DUMB AND DUMB: Was Leonardo's mother enslaved?

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2023

Wokeness in the news: Long ago and far away, Saint Augustine said he was puzzled.

“What then is time?" he famously wrote in the Confessions (A.D. 397). "If no one asks me, I know. If I want to explain it to a questioner, I do not know.” 

Famously, Augustine said he was puzzled about the nature of a very familiar entity / concept / term. A similar state of puzzlement surfaced on blue tribe "cable news" just this past Friday night. 

As we chronicled in Monday's report, Stephanie Ruhle's "Friday Nightcap" panel all admitted that they were puzzled by the very meaning of such concepts as "Wokeness" and "Woke." 

What do such familiar terms mean? Try though they might, the highly prestigious four-member panel just couldn't quite puzzle it out.

(Even Al Sharpton played along! At that point, the analysts wept.)

Why was the all-star panel puzzled? You're asking a very good question! For what it's worth, the later Wittgenstein discussed Augustine's famous state of stupefaction in section 89 of Philosophical Investigations, as you can see right here:

89. Augustine says in the Confessions "quid est ergo tempus? si nemo ex me quaerat scio; si quaerenti explicare velim, nescio".—This could not be said about a question of natural science ("What is the specific gravity of hydrogen?" for instance). Something that we know when no one asks us, but no longer know when we are supposed to give an account of it, is something that we need to remind ourselves of. (And it is obviously something of which for some reason it is difficult to remind oneself.)

As in that case, so too here. We blue tribe members might want to remind ourselves of what is now routinely meant by claims about "Wokeness" and "Woke." 

Beyond that, we night want to seek the reason why our tribunes agreed to play it dumb on Ruhle's program last Friday.

As everyone but our tribunes know, issues pertaining to Wokeness and Woke are found all through present-day news. For the most part, we're speaking of so-called identity issues—issues involving matters of gender, ethnicity, race.

Such topics appear all over the news, as does the need to respond to the questions these topics may trigger. Ruhle's panel was weirdly unable to explain this fact to their equally baffled celebrity questioner, but we were struck, this very morning, by the relevant topics which appear in today's high-end news.

We start with a question which is currently roiling public debate. How should our frequently brutal American history be taught to the nation's public school students at various ages and at various grade levels?

In Florida, Governor Blunderbuss is especially gripped by this topic. His manner is brusque; his language is often clownishly vague. But is it possible that somewhere our own blunderbuss tribe has never traveled, gladly beyond any experience, he has perhaps the tiniest germ of a worthwhile point?

In this morning's New York Times, a relevant news report appears in the International section. Greedily, we read the fascinating report after spotting this headline:

Who Was Leonardo’s Mother? A Novelist Has Evidence She Was Enslaved.

Elisabetta Povoledo was reporting live and direct from Florence. Along the way, she offered this:

POVOLEDO (3/15/23): Before Italy was unified in the 19th century, slavery was commonplace, though in Italy it remains a field where more research is required, said Giulia Bonazza, a professor at the University of Venice who has written about the topic. Trafficking in humans from Central Asia had started by the 13th century and was carried out primarily by Genoese and Venetian merchants. Most of the victims were women and non-Christians. Their children were not legally considered enslaved.

Once they arrived in Europe, they were baptized and given Christian names, often Maria or Caterina, and sold as servants to well-to-do families. “But even if there were families who owned enslaved persons, it wasn’t the standard,” said Sergio Tognetti, a professor of medieval history at the University of Cagliari who has written about slavery. Some were eventually freed by their owners, usually as part of a will.

Say what? Trafficking and enslavement in what is now Italy had been underway since the 13th century? In this case, it involved Genoese and Venetian merchants enslaving people in Central Asia?

(We also think of the ways we've seen Professor Gates describe the history of enslavement of Africans by other Africans in several of his deeply instructive PBS programs. The excellent work of Professor Gates will be cited again, down below.)

Our question: when children are taught, in our public schools, about the brutal enslavement which took place in what became the United States, should they be taught about the horrible global history of the worldwide practice?

We're curious about the way that question is addressed in the College Board's new Advanced Placement course. For us, the answer to the question is obvious—and the answer is (importantly) yes, with important discussions to follow.

Was Leonardo's mother enslaved? Ther question may trigger a tragic view of our frequently brutal human history, replacing the occasional, somewhat narrower ideological screed some of our blue tribe colleagues might be inclined to fashion. 

Governor Blunderbuss might find it easy to score some points in this general realm of concern. Then again, this headline appears in this morning's New York Times, this time in the National section:

At Wellesley College, Students Vote to Admit Trans Men

Should a women's college admit trans men? As everyone except Ruhle's panelists knows, questions involving transgender issues often result in angry claims that our tribe is excessively Woke. 

A great deal of human suffering is involved in this topic. That includes a great deal of suffering on the part of children and teens. 

Meanwhile, the topic is quite new to mainstream discussion and debate. It might not be the worst thing in the world if our tribunes learned how to address the claim that our tribe is excessively Woke in this general area. Last Friday, our own version of The Five pretended they didn't even know what the claim of "Wokeness" could possibly mean.

Another headline in this morning's Times brought Professor Gates to mind. This headline appeared in the National section. It reminded us of the time when Gates posed "The Greatest Question Ever Asked." 

The headline in question was this:

Guidelines Warn Against Racial Categories in Genetic Research

Carl Zimmer's report involves a somewhat narrow, rather technical question. But along the way, we'll note the fact that Zimmer offered this:

ZIMMER (3/15/23): In the 18th century, European naturalists began claiming that humans belonged to clearly separate biological groups living on different continents. Visible traits like the color of their skin supposedly reflected deeper differences between the races in intelligence and morality. A hierarchy of scientific racism emerged, with white people at the top.

When the science of genetics emerged in the early 1900s, some early geneticists tried to validate the old notions of race by looking for genetic markers in groups of people. But now a century later, after sequencing millions of human genomes, scientists say it is abundantly clear that those notions do not hold up. 

The question here is rather technical. But floating about in this stew is a deeply important question—a question our vastly unimpressive, self-impressed tribe frequently rushes past. 

Our benighted American ancestors put certain questions of "race" right at the heart of our nation's brutal history, where those questions remain to this day. We continue to struggle today with a very basic question—do we regard ourselves, across our continuing racial categories, as being essentially alike or as being essentially different?

This basic question lies at the heart of many allegations of Wokeness. It would help if our tribunes learned to address such claims, instead of taking the simpler step of going on the TV machine and happily playing dumb.

("What difference does it make?" Professor Gates affably said, speaking to the equally good-natured Ava DuVernay on his PBS program, Finding Your Roots. DuVernay had said she feared that more than half of her DNA would track to European, not African, roots. "What difference does it make?" Professor Gates affably replied. Major experts have scored his question as the greatest ever asked.)

Many charges of Woke or Wokeness are going to seem to be dumb. It may be that many charges of Woke of Wokeness may, as a matter of fact, be perhaps a bit dumb.

That said, nothing will ever be dumber than the pseudo-discussion our cable stars fashioned last Friday night. 

"What is wokeness?" the baffled stars helplessly asked. Asked to explain the concept to a questioner, none of these lazy, corporate-paid motherfrumpers had even the slightest idea!

Tomorrow: George Packer at The Atlantic


88 comments:

  1. Leonardo was half Caucasian.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bob seems to be stalling now, big time.
    Could it be HE has no idea how to
    define WOKE?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Woke is simply basic common sense. Like being passionate about providing young men in high schools with ample tampons for their vaginas.

      Delete
    2. It makes more sense to have bathrooms that anyone can use, unisex, like they do all over Europe, where people are civilized.

      Delete

  3. tl;dr
    "our tribe is excessively Woke"

    Your tribe is woke, dear Bob. Your tribe is what "woke" means. Brain-dear liberals, worrying about wimmin trapped inside men's bodies.

    ...and you're part of it, dear. Live with it...

    ReplyDelete
  4. What happened in ancient Rome is unrelated to treatment of slaves in the USA. Racism in America is real and it persists. Somerby is pretending it is all too complicated to discuss. This is unhelpful.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Slavery also existed in antiquity. It’s in the Bible, for God’s sake. And every kid in every Evangelical home reads about that and is taught about that during their religious indoctrination.

    What in blazes does that have to do with slavery in the United States?

    There was opposition to slavery voiced at the constitutional convention:

    ‘Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania said that slavery was a “nefarious institution” and a “curse of heaven on the states where it prevailed.” George Mason of Virginia spoke at length about the horrors of slavery and criticized slave owners, who he called “petty tyrants,” and the slave traders who, he said, “from a lust of gain embarked on this nefarious traffic.”’

    De las Casas had spoken out against slavery and the brutal treatment of Native Americans by the Spanish in the 1500’s, 200 years before the founding of the United States.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Notice that Gouverneur Morris and George Mason were not giving the slaveholders any pity, sympathy, or tolerance. How woke of them.

      Delete
    2. mh, obviously, slavery in ancient times isn't as relevant as slavery in the US 160 years ago is to us now. But it's part of history, and the fact that many cultures, if not most, had slavery is relevant for putting our history into history perspective; it wouldn't be right to teach the slavery existed only in the US. I suppose one could argue (what in blazes!) that slavery in the US isn't relevant either, because it was abolished way back then - but that would be wrong also, obviously I believe. I understand that there is quite a bit of slavery even now throughout the world.

      Delete
    3. AC/MA, slavery is old but racism is relatively new. We are not debating reinstating slavery but eliminating racial discrimination.

      Delete
    4. AC/MA, the difference is in ancient times slavery worked both ways. Romans fighting the Carthaginians in the Punic wars were taken captive and enslaved when defeated, and vice versa, Carthaginians were enslaved when the Romans were victorious. This is different from chattel slavery as practiced in the Americas.

      Delete
    5. anon 1:49 - I don't think anyone is debating "reinstating slavery." My point was that history should be taught intelligently and so as to enhance critical thinking. What racial discrimination is it that we are interested in eliminating, specifically? and how is this going to be accomplished?

      Delete
    6. anon 2:18, I don't doubt that the institution of slavery varied between different cultures. I'm not sure if the Carthaginian slaves or Roman slaves (assuming your characterization is correct that they enslaved each other when they got the chance) were concerned about the distinction you make, or that the distinction makes any difference now. And there were lots of cultures or states that had slavery other than the Romans and Carthaginians - I'm not sure that all of them engaged in mutual enslavement of each other.

      Delete
    7. AC: Somerby brought up slavery. He wondered how we teach that subject. He brought up slavery in ancient times, as if that’s relevant to the United States. And I gave you an example of how some of our founding fathers were not shy about condemning the south and the institution of slavery. That was “woke” in 1776. Today we are dealing with the legacy of slavery and the slaveholders. even Bob Somerby has acknowledged that there is a legacy, including the NAEP score gaps. That would be one thing that he himself has pointed to as a legacy of the slaveholding days. I would also point to the vast disparity in wealth between black and white. But I’m not certain you were really interested in an answer to your question. You seem to have your mind made up that racial discrimination was abolished in 1965, period, end of story.

      Delete
    8. MH - No, I don't think racial discrimination was abolished in 1965. It exists, there are laws against it, there is "racism." I tend to think that things have changed a lot for the better as far as that goes since 1965. There was opposition to slavery in 1776, and up until it was abolished in 1865. Back then, and up until say 1965, people opposed deprivation of voting rights, segregation, and on and on. Now, its fighting against microaggressions. There are also murders, rapes, assaults, frauds, home invasions, etc. What percentage of lower NAEP scores and lower average wealth and income is due to present or past discrimination - I would say it's hard to measure, but it's somewhere between 0 and 100%. And how do you bring it about? Irrational hyperbole about "racism" doesn't seem to be the answer.to me. And while we're at it we can also eliminate murder, arson, etc.

      Delete

    9. "No, I don't think racial discrimination was abolished in 1965. "

      Actually, it was abolished in 1965. Literally.

      ...but alas race-mongering liberals keep introducing it, by hook or by crook. Oh, well...

      Delete
    10. AC/MA -- the people who think that things have improved racially tend to be white, not black. What you call "irrational hyperbole" is your impression, when you yourself have said you don't know how much of the gap between white and black prosperity is due to racism. Even "microaggressions" should not be happening -- why should any person have to go through the day encountering a slew of hostile encounters based on race? You think everything is fine now, so of course you think there doesn't need to be activism. Black people disagree with you. Since they are on the receiving end and you are not, I think they know more about this than you do.

      Delete
    11. Anonymouse 9:18pm, don’t try to finesse inconvenient facts with bullshite that ignores human nature.

      Being a conquered tribe, a conquered people, was no less an indignation and stigma because the enslaved tribe shared a level of melanin with its conquerors.

      It is likely that this was MORE mortifying, rather than less.

      Brown Egyptians reveled over their brown skinned Israelite slaves. Reveled over them as to the level of their cultural and military advancement, the power of their gods, the mental and moral fitness of their population.

      It’s your power that rests in turning the ancestors of African slaves into “whiney bitches”. It’s your power that benefits by turning elementary kids into piteous narcissists, grasping for the victimhood status that you’ve redefined as moral authority.

      It’s for your power that you seek to propitiate the status of inherited guilt as a means of political enslavement .

      There’s no harder and intractable slave master than you, Long live any resistance to you tyrants.









      Delete
    12. “Ancestors”, Cecelia? Wrong word, don’t you think?

      Your tirade illustrates the problem. You ascribe no agency, none, zero, to black Americans, claiming that it is (to use the term yet again) Evil Liberals who have enslaved them to the liberal party.

      That’s … bigoted of you.

      Delete
    13. mh, I have to designate to you that there are blacks who are liberal and who are leaders and who engage in this sort of warfare, otherwise you must assume I’m only referencing whites?

      Who is diminishing the agency of who?

      Delete
    14. anon 9:02 -You say "black people disagree with me" I'm not black - are you? Is it true that people have to go through the day "encountering a slew of hostile encounters because of race.?" - I'd say that shouldn't have to happen to answer your question,, but I wonder to what extent it does actually happen, and how it happens. Can you describe these microaggressions that people go through throughout the day? I never said everything is fine now. I do think your suggestion that blacks on a daily basis encounter all the "microaggressions" is an example of irrational hyperbole.

      Delete

    15. You know, there's a great film about ethnic paranoia, victim mentality, all that retarded shit: Mamet's Homicide, 1991.

      ...incidentally, he (Mamet) published a book last year, Recessional: The Death of Free Speech and the Cost of a Free Lunch. Probably worth reading, judging by this:
      https://english.elpais.com/culture/2023-03-13/david-mamet-the-progressive-playwright-who-became-a-critic-of-woke-culture.html

      Delete
    16. Mamet's book isn't even real. He was silenced by cancel culture, so it was never printed. That's how you know cancel culture isn't really just criticism by another name.

      Delete
    17. AC/MA:

      What do you think about what was done to Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss by Donald J Chickenshit? You think that had anything to do with the fact that both are black? And do you think other black Americans watching that racist asshole attack those two women might influence how they feel about the days of Jubilee you claim we're living in? This was the fucking President of the United States and his lawyer henchmen doing that to those women.

      Delete
  6. This report says Leonardo’s mama was Caucasian, not Central Asian.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna74670But

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bethany Mandel, a conservative thinker, found woke hard to define:

    https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2023/03/in-which-briahna-joy-gray-inadvertently-does-a-service-to-mankind

    ReplyDelete
  8. “ A great deal of human suffering is involved in this topic. That includes a great deal of suffering on the part of children and teens.”

    Bob, that is exploited, encouraged, crafted, massaged and politically managed.

    That and dependence is the currency of the Woke realm.

    ReplyDelete
  9. “…somewhere our own blunderbuss tribe has never traveled, gladly beyond any experience,…”

    …6…5…4…3…

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you know any actual liberals Cecelia? Living breathing real human beings? Or do you simply believe that they are all exactly the same, that we are all caricatures of the Evil Liberal in your head? I know a lot of conservatives because I live amongst them here in deep red Arkansas. I have family members who are Trump voters, I have a couple of dear friends who are Trump voters. one of them is a very sweet person with whom I do music. The other is a guy who plays in the folk dance group band, he’s an NRA member and a very outspoken conservative. most of the folk dance members are liberals, but we all get along just fine. He’s a decent guy.

      Oh, and my parents were both liberals who hailed from deepest rural Arkansas. They raised me and my brother, they put us through public schools, and so they had some stake in the education system, but they did not feel that indoctrination mandated by the governor and state legislature was the appropriate method of teaching children. They would have been appalled at what DeSantis is doing.

      Delete
    2. Take all the old right wing bullshit and remove “communist” and put “woke” in its place. That’s how Cecelia was brought up, She couldn’t really define Woke either .

      Delete
    3. I know a lot of liberals, mh. That cohort includes a brother and sister-in-law and other family. .

      Not all liberals are the same, but the vast majority of the world wants society to flourish and for people to be happy.

      Even some anonymices.

      Delete
    4. That isn’t the impression one gets when reading your diatribes, Cecelia. That is, that you just want society to flourish and people to be happy. If you really believe that you’d be pounding right wing media and conservatives hard for their monstrosity and their lack of civility. But instead you’re here beating up on liberals. So you tell me honey.

      Delete
    5. mh, I know your drill. I get how you think.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. Cecelia, i’m sure that a dyed in the wool conservative such as yourself would be much more effective trying to change the behavior of your fellow conservatives. Your efforts at shitting on liberals here are not meeting with a great deal of success. Just saying go with your strengths. Or have you given up hoping that conservatives will ever reform themselves and you desperately want liberals to fix all of the evils of our discourse?

      Delete
    8. mh, have you and the anonymices been at your operation against Bob for so long that you now think everyone here has an official angle?

      I Bob is unique, but this is a blogboard.

      Yeah, I make fun of you. Read your last post with an open ear for your paranoia and grandiosity.

      Delete
    9. mh - no one cares about your country bumpkin, hick life story.

      Delete
    10. @8:19, I care and you do not speak for me or anyone else here

      Delete
    11. Cecelia, mh is one of the most polite and reasonable folks here. Your comments are totally out of line. Lay off the personal insults and participate in substantive discussion or go away.

      Delete
    12. “Lay off the personal insults and participate in substantive discussion or go away.”

      Anonymouse 8:57pm, that’ is hilarious!

      You’re a card.

      Delete
    13. A normal person might chuckle at something they find funny and then go on reading. You need to tell everyone you found something funny, without any value-added. Why should anyone care what you laughed at? Why does your reaction deserve the space and time others took to read about your reaction? Are you the center of the universe that anyone should care what you laugh at?

      And then you call 8:57 a name (card). Obviously, 8:57 was not joking. So, that is another personal insult -- I'm not sure you can say anything without maligning others. And I do think that is the Republican way, just what conservatives do, partly because of their famous lack of empathy and partly because it is what attracts them to Trump -- the meanness and permission to hurt other people.

      Are you aware that when you behave this way, you push anyone with basic decency into the arms of Demcrats? You show that, even on a personal level, you guys are the party of hate.

      Delete
    14. Obviously, Anonymouse 8:57pm, was not joking.

      Anonymouse 8:57pm is dancing around naked while demanding that we not notice that fact and that we memory-hole the character assassinations that anonymices make daily towards Bob and all his supporters.

      Both of you need to go put some clothes on, please. You’re freaking naked.

      Delete
    15. 8:19 clearly works for Fox “News.”

      Delete
    16. Cecelia @10:37: Are you kidding? Bob is a good, decent person, who just happens to engage in character assassination after calling someone a good, decent person.

      Also, “all his supporters?” Are you including Mao the Russian troll, and the one who writes “Digby” a hundred times? You are all good, decent people.

      Delete
    17. mh, are you suggesting that Bob has committed character assassination on Lost Boy Carlson or Gov. Blunderbus?

      And here I just thought he was voicing a partisan opinion ( partisan- to a degree) that I don’t happen to agree with.

      Thanks for letting me know. I’ll let my outrage simmer down and get back with you.

      Delete
    18. Now that you mention it, those are indeed insulting epithets. He has also called DeSantis a demagogue and a bully. Of course that’s not to mention the names that he’s called journalists and liberals, accusing them of all kinds of character flaws. but I’m not gonna get into those right now because it’s too tedious and I’m tired.

      Delete
    19. You’ve got years ahead of you in which to call Bob a traitor to his country.

      Get some rest.

      Delete
    20. mh - what are you doing up so late? Don't you have to get up early and plow the fields or milk the chickens or whatever the fuck it is you backwards hicks do out there in the country?

      Delete
  10. “is it possible that somewhere our own blunderbuss tribe has never traveled, gladly beyond any experience, he has perhaps the tiniest germ of a worthwhile point?”

    Have conservatives ever traveled, gladly beyond any experience? ( I quote from Somerby and his mangled grammar here, although I guess his point is fairly clear). Is it possible that liberals have the tiniest germ of a worthwhile point? You will never hear Bob Somerby say such a thing.

    And what, pray tell, is DeSantis’ worthwhile point? Will Somerby ever tell us what it is without quoting from DeSantis himself or Tucker Carlson or some other right wing mouthpiece?

    Immediately preceding this, Somerby asked “How should our frequently brutal American history be taught to the nation's public school students at various ages and at various grade levels?”

    If that is the debate, why should DeSantis’ view prevail? I mean for reasons other than he has the power to enact his will.

    Should colleges and universities, as well as K through 12, also have to take instruction from Governor blunderbuss?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. mh, your eyes have their silence, will your mouth ever follow?

      Delete
    2. The world would be a slightly better place if you would shut the fuck up yourself, Cecelia.

      Delete
    3. Why don’t you take a stab at telling me why Somerby thinks DeSantis is right in some way, rather than telling me to shut up? That’d be a novel approach.

      Delete
    4. I wasn’t telling you to shut up really, I was making a joke because Bob mimicked a line from a poem in the part of the his blog that you described as being mangled grammar.

      Most of the coven is away today or we would have gotten 25 scolding paragraphs on misappropriation in response to Bob’s turn of phrase. It’s chum to them. An easy day.

      Delete
    5. Where do you think Somerby was mimicking a line from a poem? Please quote what Somerby said. I couldn't find it.

      Delete
    6. never mind, I found it

      Delete
    7. Anonymouse 8:51pm, that’s interesting.

      My condolences. Paragraphs Lost.

      Delete
    8. Cecelia, I see you still failed to summarize Somerby’s reasons for saying that DeSantis might be right. Not up to the challenge?

      Delete
    9. mh, you want me to shut the f- up unless I’m obediently explaining why Bob thinks that Gov. Blunderbus might be right about…something… so that you can then turn that bit of endorsement into a smoking gun against TDH.

      You’re not subtle and Gaia knows you ain’t deep.

      Delete
    10. Cecelia,
      You have just as much right to post on TDH, defending Bob's defense of slavery, as anyone else.

      Delete
  11. None of us are free.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don’t be obtuse.

      Delete
    2. None of us IS free.

      Delete
    3. None of us am free.

      Delete
    4. https://youtu.be/hSWbpVjwQGM

      Delete
    5. To cleanse the earhole of that last abortion:

      https://youtu.be/eFkmRp_G2uo

      Delete
  12. He who makes the best egg salad shall
    rule. Don’t ask me why egg salad,
    I’ve got enough aggravation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’m fond of the evil twin- deviled eggs.

      Delete
  13. I stopped at the gas station today and bought a bag of "Cracker Jill" caramel coated popcorn. That damn FritoLay company is so damn "woke". Where will this all end?

    ReplyDelete
  14. This guy, a blogger I admire, does it right:

    https://yastreblyansky.blogspot.com/2023/03/what-woke-means.html

    ReplyDelete
  15. I have this fantasy of attending Wellesley as a transgender woman. I could simply say that I felt I was a woman.

    But, then I could explain that i was a gay woman. So, I'd be able to have sex with all the coeds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How many coeds do you think would be interested in you? Women don't tend to sleep with men who they find offensive, sexist and odd.

      Delete
    2. Anonymouse 9:09pm, Obviously, David is saying that Wellesley coeds love those traits in a “woman”.

      Never you mind, dear…



      Delete
    3. What traits? Lying and deception? David isn't saying he would become a woman. He said he would pretend to be a woman.

      This is the Republican fear. That men will dress up as women and pretend to be transwomen in order to rape women in the ladie's room, or watch women pee or something. Such Republicans are denying that a man can feel so much like a woman inside that he believes he was born into the wrong body, and be so unhappy in a man's body that he would have surgery to become a woman. Republicans don't believe in that. Instead, they believe that this is a matter of fantasy and faking and violation of women's privacy for sexual perversion. Perhaps because they cannot empathize with what someone else feels, or because they won't make the effort to understand. Or God would be mad, or something like that. Who knows?

      David is being a sexist jerk with this supposed fantasy of his. He is also implying that women who go to a women's college are likely to be gay and they are all having sex with each other. And that's ignorant as well as bigoted.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. Anonymouse 9:38pm, you want to simultaneously argue that there are awful male sexists like David in California…yet then minimize the fact that men WILL take advantage your… woke…sensibility of letting bio men pee along side women.

      Glad that I was able to steer you into just what it was that David was saying

      Delete
    6. You are obsessed with genitalia and peeing, Cecelia. Kind of like your hero DJT. Whatever turns you on, I guess.

      Delete
    7. mh, the anonymouse I replied to had mentioned ladies rooms.

      Urination and reapplying lipstick is what generally happens there.

      Now you know.

      Delete
    8. Republican voters care about bigotry and white supremacy. They make noise about caring about other stuff, but once you engage them, you'll realize the other stuff is window dressing for them, only.

      Delete
  16. I am amazed at how quickly the theory became accepted that someone can be a different gender than his/her genetics and physical composition would dictate. Doesn't it seem like a radical change to accept that one can claim to be whatever gender s/he chooses, regardless of conduct?

    This is very different from gay or bi. Someone can be objectively determined to be gay or bisexual based on that person's lusts and sexual practices. But, how can we determine that someone of the male sex who claims to be female really has a female gender? If this person lusts after men, there's no objective way to prove that this person is female rather than a gay male.

    And, where is the science? To the best of my knowledge, there's no scientific study showing that people can have a gender different from their sex. I'm open to the idea that true transsexual may exist, but I don't think this is scientifically proved.

    BTW the idea that one can choose his/he gender has already affected prisons. Its not uncommon for a male prisoner to claim to be female in order to be locked up with women, rather than men. A number of pregnancies have resulted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “ To the best of my knowledge,”… and therein lies the problem.

      Delete
    2. mh -- Paradoxically, I think your comment actually may imply that you also know of no such scientific study. If you knew of one, you would have said so and pointed to it.

      If mh or anyone else knows of a study demonstrating that having a gender different from one's sex is scientifically valid, I would love to hear about it.

      Delete
    3. I haven'r seen any scientific study that says Republican voters care about something other than bigotry and white supremacy.
      If you have info, share the link.

      Delete