9 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
User's avatar
Comment removed
Nov 5, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment
e.pierce's avatar

“Mind rot”

PROJECTION.

You keep pulling blobs of mental sewage out of your hind sphincter and smearing them on the walls of various comments sections.

Hopefully Helen will ban you if you persist in your mental dysfunction.

Expand full comment
Helen Dale's avatar

It would be really great if Steersman got off his hobby-horse and you stopped chasing him with scatological comments. Really and truly.

Give it a rest.

Expand full comment
e.pierce's avatar

SteerManuresMan is a psych case.

Either ban him/it, or put up with his/its obsessive-compulsive stench.

Side note: substack needs to fully implement their "block" function.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment removed
Nov 6, 2023Edited
Comment removed
Expand full comment
e.pierce's avatar

you proved my point, lunatic.

Expand full comment
Hippiesq's avatar

While I don't know Steersman as a person, he and I have gone back and forth in many Substack comment sections and I usually - but not always - disagree with his definitions. I don't think a woman is only someone who is currently expecting to menstruate within the next month or so. I think pregnant women, menopausal women and girls who have not yet menstruated and aren't about to are all female. I think people whose gonads are not functioning are still either male or female, and that only a very few people have such ambiguous characteristics as to make them not apparently male or female (a few people with certain types of DSD's, not most DSD's, which are found in either males or females, for a total of about .02% of the population).

However, to be fair, I don't really know the exact definition of the terms and how we draw the line, which is why I do think a few people are neither male nor female, and that those very few people should have a choice as to how to be considered. Steersman insists that it has to do with presently functional gonads. Although I disagree, I find his comments to be reasonable enough and it seems to me that he is interested in keeping to some consistent scientific definition so as not to end up causing perhaps inconceivable (at the moment) problems down the line.

That all having been said, I think we should save the vitriol and demands for banning for the lunatics and haters, and address those with which we simply disagree in a civilized manner. That will bring us all to a better place.

I think we're all on the same team - the team looking to respect the human body, protect young vulnerable people from physical and psychological harm, and protect women's right, privacy, safety and fairness in sports. Minor disagreements about definitions can be dealt with through civilized debate.

Expand full comment
e.pierce's avatar

steermanuresman is a psycho and a giant waste of time. i see nothing "scientific" in his blather beyond what anyone with common sense and minimal capacity for rational thought could manage. it is unfortunate that you brought this up given helen's distaste for debate about him.

Expand full comment
ssri's avatar

"Since when do "moral considerations" -- feelinz -- get to trump scientific facts and theories?"

I perceive that "morality" is basically a combination of (1) our inherent instinctual evolved characteristics (mostly psychological), that manifest as unconscious actions or "feelings", with release of preordained neurochemical agents, etc.; and (2) cultural practices and behaviors that social experience has shown to be "good enough" to provide some level of security and further well being, at least for "most people". Thus the results from scientific study of emotional responses in the brain are in fact scientific facts about "feelinz". This is an area that has received a lot more attention in the last two or three decades, but the complexity is still pretty high to make simple observations and pronouncements. I won't attempt that here.

I need to find and reread the essay that Lorenzo cited when I raised this topic with him. :-)

Expand full comment