https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F39uC9IlI0

Yeah...people who say stuff like what send did are generally very transphobic. So thanks for proving my point send. Anyway, if you want to reply to the article I linked that talks about multiple scientific studies that give evidence for the existence of trans people by all means go ahead, otherwise you're just spewing bullshit.

Any games you guys think are worth getting? Doom for $19.79 seems like a good deal.

There is also some scientific evidence to show that transgender people who do not identify as either male or female (but instead anywhere in between) are also valid:

"The main problem with a strong dichotomy is that there are intermediate cases that push the limits and ask us to figure out exactly where the dividing line is between males and females,” biology sex expert Arthur Arnold at the University of California, Los Angeles, told Nature. “And that's often a very difficult problem, because sex can be defined a number of ways.”

The scientists discovered the XX and XY cells that differentiate between genders can actually behave in different ways. When scientists took a closer look, they found not all people have cells that contain the same set of genes. Instead, it’s more like a mosaic of different unevenly divided sex cells, which biologists have taken to calling “mosaicism.” Although it’s a rare condition that only affects about 1 in 15,000 people, it still leaves an unidentified population of society outside of the familiar dichotomy."

Taken from: http://www.medicaldaily.com/challenging-gender-identity-biologists-say-gender-expands-across-spectrum-rather-323956

A meme that's meant to make fun of transgender people and suggest that identifying as anything but what you're born as is ridiculous. I see no problem making a reply to it.

Unless I misread his comment I believe he meant the precedent was being set by the already passed bill.

I don't know why I'm even going to bother with this one, but there's a big difference between identifying as a gender and identifying as a person you are not, an inanimate object, or whatever. It's a relatively simple concept, all it means is that someone's brain just doesn't match their physical self. And there is evidence to show that people's biological sex and gender can be different. For example:

"Male and female brains are, on average, slightly different in structure, although there is tremendous individual variability. Several studies have looked for signs that transgender people have brains more similar to their experienced gender. Spanish investigators—led by psychobiologist Antonio Guillamon of the National Distance Education University in Madrid and neuropsychologist Carme Junqué Plaja of the University of Barcelona—used MRI to examine the brains of 24 female-to-males and 18 male-to-females—both before and after treatment with cross-sex hormones. Their results, published in 2013, showed that even before treatment the brain structures of the trans people were more similar in some respects to the brains of their experienced gender than those of their natal gender. For example, the female-to-male subjects had relatively thin subcortical areas (these areas tend to be thinner in men than in women). Male-to-female subjects tended to have thinner cortical regions in the right hemisphere, which is characteristic of a female brain. (Such differences became more pronounced after treatment.)"

Taken from: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/

No, I was talking about people who use "free speech" arguments in general to make sure trans people don't get discrimination laws protecting them. Thank you for explaining your position however, I have no knowledge about local bills and if they are potentially too vague or not. I'm glad to hear you're fine with the currently passed bill, but I disagree that any bad precedent is being set.

Skimming over this thread it seems like most everyone is just ignoring this post. The only reply I noticed was:

Which is just...a mindbogglingly bad argument. Yeah, all the law is saying you can't discriminate trans people (non-binary included) and that fucking legal documents should properly represent various gender identities. I bet this is probably as simple as having an "other" option on paperwork and yet u guys are all getting angry about it lmao.

Here's what I think is actually going on: a large percentage of people don't like trans people so they hide behind things like "free speech" to argue against anything that extends discrimination laws to protect trans people as well. And that's fine, but actually come out and say that. Don't give me these bullshit "free speech" arguments when all ur really saying is "I don't like trans people and they shouldn't have equal protection against discrimination that other minorities have".

EDIT: no longer lft

Battlefield 1 is actually a ton of fun if you're willing to pay $60 for it.

You certainly seem to know what you're doing on the website design aspect of things, that gives me hope. Running a league is a ton of work though, hopefully it pans out well enough. The biggest issue will be getting people to actually switch from UGC.

His supporters certainly didn't.

The problems you're getting at aren't something that the electoral college are holding back, they're problems that exist because of our primitive form of democracy. Most other democracies do a much better job at representing parties based on what percentage of the vote they get, not just representing the winner like we do here in the U.S. That's the real issue here, and yes, those issues would not be gone if you got rid of the electoral college. However, that doesn't mean that the electoral college is not also a ludicrous system.

Your whole argument clearly shows you think states have some sort of rights and they are more important than the country as a whole. You say it is ridiculous that 16% of the electoral votes went to Clinton for winning New York and California and yet the population of New York and California combined make up 18% of the U.S. Thus, you have to be applying some value to the state itself, not the people in it. The people as a whole do no matter - but states must have something approaching equal representation in your mind. This is clear as you somehow think that two states with 18% of the population do not deserve even 16% of the representation in the electoral college. You have somehow decided that states have more rights than the people that live within them and that is quite frankly insane.

The union wants Trump? Because the state borders work out in such a way that he wins the electoral college the union wants him? Despite losing the popular vote? Can you at least admit to yourself that if a Democrat won the electoral college but lost the popular vote you'd be up in arms? Or are your abilities of self-reflection so poor you can't even admit that?

And I like Hillary? Please, I was a Sanders supporter. I hate both the Republican and Democratic Party. They both serve big corporations on their hands and knee, just like Trump is going to do. Unlike you idiots who were fooled by a conman however, I'm capable of comparing two candidates and realizing which one will do less harm to the country. Have fun with Trump draining that swamp by putting people like Newt Gingrich and Stephen Hadley in power tho lol.

You do realize that a person's vote in California already matters less than people in less populous states like Michigan and Wisconsin (which ended up deciding this election) because the way the electoral college works, right? Please tell me you can grasp this concept. Or are you actually suggesting that "state's rights" matter more than the people of the country as a whole? What the fuck...

Oh jeez catface I did not know that the area of land was directly proportional to the number people living there!

Thanks my man!