The court ruling on LGBT ENDS THIS DEBATE

[thomasdixon]

The court ruling on LGBT ENDS THIS DEBATE
I believe the courts should rule that a person’s gender is the gender stated on one’s birth certificate and the gender classification cannot be changed, period, nada, zip, never.
(:-

[boatsnguitars]

In most cases, most people think that gender is unimportant. Gender is unimportant when you buy groceries, or buy a lawn mower.

Except when some guy with a beard and chest hair wearing nail polish and a necklace has a total meltdown when you say "Have a nice day, sir". In Michigan than is regarded as a felony with a possible $10 000 fine. Yeah, unimportant.

I don't know what you are referring to.

Perhaps you should check it out then.

Meanwhile:

I don't know how that's relevent? Non-Trans people injure people. Men injure men, women injure women, women injure men, etc... People behave badly all the time. How does that sum up an issue?

[Clownboat]

Change is coming. I embrace it, and the only thing I fear is the bigotry and violence from the Right.

This does not make you seem like a very inclusive person judging from this post and the way you denigrate an entire group of people (perhaps you really are though... that I do not claim to know).

When you demean every human that belongs to this 'right', do you feel justified because you feel they are all actually violent bigots? Would society be better off if in place of having discussions, we just yell chants like 'human rights matter' and call people names that we disagree with?

Like it or not, biological males competing with biological females is happening. We can address this or be fascists and try to shut down conversation. IMO, we have far too much denigration going on and not enough discussion.

A fascist is a follower of a political philosophy characterized by authoritarian views and a strong central government — and no tolerance for opposing opinions. (The bold is what I'm referring to when I use the word).
As a father of two girls both in competitive sports, I would like to have a discussion about biological men competing against my biological girls.

We (generic we) could discuss this, but then I run the risk that fascists (those with no tolerance for an opposing opinion) will call me names like violent or bigot for example in place of an actual discussion taking place. Surely I'm not a violent bigot if my motivation for having this conversation is the health and well being of my children.

Change is coming, yes. What I don't care for is this keep your mouth shut attitude and the denigration of entire groups by those claiming to be inclusive, by being exclusive.

[Clownboat]

I don't know how that's relevant? Non-Trans people injure people. Men injure men, women injure women, women injure men, etc... People behave badly all the time. How does that sum up an issue?

Let's follow this to its logical conclusion...
1. Is there even a point to discuss gun control? Non gun owners injure people after all.
Person A: Sure, but owning a gun makes it easier and will cause more injuries/death.
Person B: Being a biological male competing against biological females will cause more injuries.
Person A: You're a violent bigot (or whatever the charge)!
Person B: What just happened?
(Who would be the actual bigot in this instance?)

2. Why have laws against drinking and driving? Sober people injure others in car accidents after all.

As a father of two girls in sports, I would like to discuss the issue of them having to compete against biological males. Surely wanting to have this discussion doesn't in itself cause me to be violent or a bigot. Or does it and I'm not seeing it?

What are your thoughts specifically about the rugby player in the presented video? Should the biological females just shut up about their injuries because they are violent bigots (or whatever the charge)? Or would it be prudent to listen to both sides?

"We need to be inclusive" is ironically exclusive. This is painfully obvious to me, but it seems lost on so many around me that seem to view the world through whatever lens they prefer.

[Purple Knight]

When you demean every human that belongs to this 'right', do you feel justified because you feel they are all actually violent bigots?

There are a few greedy, unscrupulous, climbing instigators on both sides. Both sides seem to identify the other side by these nasty few. We as humans have seemingly lost the ability to see people who disagree with us as fellow humans, and are now only capable of greedily scrounging for incidences of other greedy people creating incidents that we can use to prove that our side alone is righteous and the other side is unequivocally evil.

I will say that the dominant side is going to more easily attract these greedy-grabbers of power and righteousness. I've seen this with atheism. On this forum. Sometimes I'm ashamed of the behaviour of my side. This is just how people act when they are in a position to take for granted the assumption that they are in the right.

A fascist is a follower of a political philosophy characterized by authoritarian views and a strong central government — and no tolerance for opposing opinions. (The bold is what I'm referring to when I use the word).
As a father of two girls both in competitive sports, I would like to have a discussion about biological men competing against my biological girls.

The genetic lottery gave you individuals as children who do not have equal physical ability to other children. You could have had boys and had this same thing happen. It's unfair and somebody should do something about it, if we so revere sports and fairness is so important to us.

To me the ultimate solution can only happen either in post-scarcity, or with government-rationed genetic engineering: We buy our skills with points. If you spend high, you get genetic engineering in that area or in post-scarcity, society simply acts like you have that skill. It would be simple in sports and video games: You actually train, but in competition, computers and/or robots play for you and you score points based on values that are arrived at from looking at the points you spent on ability and your time training.

I'm only telling you my real opinion because everyone else so reveres the idea of sports (which is by its nature unfair) that I only tell them too bad so sad, you lost the genetic lottery, you lose at sports, biggest biological ability wins. If you don't like that, you don't like sports.

What I actually think is that the idea of exalting people who can jump higher, run faster, and are more muscular and taller BY BIRTH, runs in direct opposition to any kind of society that anyone who has ever said equality in any context without disgust on their lips, would ever want.

Change is coming, yes. What I don't care for is this keep your mouth shut attitude and the denigration of entire groups by those claiming to be inclusive, by being exclusive.

I predicted this in the 90's. I told people, I oppose free speech. I said there will be one dominant viewpoint and it will use mere speech, to silence opposing speech. If you want ideological freedom of expression, we need government control of speech. I actually identify as an authoritarian and if you called me a fascist, I would say, that's accurate. Freedom just means the government lets up, and it will be a smaller tyrant controlling your every action. But they will exist and they will control it. If you want ideological freedom of expression, you must petition the government to suppress those who use their freedom to threaten that.

And nobody listened and now we have absolute de jure freedom, and de facto tyranny. I knew exactly how it would turn out and nobody listened.

[brunumb]

I don't know how that's relevent? Non-Trans people injure people. Men injure men, women injure women, women injure men, etc... People behave badly all the time. How does that sum up an issue?

It highlights the absurdity of self-identification. That man is clearly not a woman and not even attempting to present as a woman. To me he is even a poor excuse for a man and a questionable human being to think that it is right for him to compete against women in a physically interactive sport. The fact that a nineteen year old girl is unable to say what a woman is because she is not a doctor is sad indeed. How is a doctor supposed to even know if you just have to self-identify? Gender ideology is reducing people to absolute mindless robots.

[brunumb]

Trans people are here. There are going to be more. There are going to be a never ending stream of differently gendered people into society, and it's wrong to stop it - so it will continue.

You make it sound like that is a desirable outcome for people. It is a mental disorder that causes discomfort all the way up to extreme distress. Why would you wish that on anyone. There will be schizophrenics and rapists and murderers, but that doesn't mean we should welcome that. The ideal outcome would be that we could alleviate all the suffering and problems associated with mental disorders. Sure, there will always be trans people and everyone is entitles to fair treatment and dignity. That is a far cry from kids being encouraged to embrace medication and surgical interventions as treatment for their apparent dysphoria. The preferred option would surely be to avoid such drastic procedures and offer the sort of care that would see most of them get past their trauma. Coming out the other side as just being a gay person should lead to a much happier life.

I have to add that trans activists are actually doing more harm than good. So are the alleged trans people who clearly are not suffering from dysphoria but are indulging in narcissistic role play and getting their kicks from trolling people, particularly on social media. Both groups are undermining the credibility of genuine trans people.

[brunumb]

There are a few greedy, unscrupulous, climbing instigators on both sides. Both sides seem to identify the other side by these nasty few. We as humans have seemingly lost the ability to see people who disagree with us as fellow humans, and are now only capable of greedily scrounging for incidences of other greedy people creating incidents that we can use to prove that our side alone is righteous and the other side is unequivocally evil.

Two sides. One of the reasons I hate politics. You pick a side and by default you have to go along with everything that side favors. If you agree with a policy that a particular side does not support, you are branded and abused regardless of your motives. I am politically non-binary and prefer to consider the individual merits of any policy. The trouble is that when you vote, you may get a heap of baggage that you do not consider having merit. Neither side has a monopoly on all the best policies.

The issue of gender ideology should not be argued on the basis of party politics. It boggles the mind that activism has the power to overturn well established norms and science. Education has gone off the rails with sexuality as the prime concern in the classroom at the expense of other disciplines. I guess a dumbed down population is that much easier to manipulate and control.

[Purple Knight]

There are a few greedy, unscrupulous, climbing instigators on both sides. Both sides seem to identify the other side by these nasty few. We as humans have seemingly lost the ability to see people who disagree with us as fellow humans, and are now only capable of greedily scrounging for incidences of other greedy people creating incidents that we can use to prove that our side alone is righteous and the other side is unequivocally evil.

Two sides. One of the reasons I hate politics. You pick a side and by default you have to go along with everything that side favors. If you agree with a policy that a particular side does not support, you are branded and abused regardless of your motives. I am politically non-binary and prefer to consider the individual merits of any policy. The trouble is that when you vote, you may get a heap of baggage that you do not consider having merit. Neither side has a monopoly on all the best policies.

The issue of gender ideology should not be argued on the basis of party politics. It boggles the mind that activism has the power to overturn well established norms and science. Education has gone off the rails with sexuality as the prime concern in the classroom at the expense of other disciplines. I guess a dumbed down population is that much easier to manipulate and control.

This is exactly why we should have a direct democracy and vote on issues, not vote for the slightly better of two amoral, egotist windbags who will polarise, divide, and parasitise us to fill their pockets with money and power, then probably shake each other's hands and laugh behind closed doors, at us idiots who handed them power because they successfully bamboozled us with the two-wolves-and-one-sheep-voting-on-dinner metaphor, into thinking we can't govern ourselves without their magnanimous help.

I guess I'm also politically nonbinary. But one of my main issues is people fearmongering about things that have never happened. I'm with Libertarians, despite being diametrically opposed to them on almost every issue, on the licensing fiasco. What is an unlicensed barber going to do? Scalp you? Has this ever happened? Make them display that they are unlicensed prominently and then leave them the heck alone. Similarly, the rights of the minority are beholden to the majority anyway. If too many people are too vested, they'll just elect Hitler. Not only that, people voting away rights a minority has already achieved, I'm pretty sure has never happened.

[boatsnguitars]

Change is coming. I embrace it, and the only thing I fear is the bigotry and violence from the Right.

This does not make you seem like a very inclusive person judging from this post and the way you denigrate an entire group of people (perhaps you really are though... that I do not claim to know).

When you demean every human that belongs to this 'right', do you feel justified because you feel they are all actually violent bigots? Would society be better off if in place of having discussions, we just yell chants like 'human rights matter' and call people names that we disagree with?

Like it or not, biological males competing with biological females is happening. We can address this or be fascists and try to shut down conversation. IMO, we have far too much denigration going on and not enough discussion.

A fascist is a follower of a political philosophy characterized by authoritarian views and a strong central government — and no tolerance for opposing opinions. (The bold is what I'm referring to when I use the word).
As a father of two girls both in competitive sports, I would like to have a discussion about biological men competing against my biological girls.

We (generic we) could discuss this, but then I run the risk that fascists (those with no tolerance for an opposing opinion) will call me names like violent or bigot for example in place of an actual discussion taking place. Surely I'm not a violent bigot if my motivation for having this conversation is the health and well being of my children.

Change is coming, yes. What I don't care for is this keep your mouth shut attitude and the denigration of entire groups by those claiming to be inclusive, by being exclusive.

The Right Wing, specifically Right Wing Conservatism (which are sides of the same coin: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti ... right-wing), is particularly bigoted (prejudiced). I think we can save the "Well, if you are bigoted against bigots, you're a bigot!" conversation, as we are adults here.
The general fact, born out by a long history of examples, is that the Right Wing (Conservatives) are opposed to social change, and have produced the vast majority of groups that target minorities (either racial, national, gender, sex, etc.). Bigots are, by and large, attracted to the Right Wing/Conservativism because of their strong feelings against "the other".

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.
Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/ag ... atism.html

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... fferences/

Left-Wing versus Right-Wing Extremism
Of these three ideologies, most prior research has contrasted those committed to right-wing and left-wing causes. Much of this research suggests that compared to left-wing extremists, right-wing extremists may be more likely to engage in politically motivated violence. In comparison to left-wing supporters, right-wing individuals are more often characterized by closed-mindedness and dogmatism (9) and a heightened need for order, structure, and cognitive closure (5). Because such characteristics have been found to increase in-group bias and lead to greater out-group hostility (10), violence for a cause may be more likely among proponents of right-wing ideologies. In contrast, in comparison to their right-wing counterparts, left-wing individuals score higher on openness to new experiences, cognitive complexity, and tolerance of uncertainty (5). They are also less likely to support social dominance (11), which could lead to their overall lower likelihood to use violence against adversaries. In line with this reasoning, some studies have demonstrated an empathy gap between liberal and conservative individuals (12). Finally, according to various conceptualizations and operationalizations of right-wing authoritarianism (RWA; 13–15), aggressive tendencies constitute an inherent component of this construct, with people high in RWA being more hostile toward others who violate norms than those low in RWA. A recent meta-analysis supported this conclusion, revealing a positive relationship between right-wing ideology and aggressive attitudes and behaviors (16).

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2122593119

RIGHT-WING MOVEMENTS
Right-wing movements in the United States openly and virulently embrace racism, anti-Semitism, and/or xenophobia and promote violence. They include long-standing racist movements such as the KKK; white supremacist, neo-Nazi, and white power skinhead groups; and racialist and violent groups of nationalists and patriots (Gallaher 2004, McVeigh 2009, Zeskind 2009). Their historical orientations vary, with the KKK focused on the Confederacy of the Civil War era, neo-Nazis focused on World War II–era Nazi Germany, and nationalists/patriots focused on the 1776 American Revolution (Durham 2007). Their locations also vary, as the KKK is generally in the South and Midwest, neo-Nazis across the country, and nationalists/patriots in the West and Southwest (Flint 2004a).

Most right-wing groups are viciously white supremacist and anti-Semitic, regarding nonwhites and Jews as inferior, destructive, and fearsome and seeking to preserve the power and privileges of white Aryans (Blee 2007b, Fredrickson 2002). Some are antielitist, populist, or even anticorporate (Berlet & Lyons 2000, Bhatia 2004, Zeskind 2009); others believe that invisible, powerful Jewish conspirators control the world's economy and polity as well as the smallest details of daily life (Blee 2002, Durham 2000). Many regard whites as under attack and advocate the isolation or extermination of nonwhites and Jews by means of an apocalyptic race war (Berbrier 2000, 2002; Durham 2007; Vertigans 2007). These latter views are particularly prevalent among advocates of Christian Identity (CI), a racist pseudotheology that regards Jews as the literal descendants of Satan and nonwhites as nonhuman (Barkun 1994, Gardell 2003). CI adherents reject traditional Christianity as overly influenced by Jews, and they tend to be atheist or follow precepts of Odinism, occultism, or paganism (Barkun 1994, Durham 2007, Gardell 2003).

Xenophobia is a long-standing characteristic of right-wing movements around the world (DeWitte 2006, Edelstein 2003, Fichter 2008, Giugni et al. 2005, Mudde 2005a). Historically, right-wing movements in the United States have been highly xenophobic and nationalist, working to stop immigration of nonwhites through law, force, and violence (Blee 1991, Flint 2004b, McVeigh 2009, Zeskind 2009). This may be changing with the spread of pan-Aryanism and the desire for transnational alliances with other white supremacists around the world (Daniels 2009). The nationalism of right-wing movements also is tempered by their antagonism to the U.S. government, which they describe as a Zionist Occupation Government that works on behalf of Jewish overlords to take away the rights and guns of white, Aryan citizens. Such ideas were solidified by episodes of disastrous violence between government agents and citizens in the 1980s and 1990s, including a federal investigation of a residential compound in Waco, Texas, that ended in a siege in which 76 people died (Durham 2007, Vertigans 2007).

Violence is ubiquitous in right-wing movements as an action and/or a goal. Violence can be strategic, chosen among alternative tactical actions to achieve a goal, often by highly insular groups intently focused on their perceived enemies (Blee 2002, Crenshaw 1992, J. Goodwin 2006, Payne 2000). Strategic violence is targeted at enemy groups, such as Jews, racial minorities, or federal government installations. Other right-wing violence is more performative. Performative violence binds together its practitioners in a common identity, as when white power skinheads enact bloody clashes with other skinhead groups and each other (Blee 2002).

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.11 ... 809.102602

Further reading:
Schreiber, D., Fonzo, G., Simmons, A. N., Dawes, C. T., Flagan, T., Fowler, J. H., & Paulus, M. P. (2013). Red Brain, Blue Brain: Evaluative Processes Differ in Democrats and Republicans. PLoS ONE, 8(2), e52970.
This study used neuroimaging techniques to investigate the neural differences in Democrats and Republicans while they made political decisions. They found that there were distinct patterns of brain activity associated with political preferences.

Kanai, R., Feilden, T., Firth, C., & Rees, G. (2011). Political orientations are correlated with brain structure in young adults. Current Biology, 21(8), 677-680.
This research looked at the brain structure of participants and found that those who identified as liberal tended to have a larger anterior cingulate cortex, an area associated with monitoring uncertainty and conflict. Conservatives, on the other hand, showed a larger amygdala, a region involved in emotional processing.

Schreiber, D., & Appelbaum, M. (2013). Inside the partisan brain: An investigation of the neural correlates of partisan elections. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 30(1), 62-88.
In this study, researchers investigated how partisan elections affected brain activity while participants made political judgments. They observed differences in brain activation between liberals and conservatives when processing political information.

Amodio, D. M., Jost, J. T., Master, S. L., & Yee, C. M. (2007). Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism. Nature Neuroscience, 10(10), 1246-1247.
This study investigated the relationship between political attitudes and cognitive flexibility, showing that individuals with liberal attitudes tended to exhibit greater conflict-related neural activity, whereas conservatives showed stronger processing of threatening stimuli.


In the end, if the jack boot fits... One can't see the glaringly obvious connection between the Right Wing, Conservatives and hate groups and decide "I agree with all their ideals, but I'm not hateful!".

The general, over-arching fact is that Conservatives are what they are because of their brain structure and up-bringing, and they tend to have difficulty judging evidence, are Dogmatic, exhibit compartmentalized thinking, ignorant, lack self-awareness, and have strong sensitivity to disgust:

Psychological comorbidities
Difficulty judging evidence
Right-wing authoritarians have trouble deciding what facts are valid or irrelevant, and making logical deductions. Consider the following syllogism:

All fish live in the sea.
Sharks live in the sea.
Therefore, sharks are fish.
Although the conclusion of the syllogism happens to be correct, the reasoning before it is incorrect. Sharks are indeed fish, but not because they happen to live in the sea. Whales also live in the sea, and some fish live in rivers and lakes. Right-wing authoritarians are far more likely to incorrectly judge the above syllogism to be correct. Because they liked the conclusion, they assume that the reasoning that led it was correct.[25]

Dogmatism
Authoritarians tend to hold stubbornly to their beliefs even when presented with evidence that suggests their beliefs are wrong. This is particularly true concerning beliefs that underpin the identity of the group. If anything, when confronted with contradictory evidence, their beliefs are often reinforced.

Compartmentalized thinking
In one of his experiments, Bob Altemeyer presented his students a booklet which contained the following statements on different pages:

"When it comes to love, men and women with opposite points of view are attracted to each other."
"Birds of a feather flock together when it comes to love."
His students with authoritarian personalities were more likely to agree with both statements even though they are completely contradictory.[26]

Their tendency to compartmentalize information makes it hard to change the cherished opinion of a high-RWA by telling them evidence that contradicts their beliefs. They will ignore the contradiction even if they accept the evidence as factual.[27]

Ignorance
Altemeyer has observed that authoritarians are often very ignorant when it comes to both general knowledge and current events.[28]

Lack of self-awareness
Authoritarians tend to be lacking in general knowledge, particularly on issues with which they disagree.

Authoritarians also are often unaware of just how different they are from most people. They tend to believe they are very average. Altemeyer has found that authoritarians in America underestimate how prejudiced and conformist they are compared to the majority of Americans. Altemeyer has also observed that when he lectures about the psychology of right-wing authoritarians to his students, the RWA students in his class fail to recognize themselves in his description.[29] Altemeyer believes the tendency of authoritarians to avoid anyone who isn't like them reinforces their belief that they are normal. They have relatively little contact with normal people.

Sensitivity to disgust
Right-wing authoritarians were shown to have a higher level of disgust compared to those who are not. The correlation between moral disgust and disgust from body odour were used in a study to predict the likelihood of an individual's political standing using their sensitivity to body odour. Participants who reported a higher sensitivity to body odour were found to agree with more Right-wing associated statements in a shortened version of the RWA scale [30]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-win ... ersonality


Every test I have taken, every person I have interacted with, and every description of "Conservative" or Right Wing - firmly suggests I am a Liberal - because of my Brain and Upbringing. Which is why - most likely - that I have empathy, embrace change, educated, rational, etc. I'm not bragging, it's my Nature.

That also means, I have a natural inclination to criticize Conservatives - which I resist in an emotional sense, and only do carefully, logically, and factually... as God made me.

[boatsnguitars]

...genuine trans people.

What else are we talking about? The few outliers? Why?

Change is coming. I embrace it, and the only thing I fear is the bigotry and violence from the Right.

When you demean every human that belongs to this 'right', do you feel justified because you feel they are all actually violent bigots?

The Right Wing, specifically Right Wing Conservatism (which are sides of the same coin: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti ... right-wing), is particularly bigoted (prejudiced) and violent. I think we can save the "Well, if you are bigoted against bigots, you're a bigot!" conversation, as we are adults here.
The general fact, born out by a long history of examples, is that the Right Wing (Conservatives) are opposed to social change, and have produced the vast majority of groups that target minorities (either racial, national, gender, sex, etc.). Bigots are, by and large, attracted to the Right Wing/Conservativism because of their strong feelings against "the other".

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.
Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/ag ... atism.html

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... fferences/

Left-Wing versus Right-Wing Extremism
Of these three ideologies, most prior research has contrasted those committed to right-wing and left-wing causes. Much of this research suggests that compared to left-wing extremists, right-wing extremists may be more likely to engage in politically motivated violence. In comparison to left-wing supporters, right-wing individuals are more often characterized by closed-mindedness and dogmatism (9) and a heightened need for order, structure, and cognitive closure (5). Because such characteristics have been found to increase in-group bias and lead to greater out-group hostility (10), violence for a cause may be more likely among proponents of right-wing ideologies. In contrast, in comparison to their right-wing counterparts, left-wing individuals score higher on openness to new experiences, cognitive complexity, and tolerance of uncertainty (5). They are also less likely to support social dominance (11), which could lead to their overall lower likelihood to use violence against adversaries. In line with this reasoning, some studies have demonstrated an empathy gap between liberal and conservative individuals (12). Finally, according to various conceptualizations and operationalizations of right-wing authoritarianism (RWA; 13–15), aggressive tendencies constitute an inherent component of this construct, with people high in RWA being more hostile toward others who violate norms than those low in RWA. A recent meta-analysis supported this conclusion, revealing a positive relationship between right-wing ideology and aggressive attitudes and behaviors (16).

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2122593119

RIGHT-WING MOVEMENTS
Right-wing movements in the United States openly and virulently embrace racism, anti-Semitism, and/or xenophobia and promote violence. They include long-standing racist movements such as the KKK; white supremacist, neo-Nazi, and white power skinhead groups; and racialist and violent groups of nationalists and patriots (Gallaher 2004, McVeigh 2009, Zeskind 2009). Their historical orientations vary, with the KKK focused on the Confederacy of the Civil War era, neo-Nazis focused on World War II–era Nazi Germany, and nationalists/patriots focused on the 1776 American Revolution (Durham 2007). Their locations also vary, as the KKK is generally in the South and Midwest, neo-Nazis across the country, and nationalists/patriots in the West and Southwest (Flint 2004a).

Most right-wing groups are viciously white supremacist and anti-Semitic, regarding nonwhites and Jews as inferior, destructive, and fearsome and seeking to preserve the power and privileges of white Aryans (Blee 2007b, Fredrickson 2002). Some are antielitist, populist, or even anticorporate (Berlet & Lyons 2000, Bhatia 2004, Zeskind 2009); others believe that invisible, powerful Jewish conspirators control the world's economy and polity as well as the smallest details of daily life (Blee 2002, Durham 2000). Many regard whites as under attack and advocate the isolation or extermination of nonwhites and Jews by means of an apocalyptic race war (Berbrier 2000, 2002; Durham 2007; Vertigans 2007). These latter views are particularly prevalent among advocates of Christian Identity (CI), a racist pseudotheology that regards Jews as the literal descendants of Satan and nonwhites as nonhuman (Barkun 1994, Gardell 2003). CI adherents reject traditional Christianity as overly influenced by Jews, and they tend to be atheist or follow precepts of Odinism, occultism, or paganism (Barkun 1994, Durham 2007, Gardell 2003).

Xenophobia is a long-standing characteristic of right-wing movements around the world (DeWitte 2006, Edelstein 2003, Fichter 2008, Giugni et al. 2005, Mudde 2005a). Historically, right-wing movements in the United States have been highly xenophobic and nationalist, working to stop immigration of nonwhites through law, force, and violence (Blee 1991, Flint 2004b, McVeigh 2009, Zeskind 2009). This may be changing with the spread of pan-Aryanism and the desire for transnational alliances with other white supremacists around the world (Daniels 2009). The nationalism of right-wing movements also is tempered by their antagonism to the U.S. government, which they describe as a Zionist Occupation Government that works on behalf of Jewish overlords to take away the rights and guns of white, Aryan citizens. Such ideas were solidified by episodes of disastrous violence between government agents and citizens in the 1980s and 1990s, including a federal investigation of a residential compound in Waco, Texas, that ended in a siege in which 76 people died (Durham 2007, Vertigans 2007).

Violence is ubiquitous in right-wing movements as an action and/or a goal. Violence can be strategic, chosen among alternative tactical actions to achieve a goal, often by highly insular groups intently focused on their perceived enemies (Blee 2002, Crenshaw 1992, J. Goodwin 2006, Payne 2000). Strategic violence is targeted at enemy groups, such as Jews, racial minorities, or federal government installations. Other right-wing violence is more performative. Performative violence binds together its practitioners in a common identity, as when white power skinheads enact bloody clashes with other skinhead groups and each other (Blee 2002).

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.11 ... 809.102602

Further reading:
Schreiber, D., Fonzo, G., Simmons, A. N., Dawes, C. T., Flagan, T., Fowler, J. H., & Paulus, M. P. (2013). Red Brain, Blue Brain: Evaluative Processes Differ in Democrats and Republicans. PLoS ONE, 8(2), e52970.
This study used neuroimaging techniques to investigate the neural differences in Democrats and Republicans while they made political decisions. They found that there were distinct patterns of brain activity associated with political preferences.

Kanai, R., Feilden, T., Firth, C., & Rees, G. (2011). Political orientations are correlated with brain structure in young adults. Current Biology, 21(8), 677-680.
This research looked at the brain structure of participants and found that those who identified as liberal tended to have a larger anterior cingulate cortex, an area associated with monitoring uncertainty and conflict. Conservatives, on the other hand, showed a larger amygdala, a region involved in emotional processing.

Schreiber, D., & Appelbaum, M. (2013). Inside the partisan brain: An investigation of the neural correlates of partisan elections. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 30(1), 62-88.
In this study, researchers investigated how partisan elections affected brain activity while participants made political judgments. They observed differences in brain activation between liberals and conservatives when processing political information.

Amodio, D. M., Jost, J. T., Master, S. L., & Yee, C. M. (2007). Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism. Nature Neuroscience, 10(10), 1246-1247.
This study investigated the relationship between political attitudes and cognitive flexibility, showing that individuals with liberal attitudes tended to exhibit greater conflict-related neural activity, whereas conservatives showed stronger processing of threatening stimuli.


In the end, if the jack boot fits... One can't see the glaringly obvious connection between the Right Wing, Conservatives and hate groups and decide "I agree with all their ideals, but I'm not hateful!".

The general, over-arching fact is that Conservatives are what they are because of their brain structure and up-bringing, and they tend to have difficulty judging evidence, are Dogmatic, exhibit compartmentalized thinking, ignorant, lack self-awareness, and have strong sensitivity to disgust:

Psychological comorbidities
Difficulty judging evidence
Right-wing authoritarians have trouble deciding what facts are valid or irrelevant, and making logical deductions. Consider the following syllogism:

All fish live in the sea.
Sharks live in the sea.
Therefore, sharks are fish.
Although the conclusion of the syllogism happens to be correct, the reasoning before it is incorrect. Sharks are indeed fish, but not because they happen to live in the sea. Whales also live in the sea, and some fish live in rivers and lakes. Right-wing authoritarians are far more likely to incorrectly judge the above syllogism to be correct. Because they liked the conclusion, they assume that the reasoning that led it was correct.[25]

Dogmatism
Authoritarians tend to hold stubbornly to their beliefs even when presented with evidence that suggests their beliefs are wrong. This is particularly true concerning beliefs that underpin the identity of the group. If anything, when confronted with contradictory evidence, their beliefs are often reinforced.

Compartmentalized thinking
In one of his experiments, Bob Altemeyer presented his students a booklet which contained the following statements on different pages:

"When it comes to love, men and women with opposite points of view are attracted to each other."
"Birds of a feather flock together when it comes to love."
His students with authoritarian personalities were more likely to agree with both statements even though they are completely contradictory.[26]

Their tendency to compartmentalize information makes it hard to change the cherished opinion of a high-RWA by telling them evidence that contradicts their beliefs. They will ignore the contradiction even if they accept the evidence as factual.[27]

Ignorance
Altemeyer has observed that authoritarians are often very ignorant when it comes to both general knowledge and current events.[28]

Lack of self-awareness
Authoritarians tend to be lacking in general knowledge, particularly on issues with which they disagree.

Authoritarians also are often unaware of just how different they are from most people. They tend to believe they are very average. Altemeyer has found that authoritarians in America underestimate how prejudiced and conformist they are compared to the majority of Americans. Altemeyer has also observed that when he lectures about the psychology of right-wing authoritarians to his students, the RWA students in his class fail to recognize themselves in his description.[29] Altemeyer believes the tendency of authoritarians to avoid anyone who isn't like them reinforces their belief that they are normal. They have relatively little contact with normal people.

Sensitivity to disgust
Right-wing authoritarians were shown to have a higher level of disgust compared to those who are not. The correlation between moral disgust and disgust from body odour were used in a study to predict the likelihood of an individual's political standing using their sensitivity to body odour. Participants who reported a higher sensitivity to body odour were found to agree with more Right-wing associated statements in a shortened version of the RWA scale [30]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-win ... ersonality


Every test I have taken, every person I have interacted with, and every description of "Conservative" or Right Wing - firmly suggests I am a Liberal - because of my Brain and Upbringing. Which is why - most likely - that I have empathy, embrace change, educated, rational, etc. I'm not bragging, it's my Nature.

That also means, I have a natural inclination to criticize Conservatives - which I resist in an emotional sense, and only do carefully, logically, and factually... as God made me.

Like it or not, biological males competing with biological females is happening.

Perhaps, more or less. And what is the crime or threat?

There are more gifted males competing against less gifted males, or more 'masculine women' competing against less masculine women... Why draw the line at penises and vaginas?

We can address this or be fascists and try to shut down conversation. IMO, we have far too much denigration going on and not enough discussion.

The denigration comes from the Right Wing.

A fascist is a follower of a political philosophy characterized by authoritarian views and a strong central government — and no tolerance for opposing opinions. (The bold is what I'm referring to when I use the word).

I think that's overly simplistic. I have no tolerance for pedophilia or child abuse.

As a father of two girls both in competitive sports, I would like to have a discussion about biological men competing against my biological girls.

I have a daughter who competes. I tell her no matter if she wins the Olympics, it's not a real achievement - because it isn't. I tell her to do it because it's healthy, fun, and fosters some teamwork ideals, but in itself it is meaningless. It doesn't save lives, doesn't feed people, doesn't contribute to society except for entertainment value which most people get from Netflix. If you are doing something that the masses can get from watching The Office, you aren't doing much for society. Entertainment, whether on the TV, Film, Streaming, or Sports is a luxury that the performers do for their ego, and the agents and producers do for the money. Convince me I'm wrong. Show me how - except for the money they spent - Michael Jorden, Mohammad Ali, Conor McGregor, etc. did anything for the world using their athletic acumen.

All we are talking about is the rules of the games we invented. We can change the rules.

We (generic we) could discuss this, but then I run the risk that fascists (those with no tolerance for an opposing opinion) will call me names like violent or bigot for example in place of an actual discussion taking place. Surely I'm not a violent bigot if my motivation for having this conversation is the health and well being of my children.

Change is coming, yes. What I don't care for is this keep your mouth shut attitude and the denigration of entire groups by those claiming to be inclusive, by being exclusive.

What is the danger to the health of your children. Seriously?

How does a Trans child in a different family affect your child? How does running against a Trans person endanger your child?

I feel you are virtue signaling: ("Won't someone think of MY children!")