Maggie's Farm

That depends on the definition, but the fact is that someone with breasts and a vagina can also have a penis.

mudbug: We all know that's not the issue here.

The key to understanding the issue is that people don't always fit into neat dichotomies with regards to sexual identity. Humans are highly complex. For instance, small changes in hormones during fetal development or during growth can change not only the physical features of a person, but their psychological profile. Imagine your body was swapped out for the opposite gender. Would you adopt your new gender identity, or would you keep your old gender identity in the 'wrong' body? Would everyone have the same reaction as you?

Gender non-conformity is not that uncommon. Consider how long people who don't fit gender expectations have been subjected to bullying and assault. As noted above, beating up "sissies" is an age-old schoolyard pastime.

It's now the law for me to share a restroom with your wife.

Namibian Olympic sprinters blunted by World Athletics

jm01: Women throughout history have been oppressed and exploited on the basis of their biology - not their feelings.

As well gender non-conforming. Beating up "sissies" is an age-old schoolyard pastime. It wasn't that long ago that they imprisoned gays in the "liberal" West.

jm01: That's not biology. Acting 'sissy' is a behavior.

The kid may just be sitting in the corner not doing anything and get picked on because he doesn't conform to gender stereotypes; perhaps a male has low testosterone and therefore exhibits feminine characteristics.

Humans are highly complex, so there is no complete understanding as to why some people have same-sex attraction or are non-cisgender. But we do know that about one in a thousand births result in ambiguous genitalia, and that otherwise there is wide variations in hormones and gender expression.

SK: The percentage of people born with ovarian as well as testicular tissue is closer to 1 in 100,000.

Ambiguous genitalia and ovotesticular condition are not the same condition.

"In more rare cases—between 0.1% and 0.2% of live births—genitalia is so ambiguous that medical specialists are brought in for a consultation."

It's important to keep in mind that ambiguity of physical sexuality is only the tip of how humans associate with gender. There are vast differences in how people express gender. It's not a simple dichotomy.

Well, it certainly is an opportunity for demagoguery aimed at undermining the democratic process.

OldCurmudgeon: The solution is easy: counting cannot begin until all the ballots have arrived in a central location and any provisional ballots have been adjudicated....even if that takes a few days.

The long delay would entail its own problems. Most elections are decided long before stray ballots are adjudicated. The central location suggestion, where counting would tend to be much slower, would lead to more chaos, not less.

JustMe: No more assisting people to vote if they need assistance they shouldn't be voting.

No votes for the elderly, sick, or disabled!

John Fisher: There, fixed it for you.

Glad we agree that people should be able to vote for their candidate of choice, even if they are elderly, sick, or disabled.

Voting should be secure, but accessible.

JustMe: I said no assisting people to vote.

So, if they can't make it the voting booth, or don't have good use of their hands, no voting for them. For that matter, make it as difficult as possible for working people to vote by not allowing late hours or drop boxes. No souls to the polls for "them" people.

Voting should be secure, but accessible. There's no reason to deny someone the right to vote because they may need assistance.

DrTorch: I work. I'm "working people" yet I find time to vote.

Some can easily find the time. Some can't.

Voting should be secure, but accessible.

Australia also offers early voting, postal voting, voting in a different state, mobile voting (they come to you!), even phone voting for the blind.
https://www.aec.gov.au/voting/ways_to_vote/

Of course, we can't expect voting in the U.S. to be the same as in more advanced societies.

The writer is purposefully trying to imply that the Bidens are being paid by the charity. In fact, the Bidens take $0 in salary. The executive director makes $150,000 annually, which is hardly exorbitant.

The organization has two executives, seven employees, and manages a staff of over a hundred volunteers. That's a significant contribution. But, sure. There should be room in the prisons after the Clintons are paroled for the Clinton Foundation crimes.

John Fisher: So less than 30% of the foundation spending went to the stated purpose and that is okay?

Actually, the program/expense ratio is about 60% per the 990 for 2020. About 25% went to management, the balance going to fundraising. Still a bit low, but nothing that raises any red flags. In any case, there's no evidence of self-dealing by the Biden Foundation.
https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/474507397

John Fisher: Admittedly not in the class of the Clinton foundation . . .

The Clinton Foundation has a program ratio of about 75%, with a transparency rating of 100%. There's no evidence of self-dealing by the Clinton Foundation.
https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/311580204

RJP: this can't be anything but a joke

We based our comment on demonstrable facts. Facts don't go away because you don't conform to your preconceptions.

RJP: this is what passes as 'no evidence'

We won't address your entire Gish Gallop, but we will take the first on the list.

RJP: NYT: Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

Most of the donations were committed before Clinton became Secretary of State. Clinton was not involved in the approval of the uranium deal, and the deal had approval across multiple U.S. agencies. The deal did not include an export license. Clinton didn't pocket the money, but it went to the Clinton Foundation. The Clintons and the Foundation have released their tax returns. The Foundation is subject to annual audits, has been federally investigated, and no wrongdoing has been uncovered.

The claim is that the Clintons use the Foundation to launder money. But the evidence does not support the claim. Now, you could reasonably argue that the Clintons use the Foundation to do good, be seen doing good, and to develop and maintain contacts among wealthy and powerful elites. You could then reasonably argue there is too close a nexus between politicians and moneyed interests. But that's not illegal, and not the claim being made.

RJP: Is given copious amounts of evidence.

You posted links to allegations, not evidence. We directly addressed the first link of your Gish Gallop and showed why it doesn’t show any corruption beyond the normal confluence of politics and moneyed interests. Instead of addressing our comment, you chose to ignore our response.

OneGuy: It's called money laundering. You hire someone who can get you votes, donations, stock in a company, a million $ job for your kid and you pay them an outlandish amount of money that was donated under the guise of "doing good".

Turns out that money laundering is a crime, and to be a crime, you have to have specifics, not just a wave your hand in the general direction. How are donations to the fund diverted? Who got whom a million job in relation to the foundation? In what way is it a crime?

We know Trump misused funds from his charity, so you can use that as an example.