Good.
Gee? Why does that not surprise me? Refering to that bit on O'Reilly as proof is as laughable as refering to his interview with the guy that swears the media is conservative.
Perhaps he was commenting on Rush, Fox News in general and Free Republic. :p
O'Reilly is as arrogant as they come, but his sources and guests (barring the socialists) are usually top-notch.
If you actually watch O'Reilly you would know this.
It's all about choices...obviously you don't like people being responsible for their choices, prefering some pseudo-scientific hocus pocus to the manifestly obvious.
I love it when someone is responsible for their actions. But there are reasons and motivations to someone's actions. That is something you don't seem to understand.
You talk like what Larry Wachowski is doing is a crime.
What I think is all Larry is doing is taking care of a problem in Larry's life.
I'd still like to know how you think the URL you posted supports your contentions. I read it, and it gives you no support what so ever.
If you had ACTUALLY read my statement (post 59 of this thread), you would have noted the link I pointed out to you supports PART of my statement, the part dealing with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.
Here is the part of my statement I am talking about.
And sometimes hormones completely ignore the chromosomes and someone who's chromosomes are XX can be completely physically and mentally male. While someone who's chromosomes are XY can be completely physically and mentally female.
You fuss, fuss, fuss about wanting something that supports my post, and I point a link and point out a interview on O'Reilly that supports parts of my post and you fuss even MORE.
At this rate, if I posted links to support all of my statement to you, you would become a flaming troll.
So here some advice. Get a life and stop worring about other people's lives.
If the findings were anywhere near as cut and dried as you presented them the story would be getting more air than Laci Peterson. Like an eye-witness at an emotionally charged crime-scene, you're allowing your mind to fill in the gaps of what actually occurred until it makes a nice, smooth, philosophically pleasing version of how this phenomenon should be understood.
I finally got a response from you. Good.
You've been getting responses from me all night. That you couldn't answer them is another matter.
O'Reilly is as arrogant as they come, but his sources and guests (barring the socialists) are usually top-notch. If you actually watch O'Reilly you would know this.
I do watch O'Reilly on a VERY consistent basis. The author I was refering to was Eric Alterman, and he was there to shill his book "What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News." As with just about every guest Mr. O has on his program, Alterman was there to provide controversy.
I hate to break this to you, but O'R's stock-in-trade is controversy. He calls it the "No Spin Zone" for a reason...obviously he provides the audience with examples of "Spin" for him to stop.
The point is, showing up on O'Reilly is no more guarantee of objective validity than showing up on a game show is a guarantee of winning.
But there are reasons and motivations to someone's actions. That is something you don't seem to understand....What I think is all Larry is doing is taking care of a problem in Larry's life.
No one questions the existence of "reasons and motivations." The question is "are they good and valid ones?" You obviously think they are, and that's fine. My objection is to your specious reasoning as to why they are good and valid.
You hypothesize some exotic genetic rationale that is only tangentially related to the biology you cite. While Jamie Lee Curtis is living proof that if it walks like a girl, talks like a girl, and swims like a girl: it's a girl. Your rationale is like saying a bicycle is a differently developed motorcycle. While the two share some conceptual similarities, they are as different as a pencil and a copy machine. Larry needs to spend less effort trying to become a girl, and more on trying to figure out WHY he's not satisfied with being a man. He's obviously outfitted with a "man suit." Compulsive hand-washers need to find out what they're so affraid of, not cut their hands off to keep them from getting dirty.
Which brings me to another point. Why is your "brain" hypothesis more compelling than an actual "body?" Answer: it's not, you just like it better. It gives you the ability to avoid conflict with some really twisted people.
If you had ACTUALLY read my statement (post 59 of this thread), you would have noted the link I pointed out to you supports PART of my statement
I did read it. And while the subjects ARE conceptually,and tangentially related as I said earlier, that is not proof of causality. Pollard's betrayal was an act of volition, not the result of some hidden genetic imperative bubbling to the surface. Just like Larry.
someone who's chromosomes are XX can be completely physically and mentally male. While someone who's chromosomes are XY can be completely physically and mentally female.
Ya, that really supports your statements. You seem to have some weird "balance of the Universe" concept that allows you to believe that once in a while, a clock comes from the factory, not only broken, but broken in such a way that it runs BACKWARDS. That notion may appeal to your sense of balance, but it never happens due to the nature of why clocks run.
You fuss, fuss, fuss about wanting something that supports my post, and I point a link and point out a interview on O'Reilly that supports parts of my post and you fuss even MORE.
I always do that when offered wooden nickles. You pointed things out alright, they just didn't support what you claim, and you're to dull to realize it.
Well maybe not THAT dull. You have started weaseling out of your original dogmatism by sneaking qualifiers like "some" and "parts" into your prattlings.
So here some advice. Get a life and stop worring about other people's lives.
Ya know, I'll do that...just as soon as you quit expounding on the practical applications of the concept of yin and yang on genetics out or your copy of "The Idiot's Guide to Zen."
Quit trying to stereotype me pal; you're not smart enough.