Political Divisions in the U.S. 2022 Midterm Elections

**paleologos** · November 05, 2022, 08:30 AM

Thread title changed for clarity.

-chriscase

First the context, then the questions, bear with me please.

Here is the video:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Between two of the people who have watched this video there was this exchange:

Person A:

There is only one thing I would ask a Democrat:
"What is a woman?"

Person B:

Biologically speaking (as a scientist), the definition of "woman" is man-made. There is no single gene, no chromosome set, no protein/hormone expression set that is always present in people even YOU would certainly call a woman, same goes for men.

It might surprise you to know that we predict there are many more biologically intersex people than current numbers suggest. Not everybody has problems, so they don't get tested.

In numerous different PHARMACEUTICAL studies (which means it's all based on numbers and numbers can be manipulated, true, but raw data does not lie), gender is actually two overlapping bell curves. Most people are "average", yes. But that "average" has 3 or 4 minor biological deviations from what we call "classical binary gender markers". Many have 5 or 6 deviations. And enough to matter have even more, or one VERY significant deviation.

So at the end of the day, I shrug and say that the definition of a woman is moot, because biology does not care, has not cared, and will NEVER care about what we say, there is NO biological definition for a woman.

Person A:

If you are a scientist then I am the Pope. Half your country decided to interpret climate science as an opinion and the other half decided to interpret biology as an opinion. Your post modernist hijacking of language and definitions is a perfect match for the arbitrary decision to claim that the last elections were stolen. Such attitudes are leading the country currently in possession of the world's mightiest nuclear arsenal into an assured civil war. You are not just deluded, you are atrociously irresponsible. You people are not the only ones on the planet, include that in your otherwise self righteous considerations.

Do you think that Person B has grounds in actual science to claim that "there is NO biological definition for a woman"?
I for one, know they are wrong to say "there is no single gene, no chromosome set..." given that there are such chromosomes as the X and Y sex chromosomes and the XY sex-determination system.

More importantly, I want your comments on Person A's claim that treating science, either climate or biology as an opinion is pulling the world's most powerful nation apart.
(Personally I would agree, as such stances undermine the concept of the existence of a factual and knowable reality and thusly torpedo the means by which a nation's citizenry can overcome the differences between their opinions.)

And finally and most importantly, do you share Person A's concerns about a second American Civil War and the apprehension it might go nuclear?

Some additional material to consider:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

**Coughdrop addict** · November 05, 2022, 10:13 AM

Do you think that Person B has grounds in actual science to claim that "there is NO biological definition for a woman"?
I for one, know they are wrong to say "there is no single gene, no chromosome set..." given that there are such chromosomes as the X and Y sex chromosomes and the XY sex-determination system.

I would answer "Who cares? Calling someone a woman because they want to has no impact on my life.

More importantly, I want your comments on Person A's claim that treating science, either climate or biology as an opinion is pulling the world's most powerful nation apart.

I would say they are right to be concerned, because it's clear that the right has decided that uneducated and barely literate people will be easier to enslave, they attack education and science every chance they get.

For examples we only need to look at the ongoing campaign against teachers by the right, to paint them all as radicals or deviants. Thet various legislators trying to make sure only "patriotic" history is taught. The push to replace public k-12 education with private schools which are usually religious. Constant attacks on universities by right wing media figures (Go on Fox and search 'university' or 'college' in their opinions section). Then there's the anti-science, anti-intellectualism movement promoted by the anti-vaxxers and the climate change deniers. Conservative religious groups also have made it known they want to replace public science education with young earth creationism and/or geocentrism. Then there are physically attacks and kidnappings of school employees done by "concerned parents" who were "concerned" that their child might learn that racism is bad or slavery was wrong.

And finally and most importantly, do you share Person A's concerns about a second American Civil War and the apprehension it might go nuclear?

I would hope the military is not about to throw their oaths away to make Trump dictator, so it will be them against the MAGAs. And considering how the MAGAs have never faced any hardship or difficulty in their lives (seriously, they were having public toddler meltdowns at being asked to wear a mask) I don't see how they could cope with the horrors and hardships of war.

Even if they could somehow tough it out, their egotistical, selfish natures would quickly lead to any MAGA army turning on itself. Each thinks he deserves to be in charge on account of his inherent superiority and would expect someone else to do all the heavy lifting so he can stroll right in and take over afterwards, as surely the world will recognize him as the natural leader of things. And when all of them assume they're going to be in power, and all are armed, well there's a reason a lot of right-wing militias take themselves out in the end. That's one of the reasons the Republican party must always have an 'other' to point their voters at. They are well aware that their party will begin to eat itself if left to it's own devices.

Naturally this sort of mindset, of caring for yourself and only yourself, would also make the teamwork a military force needs to be effective impossible. Lone-wolfing it like Rambo only works in the movies.

**paleologos** · November 05, 2022, 11:59 AM

Thank you for your participation, one-sided though it was.
You conveniently omitted to comment on Person A's assertion that:

... post modernist hijacking of language and definitions is a perfect match for the arbitrary decision to claim that the last elections were stolen.

(That's what an even handed take on the situation reads like to me.)

Also you said:

Calling someone a woman because they want to has no impact on my life.

Perhaps that is the case, however, if you had daughters in high school and they told you they do not want to share dressing rooms with people who have penises, what tune might you be singing?
Because the two are connected.
Would you perhaps tell your daughters to "bite the bullet and take one for the cause", or would you do what -until recently- was considered the self-evidently responsible and protective stance of a loving and concerned parent?

Also, the claim of Person B that they are a scientist and because of that they should be believed when they say that the XY sex-determination system does not provide proof of biological differences between the sexes, is either acceptable to you, or it is not.
And if it is not, what do you think it says about the ability of a nation to use fact in order to overcome differences of opinion in the process of achieving consensus for governance?

Allow me to reiterate my opinion:

Personally I would agree, as such stances undermine the concept of the existence of a factual and knowable reality and thusly torpedo the means by which a nation's citizenry can overcome the differences between their opinions.

In your opinion, is there logic in my opinion?
How are conservative citizens going to be convinced that science matters when "liberal" citizens treat science as a political crutch but only when it conveniences their side?
If science matters, it should always matter, methinks and if anti-intellectualism is bad on the side of the conservatives then it should always be bad.
Or is it full spectrum Schrödinger's reality?

Your post reads as if the only threat that you see comes from radicals on the right, all the while also reading lackadaisically disconcerned about the abuses of professional activists on the left:
I assert that if one is a professional activist they are powerfully motivated to never declare victory on their "cause".
Such a stance would amount to a declaration that their profession has become obsolete.
Having to retool yourself in your forties is neither easy nor fascinating, so these people are motivated to constantly be inventing a never ending stream of grievances to fight for, forever pushing things further to an ever receding edge.
The fact that the Democratic Party has given "earth and water" to such people and allowed them to dictate official stances on various matters makes the prospect of them being "in power" quite repulsive to half a nation.

Perhaps you are aware that there are plenty of people in the USA that find the prospect of a like-minded and conspicuous dictatorship preferable to a concealed dictatorship of cancel culture, especially one cancel culture that demoralizes their sons and slutifies their daughters (right or wrong, that's what they see coming their way).

And perhaps you believe that regardless of the fact that they are in possession of the majority of privately owned firearms they are not a threat for the Federal Government.

But I would remind you that Hitler's first attempt at power also failed.
The second time he won elections, ascended to Chancellorship legitimately and stayed in his position to his death.
The threat of fascism is that they get power through elections and then never give it up.

Likewise, I have reasons to believe that there are people on "the left" of the US political spectrum that would prefer a dictatorship of an ideology they find agreeable to reaching out to the other side of the aisle in search of compromise.

There was a time when I would say the US being the indispensable nation was a BS myth of American self-flattery.
Today, knowing what I know about the established systems of international financial reserves and the necessity to police and defend the maritime trade lanes, I am very much concerned about the apparent inability of the American nation to be at ease in their own skin.

**Morticia Iunia Bruti** · November 05, 2022, 02:17 PM

Perhaps that is the case, however, if you had daughters in high school and they told you they do not want to share dressing rooms with people who have penises, what tune might you be singing?
Because the two are connected.
Would you perhaps tell your daughters to "bite the bullet and take one for the cause", or would you do what -until recently- was considered the self-evidently responsible and protective stance of a loving and concerned parent?

First: the teenage girls with the penis would hide it because they are ashamed of it and hate it, because they are still trapped in a male body.

Second: the transsexual teens are no adult rapists, which will rape every minute your teenage daughters. You should protect them better for being raped our molested by your orthodox priest or Uncle Christoforos, who was always much too nice to them.

The "We must protect our daughters" argument is directly recycled from "We most protect our kids from homosexuals".

Neither are homosexuals pädophile nor are transsexuals.

Standard fearmongering of the far right to demonize the inner scapegoat enemy.

Perhaps you are aware that there are plenty of people in the USA that find the prospect of a like-minded and conspicuous dictatorship preferable to a concealed dictatorship of cancel culture, especially one cancel culture that demoralizes their sons and slutifies their daughters (right or wrong, that's what they see coming their way).

And exactly this "If women don't behave to my male moral standards and expectations, they are slutified!" is the reason, why Greece has a femicide problem:

https://greekreporter.com/2022/09/30...micide-greece/
https://greekreporter.com/2022/08/01...le-day-greece/
https://www.france24.com/en/live-new...ling-femicides
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35651310/

Nothing more to add.

**paleologos** · November 05, 2022, 03:28 PM

@ Morticia:
You missed the point altogether.
The trouble is that you missed it on purpose.

I don't care which side is right and which side is wrong.
It's their country and I will not dictate domestic policy to them.

I am concerned that they are losing their ability to function as a nation because both sides have allowed their most extreme elements to dictate party stance and both sides, for the sake of their own argument, refuse to acknowledge the merits in the concerns of the other side and they refuse to even try.

Just read your own post one more time.
Because my post was not 100% in alignment with your prior convictions you presumed I was an adversary of yours and that presumption saturated your tone.

Not to mention, it was entirely partisan:
"Only when parents of other children share the values of Morticia should they be allowed the "privilege" of providing their children with continuity of values" seems to be your idea.

And it was a post rife with strawmanship.
It was a response to a hypothetical post (not the one I made) that used the same words as mine but with different syntax.
(Just acknowledge that syntax is equally important as vocabulary in the conveyance of meaning.)
This is the exact kind of political culture that is causing problems over there.

Also FYI: Femicide Rates by Country 2022

Intentional homicides of females per 100000 people:
Greece 0.5
Germany 0.9 (same as Turkey).

Are you convinced that there are no woman-killers "Deep within the dark German forest"?
Because you won't find Polizei there either.

**Morticia Iunia Bruti** · November 05, 2022, 03:53 PM

Thats a nice try, but the only purpose of this thread is to incite hate against transsexuals and left women, which are in your words slutified.

If you would have started a discussion about the poltical diversion in the US you could have talked about healthcare, taxes, weapon control, abortion...

No you have chosen transsexuals.

This is nothing more than another bash the left / transsexuals in the pit.

**paleologos** · November 05, 2022, 04:04 PM

This is the Cathy Newman routine: "So you are saying...".
I was conveying the concerns of half a nation (at least) and the fact that the other half is callous about such concerns.
But let's agree to disagree.
Make your posts in the pit and let the people who are not playing with straws post here.

**Morticia Iunia Bruti** · November 05, 2022, 04:09 PM

Jep i'm quite sure it won't last long till the usual anti-trans/ anti-left Posters will make your wished Echo Chamber.

**paleologos** · November 05, 2022, 04:15 PM

If they disregard the concerns of the left I will respond to them the same way I responded to you and Coughdrop addict.
And if the callous kind is the only kind that post here, then I will contact moderation and ask the thread be locked.

**alhoon** · November 05, 2022, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by Coughdrop addict

I would answer "Who cares? Calling someone a woman because they want to has no impact on my life.

How about calling someone black because they want to? Some people have been crucified for that.

As for who cares, I will answer: I do. Because I don't want to have to lie to people and I don't think the current approach of telling Bob that he is a woman in a man's body helps Bob.
People that have psychological issues should be given help, and agreeing with their skewed view of reality isn't help, it's patronizing. I do consider gender dysphoria a form of mental illness. Someone that is bipolar should receive help to control these issues. I don't think we should just go along with their (wrong) opinion just to make them feel better about themselves. We wouldn't be agreeing with Kanye West that Black people are Jews just because he wants to believe it, and I don't think we should be telling Bob that he is a woman just because he wants to believe it.

That in the past 5-10 years it becomes increasingly necessary to explain "No, you should tell your kid that he isn't a cat, not that he is a cat in a boy's body" is one of the reasons progressives are losing so badly to election-stealers.

**alhoon** · November 05, 2022, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by Morticia Iunia Bruti

First: the teenage girls with the penis would hide it because they are ashamed of it and hate it, because they are still trapped in a male body.

First, they are not teenage girls if they have a penis. They are teenage boys that think they are girls.

Second, Nobody said they would rape one's daughters. That was you extrapolating. What was said was that being around boys in the dressing room would make many girls uncomfortable. Some progressive parents may want to brainwash and clockwork Orange their daughters by saying to them "noooo, they are not boys. They are girls with a penis" but many will be respecting the biology, not the personal issues of the troubled and confused boys that are pushed by progressives to think they are, indeed, girls.
The progressives pushing these boys to accept they are girls instead of trying to make them less ashamed of their penis and to not hate their penis is doing great harm to those boys.

**antaeus** · November 05, 2022, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by paleologos

Thank you for your participation, one-sided though it was

The initial proposition is grounded in opinion:

(Personally I would agree, as such stances undermine the concept of the existence of a factual and knowable reality and thusly torpedo the means by which a nation's citizenry can overcome the differences between their opinions.)

And as you're asking for opinions on your opinion, it's fair that responses are positional.

My question is regarding whether any of the "science" actually matters. Progressives theoretically want everyone to have access to the same opportunities, rights, privileges etc. Regardless of personal traits that in the past would have seen them rejected from some opportunities, rights, privileges etc.

You can insert any physical, mental or what ever trait you want in there. The conversation remains the same. I would argue that people have the right to define themselves - freedom of expression and all. And that this sits above physical traits.

The debate should actually be whether one person's right to self expression can be overruled by another person's right to self expression - I.e. Where one person who freely identifies themselves as Trait A, and another person freely identifies themselves as Anti-Trait A. Because irrespective of any science. The debate is really about how we get on with each other.

**Morticia Iunia Bruti** · November 05, 2022, 06:35 PM

First: No. 1 is there.

Originally Posted by alhoon

First, they are not teenage girls if they have a penis. They are teenage boys that think they are girls.

Second, Nobody said they would rape one's daughters. That was you extrapolating. What was said was that being around boys in the dressing room would make many girls uncomfortable. Some progressive parents may want to brainwash and clockwork Orange their daughters by saying to them "noooo, they are not boys. They are girls with a penis" but many will be respecting the biology, not the personal issues of the troubled and confused boys that are pushed by progressives to think they are, indeed, girls.
The progressives pushing these boys to accept they are girls instead of trying to make them less ashamed of their penis and to not hate their penis is doing great harm to those boys.

They are girls, i don't care about your layman opinion.

What i care is what experts say about treatment:

Treatment for a person diagnosed with GD may include psychological counseling, supporting the individual's gender expression, or hormone therapy or surgery. This may involve physical transition resulting from medical interventions such as hormonal treatment, genital surgery, electrolysis or laser hair removal, chest/breast surgery, or other reconstructive surgeries.^[37] The goal of treatment may simply be to reduce problems resulting from the person's transgender status, for example, counseling the patient in order to reduce guilt associated with cross-dressing.^[38]

Guidelines have been established to aid clinicians. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Standards of Care are used by some clinicians as treatment guidelines. Others use guidelines outlined in Gianna Israel and Donald Tarver's Transgender Care.^[39] Guidelines for treatment generally follow a "harm reduction" model.^[40]^[41]^[42]

Children

Medical, scientific, and governmental organizations have opposed conversion therapy, defined as treatment viewing gender nonconformity as pathological and something to be changed, instead supporting approaches that affirm children's diverse gender identities.^[43]^[44]^[45] People are more likely to keep having gender dysphoria the more intense their gender dysphoria, cross-gendered behavior, and verbal identification with the desired/experienced gender are (i.e. stating that they are a different gender rather than wish to be a different gender).^[46]
Professionals who treat gender dysphoria in children sometimes prescribe puberty blockers to delay the onset of puberty until a child is believed to be old enough to make an informed decision on whether hormonal or surgical gender reassignment is in their best interest.^[47]^[48] Short-term side effects of puberty blockers include headaches, fatigue, insomnia, muscle aches and changes in breast tissue, mood, and weight.^[49] Research on the long-term effects on brain development, cognitive function, fertility, and sexual function is limited.^[50]^[51]^[52]
A review published in Child and Adolescent Mental Health found that puberty blockers are reversible, and that they are associated with such positive outcomes as decreased suicidality in adulthood, improved affect and psychological functioning, and improved social life.^[53]
According to the American Psychiatric Association, "Due to the dynamic nature of puberty development, lack of gender-affirming interventions (i.e. social, psychological, and medical) is not a neutral decision; youth often experience worsening dysphoria and negative impact on mental health as the incongruent and unwanted puberty progresses. Trans-affirming treatment, such as the use of puberty suppression, is associated with the relief of emotional distress, and notable gains in psychosocial and emotional development, in trans and gender diverse youth".^[54]
In its position statement published December 2020, the Endocrine Society stated that there is durable evidence for a biological underpinning to gender identity and that pubertal suppression, hormone therapy, and medically indicated surgery are effective and relatively safe when monitored appropriately and have been established as the standard of care. They noted a decrease in suicidal ideation among youth who have access to gender-affirming care and comparable levels of depression to cisgender peers among socially transitioned pre-pubertal youth.^[55] In its 2017 guideline on treating those with gender dysphoria, it recommends puberty blockers be started when the child has started puberty ( Tanner Stage 2 for breast or genital development) and cross-sex hormones be started at 16, though they note "there may be compelling reasons to initiate sex hormone treatment prior to the age of 16 years in some adolescents with GD/gender incongruence". They recommend a multidisciplinary team of medical and mental health professionals manage the treatment for those under 18. They also recommend "monitoring clinical pubertal development every 3 to 6 months and laboratory parameters every 6 to 12 months during sex hormone treatment".^[56]
The World Professional Association for Transgender Health's Standards of Care 8, published in 2022, declare puberty blocking medication as "medically necessary", and recommends them for usage in transgender adolescents once the patient has reached Tanner stage 2 of development, and state that longitudinal data shows improved outcomes for transgender patients who receive them.^[57] Some medical professionals disagree that adolescents are cognitively mature enough to make a decision with regard to hormone therapy or surgery, and advise that irreversible genital procedures should not be performed on individuals under the age of legal consent in their respective country.^[58]
A review commissioned by the UK Department of Health found that there was very low certainty of quality of evidence about puberty blocker outcomes in terms of mental health, quality of life and impact on gender dysphoria.^[59] The Finnish government commissioned a review of the research evidence for treatment of minors and the Finnish Ministry of Health concluded that there are no research-based health care methods for minors with gender dysphoria.^[60] Nevertheless, they recommend the use of puberty blockers for minors on a case-by-case basis, and the American Academy of Pediatrics state that "pubertal suppression in children who identify as TGD [transgender and gender diverse] generally leads to improved psychological functioning in adolescence and young adulthood.".^[61] In the United States, several states have introduced or are considering legislation that would prohibit the use of puberty blockers in the treatment of transgender children.^[62] The American Medical Association,^[63] the Endocrine Society,^[64] the American Psychological Association,^[65] the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry^[66] and the American Academy of Pediatrics^[67] oppose bans on puberty blockers for transgender children. In the UK, in the case of Bell v Tavistock, an appeal court, overturning the original decision, ruled that children under 16 could give consent to receiving puberty blockers.^[68] In 2022, the National Board of Health and Welfare in Sweden issued new guidelines recommending that puberty blockers only be given in "exceptional cases" and said that their use was grounded in "uncertain science." Instead, they recommended child psychiatric treatment, psychosocial interventions, and suicide prevention measures to be offered by clinicians.^[69]^[70]

Psychological treatments
Main article: Psychotherapy

Until the 1970s, psychotherapy was the primary treatment for gender dysphoria and generally was directed to helping the person adjust to their assigned sex. Psychotherapy is any therapeutic interaction that aims to treat a psychological problem. Psychotherapy may be used in addition to biological interventions, although some clinicians use only psychotherapy to treat gender dysphoria.^[28] Psychotherapeutic treatment of GD involves helping the patient to adapt to their gender incongruence or to explorative investigation of confounding co-occurring^[71]^[72]^[73]^[74] mental health issues. Attempts to alleviate GD by changing the patient's gender identity to reflect assigned sex have been ineffective and are regarded as conversion therapy by most health organizations.^[43]^[75]^{: 1741

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender...s_and_symptoms} Psychotherapeutic attempts (conversion therapy) to alleviate GD by changing patient's gender identity to assigned sex doesn't work in the opinion of most health organisations.

So i will follow the majority of experts not some layman's bias.

**Muizer** · November 05, 2022, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by paleologos

Between two of the people who have watched this video there was this exchange

Right, so Warren mentions 4 main issues:
- Roe vs Wade,
- the economy
- climate
- democracy

One has to wonder why A feel so threatened by an immaterial issue like another person's personal choices on gender that they skip over all those material issues that will affect almost all of us. It seems to me A is either a religious fundamentalist, or conversely someone who is very uncertain and frightened about their own beliefs ability to withstand being confronted with those of others. A bit like those muslims who take to the streets en masse in places like pakistan because some dude halfway across the globe burned a Quran. So fragile.

**paleologos** · November 05, 2022, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by antaeus

The initial proposition is grounded in opinion:

(Personally I would agree, as such stances undermine the concept of the existence of a factual and knowable reality and thusly torpedo the means by which a nation's citizenry can overcome the differences between their opinions.)

And as you're asking for opinions on your opinion, it's fair that responses are positional.

I asked for opinions regarding the callousness of both sides vis-à-vis the other side's concerns.
Instead you treated this thread as just one more left versus right head butting opportunity.
Which is exactly what has lead the Americans to their current situation:
Each side attempts to sandbag the other side's liberties and both sides would prefer a dictatorship that is ideologically agreeable to them in the stead of moderating their demands to accomodate the other side's concerns.

Originally Posted by antaeus

My question is regarding whether any of the "science" actually matters.

If you believe that reality exists and it is universal and knowable then science should matter as the way to discover the details of reality so that opinions left and right become the informed kind.
It is the sign of a post modernist (not that you are one - I don't know that) to claim that reality is only subjective and science is just a tool in the hands of those who have power and are trying to keep it exclusively to themselves.
For the post modernist then the only thing that matters is power and if that is the attitude one is going to hold then fighting for power becomes inevitable.

Originally Posted by antaeus

Progressives theoretically want everyone to have access to the same opportunities, rights, privileges etc. Regardless of personal traits that in the past would have seen them rejected from some opportunities, rights, privileges etc.
You can insert any physical, mental or what ever trait you want in there. The conversation remains the same. I would argue that people have the right to define themselves - freedom of expression and all. And that this sits above physical traits.

Are you even reading what you are typing?
You are literally saying that "opportunities, rights, privileges etc" stem from how people define themselves.
Or perhaps you did not choose the best words (?).
I say if we want to live in a world without discrimination we should make sure that "opportunities, rights, privileges etc" are independent of race, sex gender etc.
The solution that the leftists are proposing is not to eliminate discrimination but to allow people to choose their privilege by arbitrarily declaring themselves the sex or gender of their choosing.
That's weaving new problems into a carpet under which to hide the old problems.
I don't need to be a conservative to have a problem with that.
Do I?

Originally Posted by antaeus

The debate should actually be whether one person's right to self expression can be overruled by another person's right to self expression - I.e. Where one person who freely identifies themselves as Trait A, and another person freely identifies themselves as Anti-Trait A. Because irrespective of any science. The debate is really about how we get on with each other.

It seems to me we are in disagreement regarding the nature of the problem.
No wonder why we are at an impasse regarding the possible solutions.
The problem is not how you define yourself, you can call yourself Barbara Streisand for all I care.
But if I were a film producer should I be obliged to pay you a Barbara Streisand cache?
The left say I should.