On 5/31/2022 12:10 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
> https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1525477731181502464?s=20&t=9V-XxbdmdO6RIdvNrpxlYg
>
> Just like the number of licks it takes to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a
> Tootsie Pop, the world may never know.

From its trailer, I'd call this a classic 'appeal to ridicule':

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

Great for gawking, but in abject fear of its own question...

On 6/1/2022 1:06 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On May 31, 2022 at 7:34:49 AM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/31/2022 12:10 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1525477731181502464?s=20&t=9V-XxbdmdO6RIdvNrpxlYg
>>>
>>> Just like the number of licks it takes to get to the Tootsie Roll center of
>>> a
>>> Tootsie Pop, the world may never know.
>>
>> From its trailer, I'd call this a classic 'appeal to ridicule':
>
> In other words, we're not allowed to question every subsequent iteration of
> 'progressive' leftist lunacy because by it's very nature, it's crazy, so
> questioning it appeals to ridicule.
>
> Neat trick if you can find someone stupid enough to fall for it.

If you're gonna make a documentary, particularly one that purports to
address a controversy, you might at least have it confront the question
itself. Whereas, this flick looks like a one-sided sideshow of people
who are visibly fucked up ...a compilation to entertain the smug.

On 6/1/2022 11:33 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <fiLlK.10803$cq8.3190@fx03.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/1/2022 1:06 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On May 31, 2022 at 7:34:49 AM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/31/2022 12:10 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1525477731181502464?s=20&t=9V-Xxb
>>>>> dmdO6RIdvNrpxlYg
>>>>>
>>>>> Just like the number of licks it takes to get to the Tootsie Roll
>>>>> center of a Tootsie Pop, the world may never know.
>>>>
>>>> From its trailer, I'd call this a classic 'appeal to ridicule':
>>>
>>> In other words, we're not allowed to question every subsequent iteration
>>> of progressive' leftist lunacy because by it's very nature, it's crazy,
>>> so questioning it appeals to ridicule.
>>>
>>> Neat trick if you can find someone stupid enough to fall for it.
>>
>> If you're gonna make a documentary, particularly one that purports to
>> address a controversy, you might at least have it confront the question
>> itself. Whereas, this flick looks like a one-sided sideshow of people
>> who are visibly fucked up ...a compilation to entertain the smug.
>
> Dude was interviewing a prominent Democrat congressman, among other not
> visibly fucked up people, all of whom can't tell you what a woman is.

Oh, I'd maintain that *any* Congressman can readily be portrayed as
visibly fucked up.

> Also, the fact that the proponents of all this nonsense contain such a
> large percentage of visibly fucked up people is what we in the business
> call a clew.

Exactly. This is what the "documentarians" rely on, i.e., that you'll
feel free to enjoy the ridicule because they've got 90 minutes of it,
which just has to be a fair sample of the world as you'd like to see it.

Meanwhile, I'd bet you're clew-less about the *actual* behavioral
distribution of people who feel somehow "sexually misapplied"...

On 6/1/2022 12:34 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <IrMlK.62676$GTEb.26705@fx48.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/1/2022 11:33 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <fiLlK.10803$cq8.3190@fx03.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/1/2022 1:06 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> On May 31, 2022 at 7:34:49 AM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/31/2022 12:10 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1525477731181502464?s=20&t=9V-X
>>>>>>> xbdmdO6RIdvNrpxlYg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just like the number of licks it takes to get to the Tootsie Roll
>>>>>>> center of a Tootsie Pop, the world may never know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From its trailer, I'd call this a classic 'appeal to ridicule':
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, we're not allowed to question every subsequent iteration
>>>>> of progressive' leftist lunacy because by it's very nature, it's crazy,
>>>>> so questioning it appeals to ridicule.
>>>>>
>>>>> Neat trick if you can find someone stupid enough to fall for it.
>>>>
>>>> If you're gonna make a documentary, particularly one that purports to
>>>> address a controversy, you might at least have it confront the question
>>>> itself. Whereas, this flick looks like a one-sided sideshow of people
>>>> who are visibly fucked up ...a compilation to entertain the smug.
>>>
>>> Dude was interviewing a prominent Democrat congressman, among other not
>>> visibly fucked up people, all of whom can't tell you what a woman is.
>>
>> Oh, I'd maintain that *any* Congressman can readily be portrayed as
>> visibly fucked up.
>>
>>
>>> Also, the fact that the proponents of all this nonsense contain such a
>>> large percentage of visibly fucked up people is what we in the business
>>> call a clew.
>>
>> Exactly. This is what the "documentarians" rely on, i.e., that you'll
>> feel free to enjoy the ridicule because they've got 90 minutes of it,
>> which just has to be a fair sample of the world as you'd like to see it.
>
> Except it *is* a fair sample because the only people in this "87 genders
> non-binary fluid otherkin" milieu are either visibly fucked up people or
> the politicians who are pandering to them to push an agenda.

People who think gender isn't totally binary? You're kidding, right?

On 6/1/2022 12:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <5IOlK.33001$JVi.937@fx17.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

>> People who think gender isn't totally binary? You're kidding, right?
>
> Yeah, 'cause those are the ones having shrieking meltdowns about
> pronouns and getting people kicked off Facebook for saying women don't
> have penises.
>

We do, they're just very tiny and don't function quite the same way as
men's do.

On 6/1/2022 1:23 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Jun 1, 2022 at 12:31:27 PM PDT, "suzeeq" <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/1/2022 12:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <5IOlK.33001$JVi.937@fx17.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> People who think gender isn't totally binary? You're kidding, right?
>>>
>>> Yeah, 'cause those are the ones having shrieking meltdowns about
>>> pronouns and getting people kicked off Facebook for saying women don't
>>> have penises.
>>>
>>
>> We do, they're just very tiny and don't function quite the same way as
>> men's do.
>
> Weird, I don't remember my biology textbooks ever labeling anything on the
> female anatomy with the word 'penis'.
>
It's called a clitoris.

On 6/1/2022 3:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <5IOlK.33001$JVi.937@fx17.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/1/2022 12:34 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <IrMlK.62676$GTEb.26705@fx48.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/1/2022 11:33 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <fiLlK.10803$cq8.3190@fx03.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/1/2022 1:06 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> On May 31, 2022 at 7:34:49 AM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2022 12:10 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> Just like the number of licks it takes to get to the Tootsie Roll
>>>>>>>>> center of a Tootsie Pop, the world may never know.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From its trailer, I'd call this a classic 'appeal to ridicule':
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In other words, we're not allowed to question every subsequent
>>>>>>> iteration of progressive' leftist lunacy because by it's very nature,
>>>>>>> it's crazy, so questioning it appeals to ridicule.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Neat trick if you can find someone stupid enough to fall for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you're gonna make a documentary, particularly one that purports to
>>>>>> address a controversy, you might at least have it confront the question
>>>>>> itself. Whereas, this flick looks like a one-sided sideshow of people
>>>>>> who are visibly fucked up ...a compilation to entertain the smug.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dude was interviewing a prominent Democrat congressman, among other not
>>>>> visibly fucked up people, all of whom can't tell you what a woman is.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, I'd maintain that *any* Congressman can readily be portrayed as
>>>> visibly fucked up.
>
>>>>> Also, the fact that the proponents of all this nonsense contain such a
>>>>> large percentage of visibly fucked up people is what we in the business
>>>>> call a clew.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. This is what the "documentarians" rely on, i.e., that you'll
>>>> feel free to enjoy the ridicule because they've got 90 minutes of it,
>>>> which just has to be a fair sample of the world as you'd like to see it.
>>>
>>> Except it *is* a fair sample because the only people in this "87 genders
>>> non-binary fluid otherkin" milieu are either visibly fucked up people or
>>> the politicians who are pandering to them to push an agenda.
>>
>> People who think gender isn't totally binary? You're kidding, right?
>
> Yeah, 'cause those are the ones having shrieking meltdowns about
> pronouns and getting people kicked off Facebook for saying women don't
> have penises.

Again... those just may NOT be fully representative.

On 6/1/2022 4:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Jun 1, 2022 at 3:33:09 PM PDT, "suzeeq" <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/1/2022 1:23 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Jun 1, 2022 at 12:31:27 PM PDT, "suzeeq" <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/1/2022 12:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <5IOlK.33001$JVi.937@fx17.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> People who think gender isn't totally binary? You're kidding, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, 'cause those are the ones having shrieking meltdowns about
>>>>> pronouns and getting people kicked off Facebook for saying women don't
>>>>> have penises.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We do, they're just very tiny and don't function quite the same way as
>>>> men's do.
>>>
>>> Weird, I don't remember my biology textbooks ever labeling anything on the
>>> female anatomy with the word 'penis'.
>>>
>> It's called a clitoris.
>
> So it's not a penis, then. It's something different or it would have been
> labeled 'penis'.
>
Got the same kind of tissue and cells. One's the masculine name for it,
one's the feminine name.

On 6/1/2022 9:07 PM, suzeeq wrote:
> On 6/1/2022 4:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> On Jun 1, 2022 at 3:33:09 PM PDT, "suzeeq" <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/1/2022 1:23 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>   On Jun 1, 2022 at 12:31:27 PM PDT, "suzeeq" <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>>   On 6/1/2022 12:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>     In article <5IOlK.33001$JVi.937@fx17.iad>,
>>>>>>       moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>     People who think gender isn't totally binary?  You're
>>>>>>> kidding, right?
>>>>>>     Yeah, 'cause those are the ones having shrieking meltdowns about
>>>>>>     pronouns and getting people kicked off Facebook for saying
>>>>>> women don't
>>>>>>     have penises.
>>>>>
>>>>>   We do, they're just very tiny and don't function quite the same
>>>>> way as
>>>>>   men's do.
>>>>   Weird, I don't remember my biology textbooks ever labeling
>>>> anything on the
>>>>   female anatomy with the word 'penis'.
>>> It's called a clitoris.
>>
>> So it's not a penis, then. It's something different or it would have been
>> labeled 'penis'.
>>
> Got the same kind of tissue and cells. One's the masculine name for it,
> one's the feminine name.

The latter's motto is: "Don't be a dick."

On 6/1/2022 7:34 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Jun 1, 2022 at 4:03:02 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/1/2022 3:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <5IOlK.33001$JVi.937@fx17.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/1/2022 12:34 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <IrMlK.62676$GTEb.26705@fx48.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/1/2022 11:33 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <fiLlK.10803$cq8.3190@fx03.iad>,
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2022 1:06 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On May 31, 2022 at 7:34:49 AM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2022 12:10 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Just like the number of licks it takes to get to the Tootsie Roll
>>>>>>>>>>> center of a Tootsie Pop, the world may never know.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From its trailer, I'd call this a classic 'appeal to ridicule':
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In other words, we're not allowed to question every subsequent
>>>>>>>>> iteration of progressive' leftist lunacy because by it's very nature,
>>>>>>>>> it's crazy, so questioning it appeals to ridicule.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Neat trick if you can find someone stupid enough to fall for it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you're gonna make a documentary, particularly one that purports to
>>>>>>>> address a controversy, you might at least have it confront the question
>>>>>>>> itself. Whereas, this flick looks like a one-sided sideshow of people
>>>>>>>> who are visibly fucked up ...a compilation to entertain the smug.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dude was interviewing a prominent Democrat congressman, among other not
>>>>>>> visibly fucked up people, all of whom can't tell you what a woman is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, I'd maintain that *any* Congressman can readily be portrayed as
>>>>>> visibly fucked up.
>>>
>>>>>>> Also, the fact that the proponents of all this nonsense contain such a
>>>>>>> large percentage of visibly fucked up people is what we in the business
>>>>>>> call a clew.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly. This is what the "documentarians" rely on, i.e., that you'll
>>>>>> feel free to enjoy the ridicule because they've got 90 minutes of it,
>>>>>> which just has to be a fair sample of the world as you'd like to see it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except it *is* a fair sample because the only people in this "87 genders
>>>>> non-binary fluid otherkin" milieu are either visibly fucked up people or
>>>>> the politicians who are pandering to them to push an agenda.
>>>>
>>>> People who think gender isn't totally binary? You're kidding, right?
>>>
>>> Yeah, 'cause those are the ones having shrieking meltdowns about
>>> pronouns and getting people kicked off Facebook for saying women don't
>>> have penises.
>>
>> Again... those just may NOT be fully representative.
>
> They're the ones who get all the attention, get pandered to, get laws passed
> based on their lunatic views, and can negatively impact normal people's
> lives-- from internet harassment, to getting people fired, to even criminal
> charges. That's why no one gives a shit about the more milquetoast members of
> "I can Change My Gender Just by Wishing Hard Enough" movement.

Surely this "documentary" will help to rectify that...

On 6/1/2022 8:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <t792ge$kla$1@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/1/2022 4:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Jun 1, 2022 at 3:33:09 PM PDT, "suzeeq" <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/1/2022 1:23 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 1, 2022 at 12:31:27 PM PDT, "suzeeq" <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/1/2022 12:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <5IOlK.33001$JVi.937@fx17.iad>,
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> People who think gender isn't totally binary? You're kidding,
>>>>>>>> right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, 'cause those are the ones having shrieking meltdowns about
>>>>>>> pronouns and getting people kicked off Facebook for saying women
>>>>>>> don't have penises.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> We do, they're just very tiny and don't function quite the same way as
>>>>>> men's do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Weird, I don't remember my biology textbooks ever labeling anything on
>>>>> the female anatomy with the word 'penis'.
>>>>>
>>>> It's called a clitoris.
>>>
>>> So it's not a penis, then. It's something different or it would have been
>>> labeled 'penis'.
>>>
>> Got the same kind of tissue and cells.
>
> What tissue and cells are those?
>
>> One's the masculine name for it, one's the feminine name.
>
> In other words, women don't have penises.
>
To reiterate moviepig's point - Don't be a dick.

On 6/1/2022 10:13 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>> On 6/1/2022 4:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> On Jun 1, 2022 at 3:33:09 PM PDT, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 6/1/2022 1:23 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 1, 2022 at 12:31:27 PM PDT, "suzeeq" <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/1/2022 12:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> People who think gender isn't totally binary? You're kidding,
>>>>>>>>> right?
>
>>>>>>>> Yeah, 'cause those are the ones having shrieking meltdowns about
>>>>>>>> pronouns and getting people kicked off Facebook for saying women
>>>>>>>> don't have penises.
>
>>>>>>> We do, they're just very tiny and don't function quite the same way as
>>>>>>> men's do.
>
>>>>>> Weird, I don't remember my biology textbooks ever labeling anything on
>>>>>> the female anatomy with the word 'penis'.
>
>>>>> It's called a clitoris.
>
>>>> So it's not a penis, then. It's something different or it would have been
>>>> labeled 'penis'.
>
>>> Got the same kind of tissue and cells.
>
>> What tissue and cells are those?
>
> I found it. (I swear I was searching for pr0n when I came across this
> medical article.)
>
> Abstract
> The human penis and clitoris develop from the ambisexual genital
> tubercle. To compare and contrast the development of human penis
> and clitoris, we used macroscopic photography, optical
> projection tomography, light sheet microscopy, scanning electron
> microscopy, histology and immunohistochemistry. The human
> genital tubercle differentiates into a penis under the influence
> of androgens forming a tubular urethra that develops by
> canalization of the urethral plate to form a wide diamond-shaped
> urethral groove (opening zipper) whose edges (urethral folds)
> fuse in the midline (closing zipper). In contrast, in females,
> without the influence of androgens, the vestibular plate
> (homologue of the urethral plate) undergoes canalization to form
> a wide vestibular groove whose edges (vestibular folds) remain
> unfused, ultimately forming the labia minora defining the
> vaginal vestibule. The neurovascular anatomy is similar in both
> the developing human penis and clitoris and is the key to
> successful surgical reconstructions.
>
> Development of the Human Penis and Clitoris
> Differentiation. 2018 Sep-Oct; 103: 74–85.
>
> It can be read on line.
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6234061/
>
Yes, that's what I'm talking about.

On 6/2/2022 12:46 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Jun 1, 2022 at 10:13:34 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>> On 6/1/2022 4:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 1, 2022 at 3:33:09 PM PDT, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/1/2022 1:23 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 1, 2022 at 12:31:27 PM PDT, "suzeeq" <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2022 12:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> People who think gender isn't totally binary? You're kidding,
>>>>>>>>>> right?
>>
>>>>>>>>> Yeah, 'cause those are the ones having shrieking meltdowns about
>>>>>>>>> pronouns and getting people kicked off Facebook for saying women
>>>>>>>>> don't have penises.
>>
>>>>>>>> We do, they're just very tiny and don't function quite the same way as
>>>>>>>> men's do.
>>
>>>>>>> Weird, I don't remember my biology textbooks ever labeling anything on
>>>>>>> the female anatomy with the word 'penis'.
>>
>>>>>> It's called a clitoris.
>>
>>>>> So it's not a penis, then. It's something different or it would have been
>>>>> labeled 'penis'.
>>
>>>> Got the same kind of tissue and cells.
>>
>>> What tissue and cells are those?
>>
>> I found it. (I swear I was searching for pr0n when I came across this
>> medical article.)
>>
>> Abstract
>> The human penis and clitoris develop from the ambisexual genital
>> tubercle. To compare and contrast the development of human penis
>> and clitoris, we used macroscopic photography, optical
>> projection tomography, light sheet microscopy, scanning electron
>> microscopy, histology and immunohistochemistry. The human
>> genital tubercle differentiates into a penis under the influence
>> of androgens forming a tubular urethra that develops by
>> canalization of the urethral plate to form a wide diamond-shaped
>> urethral groove (opening zipper) whose edges (urethral folds)
>> fuse in the midline (closing zipper). In contrast, in females,
>> without the influence of androgens, the vestibular plate
>> (homologue of the urethral plate) undergoes canalization to form
>> a wide vestibular groove whose edges (vestibular folds) remain
>> unfused, ultimately forming the labia minora defining the
>> vaginal vestibule. The neurovascular anatomy is similar in both
>> the developing human penis and clitoris and is the key to
>> successful surgical reconstructions.
>>
>> Development of the Human Penis and Clitoris
>> Differentiation. 2018 Sep-Oct; 103: 74–85.
>
> So the penis and clitoris end up and two totally different things. Not the
> same thing with masculine and feminine words to describe them. Who woulda
> thought?
>
They're still the same tissue, which one you end up with depends on
hormones. And that differs according to whether one is male or female.

On 6/2/2022 7:01 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>> On 6/1/2022 10:13 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 6/1/2022 4:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 1, 2022 at 3:33:09 PM PDT, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/1/2022 1:23 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jun 1, 2022 at 12:31:27 PM PDT, "suzeeq" <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2022 12:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> People who think gender isn't totally binary? You're kidding,
>>>>>>>>>>> right?
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, 'cause those are the ones having shrieking meltdowns about
>>>>>>>>>> pronouns and getting people kicked off Facebook for saying women
>>>>>>>>>> don't have penises.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> We do, they're just very tiny and don't function quite the same way as
>>>>>>>>> men's do.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Weird, I don't remember my biology textbooks ever labeling anything on
>>>>>>>> the female anatomy with the word 'penis'.
>>>
>>>>>>> It's called a clitoris.
>>>
>>>>>> So it's not a penis, then. It's something different or it would have been
>>>>>> labeled 'penis'.
>>>
>>>>> Got the same kind of tissue and cells.
>>>
>>>> What tissue and cells are those?
>>>
>>> I found it. (I swear I was searching for pr0n when I came across this
>>> medical article.)
>>>
>>> Abstract
>>> The human penis and clitoris develop from the ambisexual genital
>>> tubercle. To compare and contrast the development of human penis
>>> and clitoris, we used macroscopic photography, optical
>>> projection tomography, light sheet microscopy, scanning electron
>>> microscopy, histology and immunohistochemistry. The human
>>> genital tubercle differentiates into a penis under the influence
>>> of androgens forming a tubular urethra that develops by
>>> canalization of the urethral plate to form a wide diamond-shaped
>>> urethral groove (opening zipper) whose edges (urethral folds)
>>> fuse in the midline (closing zipper). In contrast, in females,
>>> without the influence of androgens, the vestibular plate
>>> (homologue of the urethral plate) undergoes canalization to form
>>> a wide vestibular groove whose edges (vestibular folds) remain
>>> unfused, ultimately forming the labia minora defining the
>>> vaginal vestibule. The neurovascular anatomy is similar in both
>>> the developing human penis and clitoris and is the key to
>>> successful surgical reconstructions.
>>>
>>> Development of the Human Penis and Clitoris
>>> Differentiation. 2018 Sep-Oct; 103: 74–85.
>>>
>>> It can be read on line.
>>>
>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6234061/
>>>
>> Yes, that's what I'm talking about.
>
> Since the resulting structures are different, then the use of different
> terms for the resulting structions is legitimate. I don't agree with
> anyone who would suggest that "clitoris" and "penis" are synonymous
> despite having originated from common structures during foetal
> development.
>
> I agree with you on the biology. I certainly don't agree with you on
> that kind of word use.
>
I didn't say they were identical. But they do have nerves which result
in the same feelings.

On 6/2/2022 3:44 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Jun 1, 2022 at 9:41:17 PM PDT, "suzeeq" <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/1/2022 8:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <t792ge$kla$1@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/1/2022 4:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 1, 2022 at 3:33:09 PM PDT, "suzeeq" <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/1/2022 1:23 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 1, 2022 at 12:31:27 PM PDT, "suzeeq" <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2022 12:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <5IOlK.33001$JVi.937@fx17.iad>,
>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> People who think gender isn't totally binary? You're kidding,
>>>>>>>>>> right?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yeah, 'cause those are the ones having shrieking meltdowns about
>>>>>>>>> pronouns and getting people kicked off Facebook for saying women
>>>>>>>>> don't have penises.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We do, they're just very tiny and don't function quite the same way as
>>>>>>>> men's do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Weird, I don't remember my biology textbooks ever labeling anything on
>>>>>>> the female anatomy with the word 'penis'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's called a clitoris.
>>>>>
>>>>> So it's not a penis, then. It's something different or it would have been
>>>>> labeled 'penis'.
>>>>>
>>>> Got the same kind of tissue and cells.
>>>
>>> What tissue and cells are those?
>>>
>>>> One's the masculine name for it, one's the feminine name.
>>>
>>> In other words, women don't have penises.
>>>
>> To reiterate moviepig's point - Don't be a dick.
>
> We always come back to meaningless insults and hand-waiving when the
> inevitable logic of it all corners you guys.

Adam Kerman has taken on a personal mission to invest the English
language with the novel concept of 'hand-waiving' (a process presumably
meant to avoid leaving fingerprints). Please don't assist him...

On 6/1/2022 11:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <XZVlK.49274$J0r9.31441@fx11.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/1/2022 7:34 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Jun 1, 2022 at 4:03:02 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/1/2022 3:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <5IOlK.33001$JVi.937@fx17.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/1/2022 12:34 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <IrMlK.62676$GTEb.26705@fx48.iad>,
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2022 11:33 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <fiLlK.10803$cq8.3190@fx03.iad>,
>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2022 1:06 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On May 31, 2022 at 7:34:49 AM PDT, "moviePig" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2022 12:10 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just like the number of licks it takes to get to the Tootsie
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Roll center of a Tootsie Pop, the world may never know.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> From its trailer, I'd call this a classic 'appeal to
>>>>>>>>>>>> ridicule':
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, we're not allowed to question every subsequent
>>>>>>>>>>> iteration of progressive' leftist lunacy because by it's very
>>>>>>>>>>> nature, it's crazy, so questioning it appeals to ridicule.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Neat trick if you can find someone stupid enough to fall for it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you're gonna make a documentary, particularly one that purports
>>>>>>>>>> to address a controversy, you might at least have it confront the
>>>>>>>>>> question itself. Whereas, this flick looks like a one-sided sideshow
>>>>>>>>>> of people who are visibly fucked up ...a compilation to entertain
>>>>>>>>>> the smug.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dude was interviewing a prominent Democrat congressman, among other
>>>>>>>>> not visibly fucked up people, all of whom can't tell you what a woman
>>>>>>>>> is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh, I'd maintain that *any* Congressman can readily be portrayed as
>>>>>>>> visibly fucked up.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also, the fact that the proponents of all this nonsense contain
>>>>>>>>> such a large percentage of visibly fucked up people is what we in
>>>>>>>>> the business call a clew.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Exactly. This is what the "documentarians" rely on, i.e., that
>>>>>>>> you'll feel free to enjoy the ridicule because they've got 90 minutes
>>>>>>>> of it, which just has to be a fair sample of the world as you'd like
>>>>>>>> to see it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except it *is* a fair sample because the only people in this "87
>>>>>>> genders non-binary fluid otherkin" milieu are either visibly fucked
>>>>>>> up people or the politicians who are pandering to them to push an
>>>>>>> agenda.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People who think gender isn't totally binary? You're kidding, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, 'cause those are the ones having shrieking meltdowns about
>>>>> pronouns and getting people kicked off Facebook for saying women don't
>>>>> have penises.
>>>>
>>>> Again... those just may NOT be fully representative.
>>>
>>> They're the ones who get all the attention, get pandered to, get laws
>>> passed based on their lunatic views, and can negatively impact normal
>>> people's lives-- from internet harassment, to getting people fired, to
>>> even criminal charges. That's why no one gives a shit about the more
>>> milquetoast members of "I can Change My Gender Just by Wishing Hard
>>> Enough" movement.
>>
>> Surely this "documentary" will help to rectify that...
>
> Yes, we should just shut up about it. That'll be a far more effective
> solution.

But, inasmuch as we all know we WON'T shut up about it, we should at
least not mistake our smug gawking for responsible thinking.