Haven't the time to watch the video as yet. But just a couple observations on this dynamic that has gripped the nation here these last few years.
As with many aspects of the identity movements, there is much militancy involved that appears to draw in quite a few vocal angry voices for the sole purpose of pushing the envelope against what many would find decent, daring a reaction to create a new battleground. As with most of the identity movements, setting out to create enemies and forcing change on others that treads on their personal sovereignty is sure to achieve the enemies and disgust you claim not to want.
I've noticed that in many cases such as this, (going along the thoughts above) there is a push to force us to not believe our eyes and instead believe an assertion contrary to what the eyes behold. You mention above:
However, because we do not TEST FOR THIS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW EXACTLY HOW "RARE" IT MIGHT BE.
That is a two edged sword, that could logically based on appearances, imply the eyes are correct the majority of the time.
All of this raises a few questions. At what point does the majorities of society end up telling the vocal militant minorities that they will not be accommodated at the expense of the many when it doesn't involve a real trespass against their person. I'm not understanding how my having to allow a biological female use the same restroom as me (and all the other men) is some victory other than some need to punish men for why I don't really get. I also know that no way if I had a young daughter would I want some biological male alone with her in some public restroom.
It seems that iffy science like this is being used to push extremes on the majority just to piss us off really.
Yeah, well, just accompany your daughter into the restroom as necessary to maintain security.
If that becomes impossible, don't allow her to use public restrooms, and use technology as necessary to alleviate the need.
Are you kidding me? Everyone should already be doing that. Women are assaulted by men in public washrooms all the time. Men are assaulted by men in public washrooms all the time.
Would you prefer having armed police officers guarding every door, asking for your "bill gates vaccine microchip medical history mastercard sexgender and human fertility" scan??
What I'd prefer is all children armed with firearms after the age of ~3, and properly supervised by their parents at all times until they reach majority, and start supervising their own children.
End of problem.
Would pepper spray perhaps be a "better" solution?
I'm not sure I'd like to be staring down the barrel of a loaded gun when trying to convince a 3 year old to brush their teeth, or take their medicine, or go to bed at a reasonable hour.
I never did have to stare down armed resistance to household duties and I did start training my sons to bear arms ~3. When I went to high school in Alaska it was not uncommon for students to bring firearms to school on the bus, so they could hunt on the hike home in season. Normal peer pressures and shenanigans were constant factors at school, including fights and such, but no one ever threatened anyone with guns.
Guns are tools, and tools are useful for specific jobs. Guns are for killing, not for competing over Mary Jane's rotten crotch or the like. When kids are raised to be competent with tools like guns, cars, and chainsaws, they tend not to misuse or abuse those tools at all.
It's the incompetent you have to watch out for.
Edit: I should add that I started firearms training ~3, Chainsaws ~8, and cars ~10. This reflected the relative dangers and difficulty of handling each type of tool, and how necessary they were to my sons. Firearms are simple, easy, and utterly critical to survival. Kids are competent to survive under fire from an early age, and this is revealed in the history of humanity in the fossil record.
I guess it makes sense.
If everyone, including the gays and the hippies and the SJW's and the homeless lunatics all had a six-shooter strapped to their belt, then nobody would ever be the victim of a crime.
Remember the good-old-days when we'd just shoot people we didn't like?
I mean, look, I understand that in smaller communities where people actually know each other, it's easier to build trust with your neighbors. And teaching children responsible tool use might be a reasonable option for specific parents and specific children.
I just don't think that giving everyone a gun is going to make you safer.
There are too many lunatics already.
The last thing we need is to make them even more deadly.
It would be nice if every parent trusted their child with a loaded weapon.
I just don't see that as being realistic.
then
You clearly aren't thinking rationally on this topic, since you're contradicting yourself. You insinuated that my history wasn't true. Why would you have to believe I was lying rather than agree that being armed isn't dangerous? You also insinuated that strapping responsible people means that lunatics would be strapped too. You're being silly.
I note you degraded what I did say to fit into the gungrabber narrative. I don't advocate just handing out guns. I advocate what I did, which is to train people to use guns from an early age.
You worry about lunatics, but that is a strawman. Lunatics don't just suddenly appear. They've been lived with all their lives, and the people that deal with them daily don't just hand them guns. Except for the FBI, which has been caught over and over again preying on mentally challenged people in their efforts to create terrorists. Again, you've been unconsciously adopting propaganda rather than actually considering the matter.
Here's the bald truth: humanity rules itself, and always has. Folks want to delegate the dirty work of integrity and security to others so they can just lay back, read magazines and eat bon bons, but that's neither responsible nor safe.
Human beings maintain their own security, and those as delegate it to others become dependents on those others. Don't be a dependent. Be a sovereign.
It's your destiny.
Edit: you raise the strawman argument that if we were armed we'd just start murdering people we don't like. Did that happen? Not much, because most people aren't homocidal maniacs. Are you a homocidal maniac? Would you just shoot people you didn't like?
You clearly haven't been trained how to use firearms, or you'd know damn well that you wouldn't. If you would, why the hell should I care what a homocidal maniac thinks? Think about these things and learn about them before you make declarative statements and you'll be able to be taken seriously.
(1) What "iffy science" are you referring to?
(2) What "extremes" are the "majority" being forced into?
My definition of iffy science is when something is isolated, and then broad speculations are derived from it that aren't logical conclusions. I believe the gender science that has emerged in recent years is one such example. I base this on personal observations on who is utilizing the assertion, and the context they are using it. Loosely falling into this observation will be an extreme majorities are forced into that are not healthy.
At my previous place of employment, a young woman asserted that she identified as a male. She was extremely shapely, Wore extremely feminine clothes showing off her figure. Her genetic makeup evidently not getting the message from her chromosomes (using the science you quote) that she was actually a male. She was allowed to use the men's restroom, which was the reason for her proclamation.
No man working there was comfortable for this. And given the current political climate of Metoo/believe her where the man is considered guilty until proven innocent this uncomfortable feeling is magnified into a potentially dangerous situation for any man finding themselves in that restroom with her alone, especially if their genitalia is out as is often the case there.
Another example of this was when my partner addressed on of her clients children as a boy (he clearly was) and the mother reprimanded her recognizing the physical attributes. In this case the boy who evidently identifies as a female was dressed as well as a normal boy. My partner was later written up by her employer for concluding the boy was a boy and not somehow intuiting that the boy identified as a girl. Dangerous stuff, can cause loss of job and possible imprisonment. In the case of the female at my previous employer, I guarantee that if she decided she was offended by any of the biological males in that room, Human Resources as well as the judicial system would suddenly offer her all of the protections afforded a female.
It really comes across as a manipulation by those I've encountered using this "science" to justify their actions that they demand accommodation for. None of which sets well with me. I know what I see, I know what the possible ramifications are and it doesn't add up to anything positive from my vantage point.
And in 2 minutes and 38 seconds (actually just the first 30 seconds),