Sure, I'm no expert in Roman history, I didn't listen much. I'll take your word for it. Today's US stock market is at an all time high - we're "booming" - so things have never been better by at least one metric. I'm still pessimistic about the future, and would suggest we're on a downward trajectory for various reasons.

My point is that these problems of the perception/acceptpance of gender bending and debauchery weren't resolved in the 2000 years since, despite a "few generations". They're not new issues, and they obviously haven't been resolved with time, even though Juvenal and those who shared his distaste in that time are long gone.

Anyway, my power is about to suffer a "scheduled outage", so I'm gonna leave it there.

Sexual relations in the RE of Juvenal’s time were complicated by modern standards. Getting your dick sucked by a guy? Fine. Sucking a guy’s dick? No-no. Being unfaithful to your spouse with another citizen? Major faux pas in polite society*. Being married and fucking a slave? NBD.

Edit update: not sure on fashion styles in Juvenal's time but in the Rome of about 100-150 years earlier, for a man to dress as a woman was an UBER no-no and one of the most biting insults you could make about a man was that he dressed effeminately.

Note: “of Juvenal’s time”. That’s a specific era with its own mores. The Rome of half a millennium earlier was a different place, as was the Rome of half a millennium later.

Which is amazing when you think about it. We’re seeing the end of the American
Era after what, sixty years?

*unless you're Julius Caesar, what a pimp

Well that doesn’t sound like an Orwellian nightmare at all

Unfortunately, while your previous points seemed reasonable - you made the mistake of correlation/causation when you introduced the military. The military as an entity has changed hands so many times over the course of millenia that it could be easy to assume that it's the driving change. Except it isn't.

Regardless of whether the military is being led directly by the ruler of any given nation, or a military head, it has always bent to the will of SOMEONE else. In terms of current and recent western governance, that power has belonged to the majority vote.

Even with this being the case, arguing any SPECIFIC tendency of the military over the past 120 years is really a nonsensical argument due to the radical differences that they have experienced since 1900. The military has been in flux continuously and for extreme reasons.

However if you were to look at say every 20 years independently, you can start to draw conclusions. Those conclusions very much show that the military follows the popular vote, not vice versa.

LGBT+ negativity have been driven by the church and it's long standing tradition of ..... fill in your own reasons here....

45-year old sex offender denies that his child porn collection is problematic since he identifies as an 8-year-old girl

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/new...ectid=12300515

Sounds like fodder for transphobes.

Even if age dysphoria is a thing, fully treating people like the age they identify with would be very problematic - unlike recognising gender. Legal right differences between genders are minimal (if any?), but with age legal rights significantly vary.

True, self-ID for age is problematic. Totally not problematic for gender though, so 45-year-old sex-offender Joseph Gobrick is a woman and the appropriate pronouns are she/her.

Check this one out:


https://5newsonline.com/2019/02/27/l...saulting-teen/

24-year-old North Carolina man Tanner Young forced a 15-year-old girl to watch him masturbate, then assaulted her with a sex toy. At trial he announced that... she is now "Evelyn" and identifies as female.

She was only given probation, because women get more lenient sentences for sex crimes

The article doesn't mention any time frame around 'coming out' as a female and appearing in court?

But yeah there definitely can be unconscious bias in the justice system with gender (and more so with race and economic status). Still I don't know if in America a MTF in pre-transition stage would get much gender bias advantage.

Why you so transphobic, fixed_truth? Please refer to possession of “female dick” in future. Describing a woman as being in “a pre-transition stage” is to commit erasure and do violence.

It is acceptable to refer to the woman possessing “strapless” genitalia. After transition please use the approved term “front hole”. At all times avoid the thoughtcrime of unconsciously thinking that a biologically female sex exists.



See this document from the Human Rights Campaign Foundation for a list of approved terms.

http://assets2.hrc.org/files/assets/...uide_FINAL.pdf

This is your only warning.

Sweet baby jesus.

Needs more pony.

All men are just women resentful they're not?

A perspective from George Carlin.

Sexual-dimorphist binarist transphobic hate speech #cancelcarlin

sorry missed this while drinking heavily.

Disagree. I honestly believe that the current attention and priority being given to issues of transgender politics and gender dysphoria are just the latest in a series of quirky human fads. I predict we will look back in about 20 years and cringe. "Jesus, what were we thinking, how the hell was that a thing" kinda of stuff.

Oxford University history of women professor given security guards for lectures after threats from transgender activists

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...tures-threats/


Yes, I know, I’m thinking the same thing that you all are. Like, as if women exist.

In other words, here's a list that some BS artists dreamed up, so ignore this shit and ASK the person if you're in even the remotest bit of doubt... Carefully.

Jeez man, you can’t call “America’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer civil rights organization” a bunch of BS artists. I think you just committed a hate crime.

Did you ever manage to find any examples of humans who don’t fit into a “big gametes or little gametes” binary?

No, but didn't actually look either.

So where did you get 2-3% of humanity?

Speaking of gametes, former US serviceman and proud father Fallon Fox, a ma-- sorry, person who has the little gametes-- now identifies as a woman and thus is of course totally a woman in every way and has taken up competition as an Women's MMA fighter and so far has broken the skulls of and hospitalised two wome-- sorry, fighters who have the big gametes-- and was last week named Bravest Athlete In History by Outsports.com.

#bravery
#livingthedream
#gettingpaidtopunchwomenintheface

You were the one that brought gametes into it. The 2-3% was more those exhibiting traits from more than one gender stereotype, not necessarily that they express more than one gamete type. I just wasn't willing to rule out the possibility while you seemed gung-ho for me to provide evidence that expression of more than one gamete type is possible in humans. Given that there ARE invertebrates that express more than one gamete type, as well as one-at-a-time but-can-change-gametes-produced creatures, it just seems arrogant to say that humans can't express more than one gamete type.

Gametes is great for determining reproductive capability but shit for determining sexuality or gender, which is what the discussion WAS about until you brought gametes into it.

FWIW I get your point: Especially at the elite end of athletic ability, for humans anyway, producers of small gametes tend towards greater ability than those producing large gametes. It's not the whole story, but it IS a very strong correlation.

You appear to be arguing with yourself:

Let me know which one of you wins out.

You are wrong. At the elite end of athletic ability, it is the whole story. There is no athletic competition in which the most able athlete is not biologically male. There is no athletic event other than the 5000m at which the current women's Olympic champion would defeat even a good schoolboy athlete. (School competitions don't extend to anything greater than that distance so no data on, for example, 10k or marathon. There are no school marathon comps.)

That is not to say that female performances are always inferior to those of males in all equivalent physical disciplines. For example, women have an advantage in ultralongdistance swimming events; the biomechanical explanation seems to be that female physiology helps with fat-related issues such as buoyancy, body-heat insulation, and fat-burning. Women also sometimes defeat men in athletic competitions because of a different advantage: they're not fucking stupid. An AthleticBro enters events thinking "how hard can it be, I'll fucking crush this bro" and then crashes out because overconfidence, while the more neurotic female athlete has a more realistic sense of her abilities. I generalise of course.

Also, statistically, males will be the worst athletes all other things being equal. The worst female at an athletic event in which she has no ability will be better compared to all other females than will be the worst male at an athletic event in which he has no ability compared to all other males. Males are comparatively worse at everything they're bad at than women are at the things they're bad at. Male bell curves are shorter and wider than female bell curves at just about everything that can be measured.

lol just kidding sex is a social construct, it's totally ok to watch that smallgameteperson put that biggameteperson in hospital for entertainment, yay

Sports are definitely an area where there's still a way to go to arrive at 'fair' measurements of male vs female for the context of each sport. I don't think big vs little gametes is the answer, same with penis vs vulva or just considering gender.

Stories about how we've got to construct ourselves in a way that ensures sports make sense are absolutely hilarious. God has a wicked sense of humour, we don't do too bad either.

Sexually female adults should not be forced to compete against people who are sexually male adults, regardless of gender self-id. It's not fair. When it comes to athletic competition where male physiology confers an advantage, natal women should be a protected class. Perhaps the categories should be "female" and "open"?

We don't ask pre-puberty boys to compete against post-puberty boys because that's not fair either. Once puberty kicks in males just get soooo many physical advantages - bigger hearts, greater lung volume, more red blood cells per litre of blood, stronger connective tissues, stronger bones, greater muscle mass - in just about every sport that involves physical exertion it's just not fair to put an athlete who hasn't experienced male puberty up against someone who has. And that's not taking into account the advantages a male has just from sheer physical geometry in some sports - for example, longer arms means a man can fend off a a female tackler or punch a female combatant in the face before she can even touch him. A physically male cyclist has a narrower pelvis (not shaped for making a baby) and so can direct more power directly downwards on the pedals. A male athletes thighs are above his shins in almost straight lines like || while a female's legs look like ><. That narrow nonbabymaking pelvis combined with broader male shoulders also means that a male swinging something (e.g., a club or racquet) has a greater range of motion, and thus power, than a female athlete. His swing isn't obstructed by a broad pelvis like hers is.

As mentioned earlier, the one sport in which women consistently match or outperform men is ultralongdistance swimming.

duh, that's why we've got to start testosterone injections before they hit puberty.

Are... are you guys forcing your kids to play sports?

As I said we're not at the right place at the moment. As of yet there hasn't been any real studies to show/quantify any advantage transwomen have over cis women in sports. By doing so then perhaps some sort of rating can be given and this considered against a range of physical parameters such as height and weight for example. Or would any advantage from being born male not be tolerated?

For the sake of argument - In elite shot put a normal sizes transwoman's innate biological advantage would be more than cancelled out by Valerie Adams physical size advantage.

There have been lots of studies to show and quantify the advantage biologically male people have over biologically female people in sports.

World champion Valerie Adams's personal best is 20.54m indoors. The current NZ schoolboy record is 15.28m (edit- no it’s not, that’s just the best junior performance so far this year, lol. See posts below).

Male competition shots weigh TWICE AS MUCH as those used in women's competition.

If Big Val were competing against toplevel teenage boys with the same shots she wouldn't even place. If she went up against an adult trans athlete, with female shots, and her opponent had trained at an elite level as a man with male shots, she would get fucking destroyed.

Who the fuck would want to see Big Val get destroyed? I want to see her kick ass and take names in fair competition. I want to see her be the best female shotputter in the world.

I thought school boys use a 5kg put?

But to the point we're talking about competing against transwoman not men. We don't know yet how much performance advantage they would retain after transitioning. How much testosterone levels, muscle atrophy and oxygen carrying capacity etc. would decrease.

As a 16 year old skiny school boy, Jacko Gill put the 5KG shotput 24.45m.

Valerie Adams PB with the 4KG womans shotput is 21.24m.

https://nzssaa.org.nz/static/record-holders.pdf

Junior boys record.
Shot Put (5kg) Jacko Gill Takapuna Grammar School 13/12/2009 20.42m.

Across dozens of sports, women's world speed records consistently fall 10 percent short of men's records.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...re-not/260927/

So it's not exactly getting smashed, but there's a pretty consistent gap.

The fastest female 100m dash in history, set in 1988, is just as good as the men's record set from 1921.

In freestyle swimming, the women's world record time is as fast as the men's time was in 1968.

Also, even if men and women are equally capable of competing, it is a good idea to separate genders in sports to encourage more participation. For example, Chess needn't have men's & women's leagues, but they do because it's a more pleasant experience for those competing.

If there’s a confrontational aspect to the sport, yeah. In some sports it doesn’t seem relevant. For instance in some target shooting events men and women aren’t separated. But I guess the athletes are more competing against physics than each other.

Oooh, ooh, I can join in again.

Fencing!

Where the game as made most male body advantages moot except reach, so when people of the same reach play then it can be a fair match!

I guess women would make smaller targets too.

Looks like we've finally answered that age old question: what is the meaning of life?

Clearly it's sports. All human existence is built around this.

We can do whatever we like, as long as it doesn't change sports.

Gotcha.