality or homosexuality is not needed or helpful, as sexual orientation is not a choice.

I was told that using more than one example was 'moving the goalposts,' so I narrowed the discussion to the KKK, which is still white supremacist. White supremacists still murder people, and it's more widespread than this one attack. Targeting a segment of the population is still terrorism per the FBI definition.

This is blatantly false. Some Islamic terror attacks killed one person, and some injured people but did not kill anyone.

That is indeed what you sound like to me. Again, please stop with the partisanship. Considering violent white supremacists to be terrorists should not be a controversial issue. A small percentage of a population is a small subset, which was my intended meaning. As a liberal, I try to defend the rights of everyone, which includes Muslims. Islamic theocracies are part of the reason why I support separation of church and state.

You were the one who brought up easy bake ovens. Using the toys kids play with to establish gender identity is just ridiculous. I guess it's a good thing we don't use your religious beliefs to make the rules for public schools.

No terrorism is meaningless. Islamic terrorism is committed by a small set of Muslims as well.

'The idea that most terrorists are Muslims is just part of the conservative agenda to demonize all Muslims. They're just trying to distract everyone from the evils committed by white people.' -that's what you sound like. Stop with the partisan nonsense. “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate OR coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." The KKK used unlawful force against persons to intimidate a segment of the civilian population to further both political and social agendas. Yep, the mosque attack fits. I'm glad we can agree white Trump supporters can be terrorists too.

Good. Cooking or playing with a doll won't 'turn a boy into a girl.' My parents gave me a doll before my sister was born so I could learn how to hold a baby. Cooking is an important skill, and pretty much everyone should know how to do it. I personally like cooking. Do you think I'm a woman, Shiloh? Yes, if it's safe for them to do so. Unfortunately they would probably face a lot of bullying. Out of curiosity, why is it okay for girls to wear pants and play sports, but not for boys to bake and wear dresses?

Going by the FBI's definition you yourself posted, acts of violence committed by the KKK to intimidate black people were acts of terrorism. The KKK had both political and social agendas and actively tried to achieve them through terror. So you agree the attack by the Trump supporter in Canada was terrorism?

Aaannnd there it is. This perspective is exactly why this program exists, and it definitely contributes to the pressure kids face to confrom to gender roles. If a boy wants to play with dolls or an easy bake oven, let him. If a girl wants to play sports, let her.

Renewable energy is still in use and always will be.

Neither do you. White Supremacy is an agenda, and the act that started this thread was an act of terror. The Trump supporter who attacked the Canadian mosque and killed Muslims had a political agenda. He was a terrorist.

Any energy source is going to have drawbacks. The question is finding the ones that have the least drawbacks, and those are all renewable sources. The number of birds killed by turbines pales in comparison to those killed by buildings or house cats. Pollution and climate change are worse for the environment than renewable sources. Hydroelectric plants and uranium mining can have a large negative impact on the environment, but even they're better than coal.

Nuclear energy has its own dangers, but as a whole it's still safer and cleaner, especially when the appropriate safety mechanisms are in place. According to Forbes, coal kills 10,000 people in the US each year.

The Trump family should be trying to minimize the expense of security. If we're going to be cutting government waste, nothing should be immune to scrutiny. A good place to start would be not taking so many vacations at Mar-a-Lago. That would save taxpayers millions.

There are definitely instances of the US deliberately killing civilians. We also took land from Native Americans, like the Hawaiians. There are also all those times we toppled the elected goverments of other countries, such as in Central America. Is the US arguably a more compassionate nation than Imperial Japan, for example? I would say yes, but that shouldn't be used to dismiss the evil acts our county has committed.

Under the FBI's definition, committing an act of violence to intimidate civilians is also terrorism. This would include white supremacists killing racial minorities in addition to extremist Christians bombing abortion clinics.