Kalbear

You'll have to ask @Heartofice why he believes what he believes. That's certainly not what I believe, if you're referring to me as a cool gotcha. They were the one wanting to refer to biological sex as a euphemism for sex assigned at birth. But yes, I would imagine that it shouldn't be that weird to think that if you have your genitalia changed you would not be subject to illnesses specific to that genitalia. If you don't have ovaries it would be difficult to get ovarian cancer. Is that a real gotcha then? My point all along is that if you're going to view certain characteristics as defining biological sex then you need to also assume that the lack of them also implies a lack of that biological sex. I don't personally view it as so easily cut and dried, and as usual making things that are complicated simple makes things stupid and more wrong.

Oh come on, it was only known by some rando people like *checks notes* Led Zeppelin

But that's not the only thing they're doing - they're also saying that people who want (by your terminology) biologically sexed people of a specific sex to treat you, you can get that. Which is obviously discriminatory, and was lauded as a good move by folks on this thread. So are you going around and asking what gonads people had at birth then? And remember, this is the 'common sense' good conversation that you said they had. Why are you so cagey about it now? Because I know from experience that the phenotype of the people in these areas matters a LOT more to many people in making them feel safe than the gonads. Which is why I think the gonad argument is so utterly stupid.

It's cute that you think that, so please - don't brush over it! So you're against what the NHS has done, then? Because they're certainly not doing that. We're not talking about forcing trans women into rape shelters; we're talking about your hypothetical, where you make a female only space (where female is defined by you as having the ability to at one point produce female gametes) as an important thing. Try and stay focused, please! And we're talking about not just the people who are allowed in but the people who work there, which is the analogy of the NHS restricting who can and can't be seen by whom. I would probably not be entirely okay with that, but given there are a whole lot of restrictions on who can and can't be admitted into those shelters as they are I'm not sure that it's as massive a problem as you make out to be. More importantly, are you okay with letting in trans men because they are, per your criteria, biologically women?

So follow that through. Why are the gametes of the people working there hugely important? What is specifically threatening or dangerous or problematic such that the potential to produce gametes specifically matter? By that token, would you think it would be acceptable to that shelter to have a trans man there?

They should probably mention that as one of their goals, then. ETA: I also don't think that it's clear that that's where they'll declare victory. Given this Israeli government and their goals I don't think it's really clear when they'll stop at all, and it is significantly in this government's interests to prolong it for as long as they can.

Yeah, the whole idea that liberalism was somehow poisoned and people are afraid of it because it was made into a boogeyman when it was otherwise perfectly dandy seems to ignore the actual viewpoints of Americans. There have been a whole lot of chances for the US to show how incredibly liberal and progressive it could be if only it was unfettered, and it always ends up not being nearly the case that people think it'll be. The latest iteration of this is that Trump of all people was able to energize voters in a whole lot of places and significantly increase voter turnout in a whole lot of categories.

So how does 'eradicate Hamas' do that? Hamas isn't in Iran. Hamas' leaders aren't in Iran. Hurting Hamas doesn't harm Iran in any meaningful way. And why would punishing Iran stop Hamas in the future? It certainly hasn't so far.

I'm not the one talking about biological women without defining it. I know you keep trying to avoid explaining what you mean though - it's a lot easier to be vague when discriminating. And why is that? Why are female only spaces, where female is apparently defined by gonads, important? @Heartofice explicitly did so. You can go back and look at their posts if you like. Perhaps you'll want a biological definition of 'celebration' that involves the celebratory gonads; if that's the case, feel free to substitute whatever terminology you would prefer when someone is happy about something happening and is telling people about it.

Go on - take that further. Extrapolate where that needs to go.

And is that the reasoning that you're using when celebrating the NHS decision to allow trans people to be segregated and discriminated against?

It is remarkable to me that folks are still okay with the nhs decision and have now switched to the apparent argument that it is perfectly reasonable for people to have a religious objection to being seen by a doctor with gametes that do not match their gametes. Or that it is reasonable to segregate people because of either their gametes or their ability at some future time to have them. I would love to understand the logic there.

It is not implicit in the goal of eradicating hamas. It isn't even necessary depending on what other things you're willing to do. Which they aren't doing, so that is either a failure in policy or not the policy. But it is not clear anyway, so again you're about empty platitudes and symbols that can be misinterpreted. Same thing - empty slogans for the win. So they should be able to leave now, then. Good to know. It isn't obvious. Why would you allow hamas to exist in the west bank? Or Lebanon? What does operational capacity actually mean? The ability to do another 10-7, the ability to launch cheap rocket attacks, what? It's all vague and subject to declare victory or not based on anything you want. Another war on terror.

Arguably apartheid is not since it's against other DEMOCRATIC states. And there exist no democratic states in existence right now that have anything like that. Mostly, however, I think it's real clear that this will be abused anyway, because the definition of antisemitism before this was being abused and this expands that.

I think this is a good place to start as to what people see as problematic: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2023/apr/24/un-ihra-antisemitism-definition-israel-criticism

FUCK YOU I'M A GREAT KISSER

NOW KISS

It's even odder to hold this view while also celebrating what the NHS decided. So why celebrate the NHS policy changes? Why accept that it might be a 'valid' religious view to discriminate against trans people and just deal with that as the cost of doing business?

There have been so many varied suggestions. You've shot them all down. I'm not sure how valuable it would be to reiterate them again. But I'll try a bit. You need to actually state what the goal of the war is. "eradicating Hamas' is not a goal that is either achievable or reasonable any more than a war on drugs or terror is. It is a slogan. If Israel wants to take full operational control over the Gaza strip that is at least closer, though probably unwise as a goal - but at least it is feasible. You need to choose what your timeline is, and what the costs and benefits of doing it faster or slower are. Right now there is very little operational value in going fast. There is little chance of any reasonable rearming or fortification that cannot be stopped ahead of time, there is no actual momentum to be had, there is no chance of catching leaders on the battlefield or causing extra damage because of speed, there is no surprise. There is no particular active threat to Israeli people from Hamas, at least from Gaza. Therefore, you can afford to take significant time to get it right. That might be not as viable politically but that isn't a great reason to keep up civilian bombardment. You need to decide what your costs are going to be. Destroying your allies relationships is a risk. That said, Israeli's government probably is in the right in the sense that anything they do to keep the war painful to Palestinians makes it more likely that they will have a more friendly government in power in most places at very little cost to them, so it makes political sense to continue as they are. Finally, you need an actual exit strategy. When are you actually done? Again, 'eradicate Hamas' is not an exit goal or at least isn't an achievable one. So what should Israel do? Evacuate the Palestinians in Gaza to Israel while the war is going on. Removing them to Egypt and Jordan has too much of a historical burden and putting them in Israel allows Israel to maintain maximum operational security on those people while ensuring that Israel likely doesn't want to keep them there. Focus on destroying important infrastructure after evacuation. Even if that means significantly long lag time between warning and striking. The goal is to dismantle the actual structures in place in Gaza first and foremost. The people will come eventually, but it's a lot easier to deal with the enemy when they no longer have places to hide Start immediately working towards a postwar Gaza. Give up more than what you need to get back the hostages so you can then focus on dealing with the remainder. As long as you aren't having to accept a full indefinite cease fire almost anything should be on the table. Stop fucking off and attacking Iran. Geezus, read Sun Tzu or something

@Ran, I'll respond to your edits but it's very difficult to follow the conversation or respond to it when you've edited well after I've posted. It also makes my posts look very odd and selective, which I don't think is your intent. I was responding to people to whom it very much does matter. If it doesn't matter to you that's fine, but clearly it did to others in this topic. Furthermore, they were the ones using biological sex instead of sex assigned at birth, which is why I decided to point out that that term can mean a whole lot of things. But they were the ones celebrating giving people the ability to discriminate to choose sex at birth people instead of any trans person, or require that trans people cannot be in the same wards and areas as sex at birth people. Those aren't the same civil rights and protections as 'any other person'. Those are absolutely separate, distinct, and discriminatory. I think it would have been significantly more productive for you to pick chromosomally male or female; you wouldn't have to focus on the production of gametes that way, and it would have been significantly harder to pick apart the idea or even care about it. The conversation was about biological sex, which there is quite a bit of debate about in the world right now - including using it at all. I took a different approach to it. There is no specific reason that I can see why someone would need to request a person they'd feel more comfortable with because that person had the ability to produce sexual gametes of a certain choice. To me, it's relatively obvious that the comfort level exists with being around someone phenotypically of the sex of their choice (if that is an argument at all). Do you disagree? Or is there some intrinsic value about talking to someone who was able to produce eggs at birth?

Presumably you do that so that you aren't just randomly killing aid workers and 5 month old babies while not achieving much operationally. That isn't what is being argued and is again a silly thing to say. Should we also do the same thing - say that Israel shouldn't support killing every Palestinian on the planet? It's roughly equivalent.

What I actually said. What the fuck are you trying to say - that you can declare that you are going to eradicate Hamas but keep their leadership alive? How the fuck does that make any sense? Then maybe don't say 'eradicate Hamas' as your goal? Especially if they're not just in Gaza - they're in the West Bank, they're in Qatar, they're in Egypt, they're probably in Lebanon and Syria and Iraq? Like I said, you're into empty platitudes and slogans, and that AFC South championship banner is Very Important.

Okay, so you are saying that 100% biological sex is biological sex at birth. That isn't what people generally use or mean by it, but as long as you're clear about it I guess that's fine. That's not what trans activists appear to use it as, but at least you're clarifying where you lie on the spectrum. I do appreciate that the phrase 'biological sex' rose as another way to deny trans people rights, so that's interesting. Anyway, I think this has gone far enough in terms of trying to score points off of people and pointing out values. I appreciate your clarifying exactly what you believe and how you define what a male and female is and how that differs from a trans male and trans female.

So why care about their ability, one way or another, to produce sperm or eggs? Why is that the specific goal and differentiator? It seems arbitrary and capricious. I'm not the one who brought it up as a way to differentiate - you did that. I don't see how calling you on the argument you made is going after a strawman. I don't know why you're going for this argument or where you think it's going, but either you're arguing that the definition of a biological woman and man is based on their sexual organs and their ability to reproduce (and therefore until we can do that, a transperson cannot be a male or female), or you're just bringing up an interesting facet about biology that isn't particularly relevant. Since I don't want to be accused of strawmanning I'll just ask - what is your point in bringing up the procreative abilities of males and females?

But that's not what you said you wanted, and that's not what they've said they're wanting. Ignoring the fact that we likely could have gotten him in 2002 if we hadn't fucked up operationally, you also shouldn't announce goals that you know are not possible. You also don't say that hostilities will continue in Gaza if your targets are not in Gaza. But that's what Israel has done.