Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

So "good manners" is the reason that science takes a back seat to politics on this matter for you. That's fine, and doesn't refute my point.

Most folk who "deny science" do so for what they consider to be "good reasons." No group one  a monopoly on the behavior.

You're missing my point. My point, primarily, is that I'm a libertarian and I don't give a shit. Whether there are two genders or fifty-two doesn't change that I'm comfortable with who *I* am and other peoples' gender identity is their business, not mine. 

I'm not going to argue with them and say they're wrong, because in line with the Jefferson quote I referenced earlier, their gender identity neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. 

So whether there is a true scientific basis for gender dysphoria--and to be fair, I suspect that the more we learn about this the more we'll learn that there is a biological component to gender identity--doesn't really matter. It's not my business. 

It was offered up as an example of the left playing the role of "science deniers."

There are many others, but that is one that they won't even try to wiggle out of.

"Person with male anatomy says he's a woman. sounds legit."

Of course if they actually believed this, then they "should" be just as open to dating one of these people as they would be to dating an actual woman....

Speaking of strawmen...

We all have filters used in dating. Some are completely rational. Some are irrational. Some are neither and they're just personal preference. 

For example, right now I'm discriminating against 100% of available dating partners because 100% of them are not my wife. 

But when I was on the market, I had three things that I saw in profiles on a dating app that were an immediate swipe-left.

• Any mention of their god or religion.
• Saying that they don't drink.
• Saying they were a vegetarian/vegan.

It's not that I hate religious people, or teetotalers, or people who don't eat meat. I don't argue with people about religion, or that omnivorous eating habits are "natural" and vegetarian/vegan are abnormal. 

I don't discriminate against any of those categories in the rest of my life. I wouldn't refuse to hire a religious person. I don't bar vegetarians from coming into my house; in fact if you're coming over to dinner and you're a vegetarian, I'll adjust my menu to accommodate. That doesn't mean I'm a hypocrite if I don't choose to date a religious teetotaler who doesn't eat meat. 

I just figured that anyone who was fervent enough about any of those things to put them in their profile probably wouldn't be compatible with an atheist carnivore who brews his own beer. So why waste anyone's time? 

We've had storms here of late, some pretty impressive, no damage I have seen.  Cloudy today, some rain forecast, and moderating Ts.

We've had storms here of late, some pretty impressive, no damage I have seen.  Cloudy today, some rain forecast, and moderating Ts.

Been really nice at the harbor this week. A little breezy, but that's OK I guess.

Been really nice at the harbor this week. A little breezy, but that's OK I guess.

The fam wants to get a boat. I'm not anti- boat but feel it won't be used enough too be worth the cost and effort. But it's a beautiful day today - makes me wish I had one.

Not at all. My "point" is that no singular political slant has a monopoly on science denying. I simply provided an example where the left does it, and we have learned that libertarians also do it. So the art of science denial is alive and well in every political slant, not just one. But I do thank yinz for proving my point.

all political "parties" or groups are the same

both sides try to use petitions and numbers of signatures to no avail