Conservative
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
Something that's turned me off of "modern" conservatism is that "modern" MAGA assholes simply refuse to believe that intersex people exist.
A reasonable Conservative following Jesus's word should note that Jesus hung out with the leapers, Jesus not just condoned but celebrated heretics like the Samaritans, and Jesus always favored the "outsider's opinion". A true Christian should always be accepting of others, including Intersex people. Especially intersex, they are creations of God and if you believe that God is good then the creation of God is good.
The problems occur when the assholes start to think that Intersex is bad, anti-conservative, anti-religion or some shit. Then all of a sudden you trigger the fight-or-flight response and Conservatives lash out. There's also a degree of historic anti-gay writings in the Bible (ex: Sodom, as well as some writings from Paul), that somehow get wrapped up into intersex issues (somehow gay == intersex in some unstudied people's brains?!?!? Or something). I don't want to get into homosexuality and the Bible as that's another subject but note that ancient Roman and Greek practice of homosexuality was a bit child-rapey and Paul's writings may have not necessarily been talking about homosexuals in general (but instead: Paul was likely focused on the kinds that were more common in the time period, which we would find disgusting by modern standards)
In any case, I feel like the religious interpretation is clear. Every person is holy, outsiders are welcome. If you need to denegrate Intersex individuals and call them diseased (like the Leapers of Biblical time), whatever, that's still a group of people Jesus explicitly called out as holy, as the Leapers were more ready and willing to accept Jesus's preaching than the Pharisees. But I'm not even comfortable with the Leaper -> Intersex comparison myself as that implies some kind of disease. Still, I think its a good crutch that more Christians should lean upon if you're finding yourself anti-Intersex.
A lot of modern Conservatism is actually warned against by Jesus and the various parables of the Pharisees. Its not that "Jews" in general were problematic, but certain... cults? Certain... ways of thought and ideologies... are based on false pride and false-understanding of the scriptures. And smarter people find themselves in this doom loop where you want to join the people who have studied more (the Pharisees were scribes and scholars)... but you end up missing the forest for the trees.
Jesus always said to take a step back and look at the big picture, rather than being so focused on scripture. Scripture can be interpreted incorrectly, to the point where the Pharisees scholars create a conspiracy to literally kill and crucify Jesus. The fact that the core Easter message is lost upon modern Conservatives is ironic.
I grew up in a very conservative neighborhood in a very conservative town and went to a very conservative religious school. There was no sex-ed but there was a class on hygiene. There was no dancing but there was a "banquet" at which they served rice pilaf and rubbery chicken breast from a steam table.
There was never any mention of gay people, trans, intersex or anything else except that sex was reserved for a man and a woman after they were married.
The only exception to the above is the mention of eunuchs by Jesus in Matt 19:22. But what is a eunuch? I was told it was a person who had their genitals cut off and lived a life of celibacy.
Based on my experience alone, I would say that a common conservative attitude and policy is to ignore, deny and/or never acknowledge anything that's not straight man+woman married for the purpose of having children.
In the case of the boxing woman, it's interesting to think that if you only have two categories and you have to put her into one, some people put her in one category and some the other, but there doesn't seem (to me) to be any clear objective way to tell which is right. This could be an indication that there really are more than 2 genders.
Or it could be that a cisgender woman of color whose body doesn't conform to fascist eugenic purity standards is being targeted because she's a better boxer than the white women and well, racism.
Imo, do whatever you want. The only caveat is in very specific situations like women's sports, where fairness is an issue. Testosterone is a steroid, and is banned from most leagues. Unfortunately, mtf trans women still produce steroids, and is unfair to cis women. And since the whole point of women's sports is for them to be able to compete fairly, trans women are in a bind
It's no one's fault really, just an unfortunate biproduct of evolution.
Unfortunately, mtf trans women still produce steroids
I'm not talking about trans people, I'm talking about intersex people.
Oh sorry. I have a really bad habit about that.
On intersex people, imo it needs to be on a case by case basis, and I do not have the expertise to weigh in on it.
That said, IMHO, it should fairly strict. The mens side should remain open to all. The women's side should be for women only, since other wise they'd lose everytime.
...Except that they don't. It depends on the sport. Danica Patrick out-competed men in drag racing. Shooting sports with stationary targets tend to have almost complete gender parity. On the other hand, no men at all are competing in artistic swimming, despite the fact that they are permitted to. And there's not any kind of straight line between testosterone and performance; yeah, lots and lots of testosterone is good for bulking up, but it's not so great for ultramarathon runners.
For boxing specifically, men win.
Again: it's not that cut and dried. In the same weight classes, men and women are much more competitive. When you look at weight classes for women versus the weight classes for men, you see much broader range of weights for men, e.g., 51-57kg for men, and 50-54kg for women. My bet is that, all training being equal, you'd probably see very little variation between men and women for a 50kg boxer. (But fewer women take up boxing in the first place, and they get into boxing later in life. So it's difficult to compare.)
There are def. differences, but those differences get really hard to nail down and assign definitively to one gender or another when you're looking at a micro level. Neurobiology isn't a simple, middle-school level subject.