Honest question. What is the distinction between trans-gender and trans-race?

At least in Canada we are rapidly building into law not merely protections for gender identity, but legal requirements for others to also recognize/embrace people's chosen gender identities(forgive me, I know at least in Canada choice is the wrong word but I'm mentally lapsing on a better one).

Yet, trans-race is still dealt with as a joke, with the trans-race individuals an acceptable target of ridicule.

My own opinions don't sit as far out on the left, but watching those that are content with both declaring trans-gender identity an inalienable fundamental right to the extent that MtF athletes must be allowed no matter how clearly their 'choice' was biased by getting to be #1 in their sport., but then ridiculing anyone claiming trans-race is hard for me to reconcile.

Anybody else able to provide a rational difference between the two? It looks to me like an entirely subjective I agree with one but not the other thought process, but maybe that's just my ignorance?

It doesn't matter, none of it matters. Treason, fraud, sexual assault, ... He is immune from any repercussions because of partisan brand identity. The political brain-washing of the masses began a long time ago to consolidate the interests of the ones who are already in power and already possess the wealth. They learned that we're all susceptible to confirmation bias and they used it to bifurcate us into two distinct groups, around a pile of arbitrary "issues". The current criminal in office is arbitrary, the branding is all that matters. God fearing, gun supporting, working class, racists would never vote against their "C"onservative brand and so they will always vehemently support the representative of that brand.

It's concerning that the all pretenses and facades have been torn down because the president is an unsophisticated buffoon who lacks the intellectual capacity for subtlety. But what was revealed behind the facade is not surprising. Just the same power hungry, wealth elite manipulating the uneducated to vote against their own interests...same as it ever was.

*dryheave*
You should hang your head in shame spreading that twaddle, even in jest. I cannot believe that person has a job in the sciences.

First claiming a 20 watt charge of energy is our consciousness is absolute nonsense, that's simply the power it takes to run a consciousness, your neural pathways in operation are that consciousness. It's like claiming the electricity from the socket is your computer's operating system, and when your computer crashes all your programs and data are safe somewhere in the socket. *facepalm

Second, he seems ignorant of entropy, the process through which most energy eventually degrades to heat. No distinctive or recognizable patterns are retained in that metamorphosis....heat is heat.

As to these "near death experiences", studies were done because people kept claiming to come out of their body to hover above it and watch it be saved before returning, but when a scrolling lighted message was put on top of the cabinets in multiple emergency and operating rooms, only visible from above, not a single person who claimed to have been out of body ever saw the messages blinking at them, because it's a delusion.

Made me throw up a little there, thanks.

That mission/purpose is clear enough, the miscommunication is in calling that 'Satanism'. To repeat myself, "Satanism" has been well understood to mean the worship of the Abrahamic center of all evil Satan. Calling your movement 'Satanism', and then clarifying that you neither believe in nor worship that Satan and your movement is an entirely separate and distinct secular one is deliberate bad communication.

It's like going around calling my group a antivaxxers, but then clarifying we don't actually oppose vaccinations, we are just against the high profit margins of pharma corps.

When words already have strong definitions deliberately failing to use them and choosing your own new definition isn't clever, it's just bad communication.

It’s very important to note that drawing direct parallels between countries when it comes to crime is very murky, as these difference could be due to differences in laws, the way the criminal justice system is set up, how policing is done, how crimes are reported, and much more.

Quoting this: Harold Pollack, co-director of the University of Chicago's Crime Lab, called Zimring and Hawkins's book "an excellent source." In a 2015 phone interview, he pointed to a number of more recent studies that fit the pattern it identified.

"There's no question the United States faces a number of distinctive social policy challenges, some of which affect the crime rate. But many other OECD countries face their own distinctive problems that affect their crime rate," he told me. Western Europe, for example, has a major problem with drug use. Canadian cities have "very high" rates of property crime like car theft. And yet, the US still stands out on murders.

"I think that Americans have this view of Western Europe, or Toronto for that matter, which is very stereotypical and doesn't take into account the challenges that many of peer industrial democracy problems face," he points out. "There's a lot of drug sale, a lot of ethnic stratification and conflict, there's a lot of just general crime."

Crime rates in Canada aren't that much lower than the USA, there are just fewer violent crimes, like homicides.

In addition to this, a major factor might be considered in regards to Canada. Population and population density. Canada is lower than the USA across the board, 36.71 million to 325.7 million and density of 3.9 people per km to almost 90 people per mile (last census data).

I don't support the NRA, btw. I think they are idiots. I do support logical gun laws. I don't care for fake news.

I also think I was civil in my response to your original comment. I have tried to remain that way even though one could classify your response to mine as hostile and provocatory.

@smr
Well, there was a fight over the definition of butter too, but not what you described.

I think the biggest difference is the possibility that the public could confuse one product for another.

The public uses nut milk as a substitute for animal milk, you put it on cereal, in shakes, dunk cookies in it, etc. It's a white liquid that differs in taste, but is made to be close to animal milk.

The fight over "butter" as a definition happened between butter and margerine. The butter people, at one point even lobbied for a law making it so magerine could not be sold in the color yellow. It makes sense to some degree. They are similar products. They are used in almost identical application.

It's probably the case that nothing like that happened with peanut butter because it's not close enough to regular butter to be confused as churned milk fat.

One could argue that people may put peanut butter on toast with jelly with their breakfast, possibly; but they'd know what product they are using. No one would try to put a dollop of apple or peanut butter in a pan to fry up some eggs. They are night and day different products and it's not as though one would be confused about what you were getting into with the purchase of apple butter instead of butter.

Whereas milk vs almond milk seem similar enough, and butter and margerine are similar enough and both used the same; the FDA then decided that a distinction should be made.

This is not the Spider Man Arc. This is the Lethal Protector Arc.
They even had a complete action figure line of the main 5 symbiotes in the early 90s.

"Venom is loosely adapting the Lethal Protector comic arc, which saw Eddie Brock and Venom going up against the sinister Life Foundation and their hideous experimentations. The results of that were the Five Symbiotes: Riot, Scream, Agony, Lasher and Phage. Developed from "seeds" collected from the parent Venom symbiote, each had their own distinct powers"

https://screenrant.com/venom-movie-villains-symbiotes/

I'm less familiar with American demographics, but I agree with the overall principal. Here in Canada we have IMO an even more severe segregation and unequal opportunity for Aboriginal peoples. It's severe enough up here though that not only are communities segregated by living on reserves with their own separate schools, but we have separate school divisions, and even their reporting and funding lines are different from all other schools.

That adds up to an enormous amount of differential treatment. Replacing that with equal opportunity though is much more desirable than 'waiting' till the school system has already failed kids and then 'lowering the bar' in one way or another to help them get into university.

In Canada I think our supreme court has done as at least 1 disservice greater than you guys though in making race a required consideration in sentencing. The appropriate section of sentencing:
"In sentencing an aboriginal offender, the judge must consider: (a) the unique systemic or background factors which may have played a part in bringing the particular aboriginal offender before the courts; and (b) the types of sentencing procedures and sanctions which may be appropriate in the circumstances for the offender because of his or her particular aboriginal heritage or connection."
The goal is to address the over-representation of aboriginal people in prisons. The effect however, is ultimately discriminatory as well. Before you dismiss the discrimination against whites as ok because it balances things out as is the 'goal', that's not the only affect. Another problem in Canada is the over-representation of Aboriginal peoples as the victims of crime, because most violent crime is between parties that are related. So on the whole crimes committed against Aboriginal people will on average be sentenced more leniently...

Failing to address the real underlying unequal opportunity can't corrected by more inequality later to balance the scales. In Canada, our attempt at it are too lesson the sentencing of people with unequal backgrounds, but the expense of victims that also faced those same unequal backgrounds...

And that 'corrective' inequality is also creating similar resentment amongst white people here too. People don't like their kids not getting into a school of choice potentially because of a race based distinction, but they like it even less to see a crime committed against them treated more leniently because of race.

Because it seems important to you to hear, yes, anything dealing with race is, by one definition, racist.

....but....

Just like discrimination, that's not necessarily bad.
Discrimination just means noticing a difference just like racism can mean making any distinction by race. Most definitions include prejudice and superiority as parts of racism, but not all. Discrimination by itself is not bad, it's discriminating against someone (especially based on racial assumptions) that's considered wrong.

Racism-the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race.

That characteristic could be nothing more than pigmentation levels, a physical characteristic with no other connotations or prejudices attached....it's still technically racism. E.g.. it's racist and discriminatory to state that Americans of African descent are at risk for sickle cell anemia, but not malicious or prejudicial.

People who claim to be 100% non-racist are liars, blind and deaf, or 100% brain dead. Reasonable people admit they see race, even those who don't discriminate against others based on race.

That only works if there's equality in lower/mid level education, giving all students a reasonable opportunity for quality education before that SAT testing, and there is not.
Low income district schools are at a distinct disadvantage in funding, facilities, and availability of assistance, as are low income students. Female students have, historically, been discouraged from pursuing science and math, especially at high levels.

Equality of opportunity at least to a reasonably competent base level of education is considered a civil right. Because we are still far from reaching that ideal, rolling back programs designed to address the continued shortfalls IS a rollback of civil right protections in the same way rolling back civil right protections in our election system was a rollback of the voting rights for a large, specifically targeted population which led instantly to attempts to return to old, clearly discriminatory practices designed to deny voting rights.

This is true in Canada as well. If you ask a french person what nationality they are, they will ALWAYS say French before Canadian. In their eyes, they are French who happen to live in Canada, and French will always be their primary identity. Even within Canada, they are considered a "Distinct Society." Quebec has their own laws that are above and beyond the Federal laws. A lot of these laws pertain to maintaining their French status first.

Label laws in Canada say we always have to have French and English on everything you buy, but in Quebec, they don't require English. Same with signage.

So the French do have a different way of assigning their allegiances. To some it may be subtle, but it's actually pretty entrenched in their culture.

Really? WE sponsored a VIOLENT coup? So you take the purely Russian viewpoint.
Wiki-
After the breakup of the Soviet Union, Ukraine endured years of corruption, mismanagement, lack of economic growth, currency devaluation, and problems in securing funding from public markets.[38][39] Successive Ukrainian governments in the 2000s sought a closer relationship with the European Union (EU).[40][41] One of the measures meant to achieve this was an association agreement with the European Union, which would have provided Ukraine with funds in return for liberalising reforms. President Yanukovych announced his intention to sign the agreement, but ultimately refused to do so at the last minute. This sparked a wave of protests called the "Euromaidan" movement. During these protests Yanukovych signed a treaty and multibillion-dollar loan with Russia. The Ukrainian security forces cracked down on the protesters, further inflaming the situation and resulting in a series of violent clashes in the streets of Kiev. As tensions rose, Yanukovych fled to Russia and did not return.[44]

Russia refused to recognize the new interim government, calling the overthrow of Yanukovych a coup d'état, and began a military intervention in Ukraine. The newly appointed interim government of Ukraine signed the EU association agreement and agreed to reform the country's judiciary and political systems, as well as its financial and economic policies. The International Monetary Fund pledged more than $18 billion in loans contingent on Ukraine's adopting those reforms. The revolution was followed by pro-Russian unrest in some south-eastern regions, a standoff with Russia regarding the annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol, and a war between the Ukrainian government and Russia-backed separatists in the Donbass.



The thing to remember about Crimea is it WASN'T PART OF RUSSIA, so no it didn't hold Russia's only black sea port not ice blocked in winter, it held a Ukrainian port Russia LEASED for use by it's black sea fleet from the Ukraine.
It's utter bullshit that Russia found a democratic way to invade and annex Crimea, they militarily invaded, seized and dissolved the democratically elected government by force, created and installed a new pro Russian sham government, then IT signed fake illegal treaties with Russia in violation of international laws and multiple binding treaties.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation

Russian masked troops invade and occupy key Crimean locations, including airports and military bases, following Putin's orders.[2][3]
The head of Ukrainian Navy, Admiral Berezovsky, defects, followed later by half of the Ukrainian military stationed in the region.[4][5][6]
Russian forces seize the Supreme Council (Crimean parliament). The Council of Ministers of Crimea is dissolved and a new pro-Russian Prime Minister installed.[7][8]
The new Supreme Council declares the Republic of Crimea to be an independent, self-governing entity, then holds a referendum on the status of Crimea on 16 March, which results in a majority vote to join the Russian Federation.[9]
Treaty signed between the Republic of Crimea and the Russian Federation at the Kremlin on 18 March to formally initiate Crimea's accession to the Russian Federation.[10]
The Ukrainian Armed Forces are evicted from their bases on 19 March by Crimean protesters and Russian troops. Ukraine subsequently announces the withdrawal of its forces from Crimea.[11]
Russia suspended from G8.[12]
International sanctions introduced on Russia.

You sound distinctly Soviet or ridiculously ignorant in your misrepresentation of the situation. They militarily attacked, invaded, and seized their neighbor, so not a bit restrained, they were not invited in by the government and welcomed....or would you insist they are also exceptionally restrained for not attacking and retaking Anchorage Alaska, their only non winter ice bound port in North America, a port clearly more strategically important than Sebastopol and just as Russian?

There are many good reasons to oppose Trump but I don't think thawing relations with Russia should be one of them. Sure they may have meddled in elections but they are rank amateurs compared to America who do it to just about everyone, friend or foe.

I get the distinct impression that there is a powerful section of the American oligarchy who are terrified of peace with Russia and are trying everything they can to stir up fear and hatred in the public, and its working. Mention Russia and it's borderline hysteria, it's really not healthy.

The establishment clause was put into the constitution because of the church of England. This is why many people fled from England to America, because of religious persecution. It was to prevent a state religion, and by religion we aren't talking about Christianity versus Islam, we are talking about different Christian denominations.

Look at what George Washington said in his inaugural address:

"Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station; it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes: and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own; nor those of my fellow-citizens at large, less than either. No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency. And in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their United Government, the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities, from which the event has resulted, cannot be compared with the means by which most Governments have been established, without some return of pious gratitude along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me I trust in thinking, that there are none under the influence of which, the proceedings of a new and free Government can more auspiciously commence."

The chart is quite informative thanks. If you put aside your focus on believers in God (as that's a separate topic to my first post) and try and see the difference between atheism and agnosticism in relation to scientists, you'll see what I mean.

There is a great difference between one who "doesn't claim to know no god exists" and one who "claims to know no god exists". Exactly as described on the chart, on the definition of athiest from Merriam-Webster (one who advocates athiesm) and dictionary coms definitions and synonym study. Or Merriam Websters own distinction between the 2 "The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who believes that there is no god (or gods), and agnostic refers to someone who doesn’t know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable."

Richard Dawkins would fall into the category of gnostic athiest I suppose. He is adamant that no God exists and he is fully at odds and advocates, actively, against such a belief. Whereas Thomas Huxley however, who may have coined the word 'agnostic' according to various dictionaries and other sources, is more someone who doesn't claim to know.

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorus application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, * Try all things, hold fast by that which is good"

Here he is actually describing a Biblical passage from 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Test all things; hold fast to that which is good" which is the scientific method in a nutshell, regardless of what you think of the rest of the book.

He goes on "Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary
according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved to-day may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, to-morrow."

A vast difference to the likes of some others in science today who boldly claim there is no God and ridicule those who might believe in one. Sorry for the long reply.