@daleyd.bsky.social
I agree with all of that.
November 19, 2025 at 11:09 PM
I agree with all of that.
That’s not what it says. It says they have the similar morphology (ie he’s correcting the few large, many small part), but there are still only two types, one produced from
males and one from females.
And the above has no application whatsoever in mammals, let alone humans.
males and one from females.
And the above has no application whatsoever in mammals, let alone humans.
November 19, 2025 at 10:56 PM
That’s not what it says. It says they have the similar morphology (ie he’s correcting the few large, many small part), but there are still only two types, one produced from
males and one from females.
And the above has no application whatsoever in mammals, let alone humans.
males and one from females.
And the above has no application whatsoever in mammals, let alone humans.
Please explain.
November 19, 2025 at 10:51 PM
Please explain.
Good to know. So it only applies to all multi-celled gamete producing life forms (no algae or fungi included). I appreciate the edification, but do you think that changes the gamete-binary in… everything else?
November 19, 2025 at 10:47 PM
Good to know. So it only applies to all multi-celled gamete producing life forms (no algae or fungi included). I appreciate the edification, but do you think that changes the gamete-binary in… everything else?
In part? Dynamics are different now that he’s not facing an imminent election and isn’t facing oppo ads regularly.
He doesn’t have to face reelection until after the 2028 race, where people suspect he’ll get in, so he’s simultaneously playing to a different base. If the polling is loving it, great!
He doesn’t have to face reelection until after the 2028 race, where people suspect he’ll get in, so he’s simultaneously playing to a different base. If the polling is loving it, great!
November 19, 2025 at 9:22 PM
In part? Dynamics are different now that he’s not facing an imminent election and isn’t facing oppo ads regularly.
He doesn’t have to face reelection until after the 2028 race, where people suspect he’ll get in, so he’s simultaneously playing to a different base. If the polling is loving it, great!
He doesn’t have to face reelection until after the 2028 race, where people suspect he’ll get in, so he’s simultaneously playing to a different base. If the polling is loving it, great!
I had to delete the middle paragraph for space.
People find it to be a very intuitive rule. People hide deception or incompetence in complexity.
It is completely rational to be suspicious of those who can’t give a relatively simple, straight forward and coherent answer.
People find it to be a very intuitive rule. People hide deception or incompetence in complexity.
It is completely rational to be suspicious of those who can’t give a relatively simple, straight forward and coherent answer.
November 19, 2025 at 9:18 PM
I had to delete the middle paragraph for space.
People find it to be a very intuitive rule. People hide deception or incompetence in complexity.
It is completely rational to be suspicious of those who can’t give a relatively simple, straight forward and coherent answer.
People find it to be a very intuitive rule. People hide deception or incompetence in complexity.
It is completely rational to be suspicious of those who can’t give a relatively simple, straight forward and coherent answer.
That tracks. Blocked, per advice of the non-loony lefties on BSky.
November 19, 2025 at 9:07 PM
That tracks. Blocked, per advice of the non-loony lefties on BSky.
The only comprehensive analyses I can find say he’s a moderate (though he’s been tacking left after he won his election):
fordhaminstitute.org/national/com...
fordhaminstitute.org/national/com...
Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear might be a moderate Democrat, but he’s no education reformer
After handily defeating his Republican rival for the governorship of red-hued Kentucky, Democrat Andy Beshear is having a moment as a center-left moderate who could run for president in 2028. But we e...
fordhaminstitute.org
November 19, 2025 at 9:03 PM
The only comprehensive analyses I can find say he’s a moderate (though he’s been tacking left after he won his election):
fordhaminstitute.org/national/com...
fordhaminstitute.org/national/com...
Just followed you over from X and had my first substantial engagement. Sorry for all the crap you’re taking for having the temerity to be a policy-minded person actually looking for pragmatic solutions.
Re my first deep engagement here, I thought B Maher was exaggerating re Bsky; he’s understating.
Re my first deep engagement here, I thought B Maher was exaggerating re Bsky; he’s understating.
November 19, 2025 at 8:54 PM
Just followed you over from X and had my first substantial engagement. Sorry for all the crap you’re taking for having the temerity to be a policy-minded person actually looking for pragmatic solutions.
Re my first deep engagement here, I thought B Maher was exaggerating re Bsky; he’s understating.
Re my first deep engagement here, I thought B Maher was exaggerating re Bsky; he’s understating.
I agree. I mistyped. See above.
November 19, 2025 at 8:45 PM
I agree. I mistyped. See above.
Was he leftist on any other issue, and how front and center was he on trans advocacy?
November 19, 2025 at 8:39 PM
Was he leftist on any other issue, and how front and center was he on trans advocacy?
Seems like conventional wisdom is now that the Dems made a HUGE mistake letting the trans immigrant prisoner ads run unanswered, nationwide, during NFL games, for months— because in their conceit, they didn’t deem them worthy of a response.
Something tells me Bsky will disagree though.
Something tells me Bsky will disagree though.
November 19, 2025 at 8:26 PM
Seems like conventional wisdom is now that the Dems made a HUGE mistake letting the trans immigrant prisoner ads run unanswered, nationwide, during NFL games, for months— because in their conceit, they didn’t deem them worthy of a response.
Something tells me Bsky will disagree though.
Something tells me Bsky will disagree though.
Sorry, I misspoke.
Gender is definitely a spectrum.
I meant to say that believing the sex binary and supporting trans humans are not mutually exclusive.
Is the objection that categories preclude changing sex (as opposed to changing gender and 2ndary sex characteristics)?
Gender is definitely a spectrum.
I meant to say that believing the sex binary and supporting trans humans are not mutually exclusive.
Is the objection that categories preclude changing sex (as opposed to changing gender and 2ndary sex characteristics)?
November 19, 2025 at 8:23 PM
Sorry, I misspoke.
Gender is definitely a spectrum.
I meant to say that believing the sex binary and supporting trans humans are not mutually exclusive.
Is the objection that categories preclude changing sex (as opposed to changing gender and 2ndary sex characteristics)?
Gender is definitely a spectrum.
I meant to say that believing the sex binary and supporting trans humans are not mutually exclusive.
Is the objection that categories preclude changing sex (as opposed to changing gender and 2ndary sex characteristics)?
There’s a famous investor who went by the rule “if you can’t illustrate your biz idea on a cocktail napkin, I’m not investing.”
The reason to give an answer is that most people will just intuit that you are being deceptive or don’t know what you’re talking about if you can’t.
The reason to give an answer is that most people will just intuit that you are being deceptive or don’t know what you’re talking about if you can’t.
November 19, 2025 at 7:59 PM
There’s a famous investor who went by the rule “if you can’t illustrate your biz idea on a cocktail napkin, I’m not investing.”
The reason to give an answer is that most people will just intuit that you are being deceptive or don’t know what you’re talking about if you can’t.
The reason to give an answer is that most people will just intuit that you are being deceptive or don’t know what you’re talking about if you can’t.
Gender binary and acceptance of trans humans are in no way mutually exclusive.
November 19, 2025 at 7:55 PM
Gender binary and acceptance of trans humans are in no way mutually exclusive.
Agree!
I do think the Dems were completely out to lunch on Manchin though. A Dem in an R+20 state was a miracle. Yet so many were trying to purity test and purge him.
We were lucky to have him, flawed as he was. We’ll never get that WV seat back.
I do think the Dems were completely out to lunch on Manchin though. A Dem in an R+20 state was a miracle. Yet so many were trying to purity test and purge him.
We were lucky to have him, flawed as he was. We’ll never get that WV seat back.
November 19, 2025 at 7:53 PM
Agree!
I do think the Dems were completely out to lunch on Manchin though. A Dem in an R+20 state was a miracle. Yet so many were trying to purity test and purge him.
We were lucky to have him, flawed as he was. We’ll never get that WV seat back.
I do think the Dems were completely out to lunch on Manchin though. A Dem in an R+20 state was a miracle. Yet so many were trying to purity test and purge him.
We were lucky to have him, flawed as he was. We’ll never get that WV seat back.
So you’re just saying biological sex isn’t binary? Even that (which is debatable—as we have debated it!) is very contrary to what the vast majority of people see and hear every day.
How does this feed back into the Dems scoring an own goal by not being able to answer the question “what is a woman”?
How does this feed back into the Dems scoring an own goal by not being able to answer the question “what is a woman”?
November 19, 2025 at 7:50 PM
So you’re just saying biological sex isn’t binary? Even that (which is debatable—as we have debated it!) is very contrary to what the vast majority of people see and hear every day.
How does this feed back into the Dems scoring an own goal by not being able to answer the question “what is a woman”?
How does this feed back into the Dems scoring an own goal by not being able to answer the question “what is a woman”?
Not shitposting.
I don’t agree Obama was a radical. He was a centrist Dem who had the benefit of running agains W right when he was tanking the economy. On the more conservative end of the Dems running, actually. There were folks far more liberal in the primary (Kusinich, to name one).
I don’t agree Obama was a radical. He was a centrist Dem who had the benefit of running agains W right when he was tanking the economy. On the more conservative end of the Dems running, actually. There were folks far more liberal in the primary (Kusinich, to name one).
November 19, 2025 at 7:46 PM
Not shitposting.
I don’t agree Obama was a radical. He was a centrist Dem who had the benefit of running agains W right when he was tanking the economy. On the more conservative end of the Dems running, actually. There were folks far more liberal in the primary (Kusinich, to name one).
I don’t agree Obama was a radical. He was a centrist Dem who had the benefit of running agains W right when he was tanking the economy. On the more conservative end of the Dems running, actually. There were folks far more liberal in the primary (Kusinich, to name one).
HRC lost due to the EC. She DID get 4M more votes.
Kamala was coronated and not a great candidate, losing despite having every advantage. One of my knocks on her was she chose weak issues and was weak on them.
She may well have faired better if she went hard left. Or maybe worse. 🤷♂️
Kamala was coronated and not a great candidate, losing despite having every advantage. One of my knocks on her was she chose weak issues and was weak on them.
She may well have faired better if she went hard left. Or maybe worse. 🤷♂️
November 19, 2025 at 7:42 PM
HRC lost due to the EC. She DID get 4M more votes.
Kamala was coronated and not a great candidate, losing despite having every advantage. One of my knocks on her was she chose weak issues and was weak on them.
She may well have faired better if she went hard left. Or maybe worse. 🤷♂️
Kamala was coronated and not a great candidate, losing despite having every advantage. One of my knocks on her was she chose weak issues and was weak on them.
She may well have faired better if she went hard left. Or maybe worse. 🤷♂️
If you believe the number of fingers homosapiens have is a spectrum, then I get where you are coming from.
I just don’t believe that is an appropriate or meaningful use of that term.
This comes back to “biological sex doesn’t exist”, and regardless of this convo, how alienating it is to avg ppl.
I just don’t believe that is an appropriate or meaningful use of that term.
This comes back to “biological sex doesn’t exist”, and regardless of this convo, how alienating it is to avg ppl.
November 19, 2025 at 7:33 PM
If you believe the number of fingers homosapiens have is a spectrum, then I get where you are coming from.
I just don’t believe that is an appropriate or meaningful use of that term.
This comes back to “biological sex doesn’t exist”, and regardless of this convo, how alienating it is to avg ppl.
I just don’t believe that is an appropriate or meaningful use of that term.
This comes back to “biological sex doesn’t exist”, and regardless of this convo, how alienating it is to avg ppl.
Bill cites a number of lefty think tanks that have done analysis on the last 20 elections or so. If you’re actually here for legit engagement and not shitposting, you should check them out. I have not yet, myself, so I can’t recite them to you.
November 19, 2025 at 7:29 PM
Bill cites a number of lefty think tanks that have done analysis on the last 20 elections or so. If you’re actually here for legit engagement and not shitposting, you should check them out. I have not yet, myself, so I can’t recite them to you.
You’re reading me differently than the literal words on the screen.
?
I’m not saying it’s simpler than it is.
It seems like you are saying it’s more complicated than it is, blurring lines and abandoning discernment, all for fear of being lead onto a slippery slope.
?
I’m not saying it’s simpler than it is.
It seems like you are saying it’s more complicated than it is, blurring lines and abandoning discernment, all for fear of being lead onto a slippery slope.
November 19, 2025 at 7:26 PM
You’re reading me differently than the literal words on the screen.
?
I’m not saying it’s simpler than it is.
It seems like you are saying it’s more complicated than it is, blurring lines and abandoning discernment, all for fear of being lead onto a slippery slope.
?
I’m not saying it’s simpler than it is.
It seems like you are saying it’s more complicated than it is, blurring lines and abandoning discernment, all for fear of being lead onto a slippery slope.
You again seem to be saying “if there are exceptions to every rule, there can be no rules”.
I said “essentially binary”, not “strictly binary”.
An exception would disprove “strictly”; it does not disprove “essentially”.
Back to “biological sex doesn’t exist”… binary or non-binary?
I said “essentially binary”, not “strictly binary”.
An exception would disprove “strictly”; it does not disprove “essentially”.
Back to “biological sex doesn’t exist”… binary or non-binary?
November 19, 2025 at 7:22 PM
You again seem to be saying “if there are exceptions to every rule, there can be no rules”.
I said “essentially binary”, not “strictly binary”.
An exception would disprove “strictly”; it does not disprove “essentially”.
Back to “biological sex doesn’t exist”… binary or non-binary?
I said “essentially binary”, not “strictly binary”.
An exception would disprove “strictly”; it does not disprove “essentially”.
Back to “biological sex doesn’t exist”… binary or non-binary?
It’s an eighthead, thank you very much.
November 19, 2025 at 7:17 PM
It’s an eighthead, thank you very much.