The Legendary Dragon Alephwyr, named Alephwyr, BA

The AHA statement about Dawkins rejects the interpretation that he was pointing to an apparent inconsistency in the current norms of political correctness, while simultaneously providing an example of precisely the confused thinking that he claims he was pointing out. Discuss.

I'm tired of debating the legitimacy of my own existence, Steve.

No one is debating your existence. There is a debate about the logic + ethics of redefining the categories of man/woman based on subjective feelings rather than anatomy.

Dual rationalist sins of assuming your opponents are abnormal and blacklisting the level of subjective experience necessary to raise a theory to attention which is already most of the evidence of proving a theory. Additional sin of not understanding how words should work

It's really not an attack or an assertion of abnormality, since any rational thinker knows enough about statistical distributions to roll their eyes at the idea of normality. But the attack against reason and biology is an attack on truth. We might need a level above sex/gender.

Have you read Yudkowsky? Do you know what I am referencing?

I've heard so many times "have you read this passage of the Qu'ran in its original Arabic, have you heard this pastor's talk" that any appeal to authority is ignored. If you have a point to make please make it, instead of name dropping.