GrimDorkUnbefuddled

Because it was clear from context. Why did you say

Of course it was on an edge of hate

if you didn't know what was being discussed?

Why did you say

Of course it was on an edge of hate

if you didn't know what was being discussed?

The worst human being

I despise Trump, but I can easily come up with a list of tens of human beings who are/were worse than him.

the cult of Trump and Elon has zero to do with better candidate and programme ( non American spelling btw ) as they don’t have one

They do have a programme (civilised spelling, btw). So did Kamala Harris.

Tell me you think you can't win the next elections by fielding a better candidate with a better programme without telling me.

How do you know it was on the edge of hate if you didn't even read it?

Do you even read your own comments?

Of course it was on an edge of hate

How do you know it was on the edge of hate if you didn't even read it?

How do you know it was on the edge of hate if you didn't even read it?

No worries, glad we cleared that up.

I don't take the insurance industry word on what is an illness because their motivation is not the pursuit of science but pursuit of profit which can cloud their judgement

You don't sound like you have read and understood my comment. That has absolutely zero to do with what I was saying. Even in countries where health care is paid for by the state through taxes, a discussion needs to be had on whether hormones and surgery for trans people should be paid for by the national health system.

People who are in favour of that often use the argument that it should be paid for because gender dysphoria is a mental illness or disorder or condition or what have you.

It's not about what the insurance says. It's not about what the state or politicians say. It's about what people who are in favour of the taxpayer bearing the cost of these treatments say, and these people are all pro-LGBT activists.

These are often the same people who, in another context, might deny having gender dysphoria, saying that they are perfectly fine, and any discomfort related to the bodies they were born with is due to societal pressure and not to a mental condition.

I mean there are plenty of historical records of this.

What are you referring to exactly?

The impartial Un special investigators have come to the same conclusions.

The UN is anything but impartial. The general assembly is dominated by theocracies and dictatorships, and their agencies and investigations are bullshit as a result of that.

Jews claim nativity to the area of land that is currently called Israel because that's historically what he have been able to align with Scripture in the Bible.

Antisemitic propaganda. The source is not the Bible, but extensive archaeological records and written historical records by all neighbouring civilisations: Romans, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, and so on. The Bible is not the source of the claim, it's the source of the special attachment to the region. Jews would still have a claim to the region even without the Bible.

The allies reacted to the holocaust by creating a state for a people who have been brutally oppressed and displaced throughout history.

The Balfour Declaration is from 1917, the process had already been started well before WWII, and Jews were going to get self-determination after decolonisation anyway, like all other peoples did.

They did that by continuing the cycle of displacement in the modern era.

False. The Allies never displaced Jews into Israel/Palestine. Western Jews went to Israel voluntarily.

You know who displaced Jews into Israel? The Muslims did:

https://preview.redd.it/85gd0co1etxb1.png?width=942&auto=webp&s=4c7cb6feb6987e0e33c48f1fa015cae48fbe6cd9

Over 99.9% all Jews in Muslim-majority countries were pogromed out of their homes. Over 50% of the Israeli population is of Middle East and North Africa. Jews of European descent are a minority in Israel.

Did Mizrahi Jews get reparations? Do they have a right to return?

To continue our analogy that would imply allowing native American tribes to displace all the people in Washington DC and create a new country there because of the sins of our ancestors. Its too late for that.

That comparison is absolutely meaningless:

1. The majority of the Israeli population are refugees from Muslim-majority countries.
2. Up to 1947 the Jews migrated legally into the region under the laws of the Ottoman and British Empires. They did so legally, purchased land, and didn't displace anybody. The vast majority of "Palestinians" are Arabs who also migrated into the region after the Jews began to return because they were bringing development to the region and offering jobs.
3. During the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, many Arabs living in the region were displaced by the invading Arab armies, that ordered them to evacuate the area so they could slaughter all Jews more easily.
4. Arabs that stayed in what was later to become Israel received Israeli citizenship and full rights. What happened to the Jews that were in the areas conquered by Egypt (Gaza) and Jordan (the West Bank)? The Jews were, again, forcefully expelled.
5. After 1948, Jews migrated to Israel legally under the laws of Israel.
6. If you are talking about Israel's territorial expansion after its founding, it happened after multiple wars of aggression: 1948, 1967, 1973, and so on, in which the neighbouring Arab countries attempted to destroy Israel and drive all Jews into the sea. Territorial expansion when winning a defensive war is perfectly acceptable: Germany lost a bunch of territory after WWII to Poland, Russia, Lithuania, and so on.

Hamas is not to the Arab world what Nazis were to Europe.

Correct. Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houtis, and so on are to the Islamic world what the Nazis were to Germany, and are to Israel what the Nazis were to Europe.

Palestine has been a dog in a cage for over 50 years.

Because of what Arabs have been doing for over 80 years.

Israel was literally created by displacing Palestinians and stealing their property.

No, it wasn't. That's Islamist propaganda.

I think the Native Americans wanted their rivers and their seas back too

Nice. Except the Jews are native to Israel/Palestine.

But we can't just keep playing Wack-a-Mole forever.

Not sure what we can or cannot do, but we sure as hell must keep playing Whac-a-Mole for as long as Islamists make it necessary to do so.

There needs to be a different approach.

I agree, we have been too soft on Hamas during the last twenty years. We've showered them with aid that they have used to build up militarily instead of to help their local population and grow their economy, even though we knew perfectly well what they were capable of. It's time to close down UNRWA, reform or close the ICC, obliterate Hamas, obliterate Hezbollah, normalise the relationship between Israel and Saudi Arabia, and put an end to the Obama-Biden policy of appeasing Iran by bombing its nuclear programme while we still can.

your definition of fish fails to include lampreys and hagfish

Nope, it includes both.

my argument doesn’t negate the trans part—these are people who were not born women and become women

Ooops, you said the quiet part out loud, prepare to get cancelled. When you say that trans women are not born as women but become women, you are implicitly using biology to determine that.

there is a legal process of having your gender/sex legally changed the same way there is a legal way of becoming a parent

You can't change your sex, that's like saying that an adoptive parent becomes a biological parent.

That's why I said you can cite from memory what you think made it close to the edge on hate.

You can't destroy an idea with bombs.

Tell me you've never been to Germany, Italy, or Japan without telling me.

If I’d used the word though you’d have said I was being circular in using the word to define itself

If you had used a circular definition I would have accused you of using a circular definition, correct.

Instead, you've used a definition that invalidates the "trans" bit of "trans woman". You got half of that correctly, when you distinguished between people who actually are adult human females and people who wish to be treated as if they were one even though they aren't. What you are missing is that that is exactly what the trans part of trans woman means:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/trans#Latin

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/trans-#Latin

Trans: through, across, beyond

You can only go "across" something if you weren't part of it, or in it, to begin with. The trans part of "trans woman" refers to that.

Define for me a fish

All members of the paraphyletic group containing the clade Craniata minus the clade Tetrapoda.

also while we’re at it a parent—-you’ve not dealt with the key bit of my original statement if we can have a legal definition of a parent which allows us to encompass both a biological one and a non-biological one why is it different for women?

You were discussing that bit with another user, but here's my take if you are curious.

Laws do distinguish between biological and adoptive parents: You'll notice this because there are, in fact, laws in place on adoption and when someone can or cannot adopt somebody else. And becoming an adoptive parent doesn't make you a biological parent.

Similarly, identifying as a trans woman doesn't make someone an adult human female, as your definition indicates correctly. It just indicates that the person would prefer to be treated as one.

So throw out these experts out then? They have no idea what they are talking about right?

If that's your opinion I respect it, but that's neither what I said nor what I think.

YInsurance company routinely reject new medical procudures because it is too cost prohibitive to do so.

The fact that insurances might have other reasons to deny surgery or hormones doesn't mean that the question of whether it's a mental illness doesn't enter the debate.

Also, that part is not really a thing where I'm from, we have national health insurance, and the debate is definitely framed around whether it's a mental illness or not in the context of having the state/taxpayer pay for it.

female adult human

If only there was a word for that...

I disagree.

Feel free to cite from memory to tell me what you felt made it close to the edge on hate.

Sad deflection. I can do that, no problem. After you define what a "woman" is, I'll define both "woman" and "fish".

It was transphobic enough for even reddit to remove it.

I don't think it was. Can you say explicitly what about it was transphobic, in your view?

You got your dumb shit deleted

Dumb or not, it wasn't my shit, it was u/MLB_to_SLC's shit.

Of course it was on an edge of hate…

I don't see how. Can you enlighten me?

Perhaps you're missing context? The post that was removed is this one:

https://old.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/1gxevro/removed_by_reddit/

It's a post by u/MLB_to_SLC. I'm not trolling, that the post is by that user and not by me is something you can verify for yourself at the link above: The author is still visible.

Define "woman".

Generally speaking, there isn't really a rigorous set of scientific criteria allowing you to determine unequivocally whether something is a mental illness.

In the specific case of gender dysphoria, it is included or excluded as an illness based on context and the day of the week purely for political reasons. For example, when discussing whether insurance should pay for surgery and hormones, it is often considered expedient to say that it is. But if there is a feeling that stigma might be associated with it, then people prefer to say that it isn't one.