ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags transgender incidents , transgender issues , transgender rights

Reply
Old 1st January 2020, 02:01 PM   #2281
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,943
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
The point seems to be that biological and behavioral definitions can be isolated from each other when it suits people, then they turn around and feign ignorance at how such a thing could be suggested.

Examples of this being used for purely negative reinforcement or othering/shaming doesn't mean the very concept of these being two different forms of identity is wrong.

I can use a scouring sponge to clean someone's face. It will be painful and a poor use of that kind of tool. That doesn't mean scouring sponges are bad and we shouldn't use them.
Absolutely. Whether we are talking about tools or talking about different uses of a word, we should use one appropriate to the situation.

In my opinion, when deciding whether someone ought to be allowed to see my sister naked in the shower, we should use the biological definition of "man".
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2020, 03:43 PM   #2282
Delphic Oracle
Illuminator
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,906
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Absolutely. Whether we are talking about tools or talking about different uses of a word, we should use one appropriate to the situation.



In my opinion, when deciding whether someone ought to be allowed to see my sister naked in the shower, we should use the biological definition of "man".
That depends on the nature of your objection.

If it's because of the behaviors often exhibited by males, then we're really still talking about gender and gendered expectations, not biology.

Plus, when we're talking about adults of consenting age, deciding by sex is not how it really works. Plenty of men can shower with other men, but if they find out one of them is gay, suddenly it's a "big deal." Plenty of women quite want to be seen naked by men they approve of doing so.

So it seems to have a lot more to do with dynamics of attraction or whatever other criteria that particular person has, socialized norms all buried under a double-scoop of hasty generalizations assigning all of that to a binary, biological "hard-wiring."
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2020, 04:01 PM   #2283
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,943
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
That depends on the nature of your objection.

If it's because of the behaviors often exhibited by males, then we're really still talking about gender and gendered expectations, not biology.
And if we aren't?
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2020, 04:26 PM   #2284
Delphic Oracle
Illuminator
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,906
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
And if we aren't?
Feel free to explain the nature of your objection.

Nice try, though.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2020, 06:57 PM   #2285
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,320
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I suppose the answer is yes.

I'm reluctant to say that, because it's hard to figure out what possible purpose the answer (or the question) could serve. After we decide that someone is or isn't "a real man", what does that even mean? Even in the not so distant past where people frequently talked about "real men", they weren't using the phrase to actually identify a gender. The most common use was to identify some set of culturally desirable behaviors that people who are of a particular gender should aspire to. Other uses were to ridicule those who fell short of the standards, and more rarely, to praise people who had the desirable traits associated with the opposite sex. The last sort of use was almost always to praise women who had character traits commonly associated with and admired among men.

But ok, I'll play along. Yes. There is one sense of the word "man", in which it could be said, for a purely cultural sense, that there were biological males who were not "men".

Now what?
I doubt that any trans man is claiming to be biologically male, so when a trans man says "I am a man" and a biological male is told by someone "you are not a man" then they are presumably talking in the same sense, yes?
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2020, 07:34 PM   #2286
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,947
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
I doubt that any trans man is claiming to be biologically male, so when a trans man says "I am a man" and a biological male is told by someone "you are not a man" then they are presumably talking in the same sense, yes?
Then why all the fuss for some about changing their sex on birth certificates
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2020, 07:46 PM   #2287
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,943
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
I doubt that any trans man is claiming to be biologically male, so when a trans man says "I am a man" and a biological male is told by someone "you are not a man" then they are presumably talking in the same sense, yes?
Again, I'm not sure where you are going with this, but I'll play along and see.

No, they are not.

The trans man is saying something along the lines of "Despite my biological condition, I feel more like a man than a woman. Indeed, the thought of me as a woman causes me anxiety. (i.e. dysphoria). Therefore, I will identify myself as a man.

When a biological male is told by someone, "You are not a man." the speaker is making a judgment about the other person, saying that although he possesses the biology of a male, his character does not meet a sufficiently stereotypically masculine pattern to be considered a "true man". Perhaps the male is cowardly, or weak, or is insufficiently stoic (as is "take it like a man").

These are extremely different senses.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2020, 08:48 PM   #2288
8enotto
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 1,405
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Then why all the fuss for some about changing their sex on birth certificates
If like in Mexico City its a stack of papers backed by the original document. The past isn't truly erased.
I suspect its all emotional and a hefty filing fee in state coffers.
8enotto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2020, 03:19 AM   #2289
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,320
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Again, I'm not sure where you are going with this, but I'll play along and see.

No, they are not.

The trans man is saying something along the lines of "Despite my biological condition, I feel more like a man than a woman. Indeed, the thought of me as a woman causes me anxiety. (i.e. dysphoria). Therefore, I will identify myself as a man.

When a biological male is told by someone, "You are not a man." the speaker is making a judgment about the other person, saying that although he possesses the biology of a male, his character does not meet a sufficiently stereotypically masculine pattern to be considered a "true man". Perhaps the male is cowardly, or weak, or is insufficiently stoic (as is "take it like a man").

These are extremely different senses.
In my long experience someone can be as brave and stoic as all get out but it would not cut it with the "You're not a man" crowd if he has the wrong voice, mannerisms, interests etc.

On the other hand if someone has the right mannerisms, voice etc he will be accepted as a man no matter how cowardly or unstoic he is.

So we have, on the one hand, biological males who consider themselves "men" in some mysterious non-biological sense.

And on the other hand we have biological females who consider themselves "men" in some mysterious non-biological sense.

I don't understand either, but I don't see any big difference, never mind an extreme difference.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; 2nd January 2020 at 03:22 AM.
Robin is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2020, 05:44 AM   #2290
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,943
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
In my long experience someone can be as brave and stoic as all get out but it would not cut it with the "You're not a man" crowd if he has the wrong voice, mannerisms, interests etc.

On the other hand if someone has the right mannerisms, voice etc he will be accepted as a man no matter how cowardly or unstoic he is.

So we have, on the one hand, biological males who consider themselves "men" in some mysterious non-biological sense.

And on the other hand we have biological females who consider themselves "men" in some mysterious non-biological sense.

I don't understand either, but I don't see any big difference, never mind an extreme difference.
I think we are dealing with three different senses of the word.

When in doubt, we should ask google. Google knows everything.

When I google the phrase "real man", the first hit was to Urban Dictionary. In that lingo, a "real man" was synonymous with "old fashioned" in the way they act toward women.

The next entry was a question "What does it mean to be a real man?" And the answer began,

" 'A real Man' for me, personally is someone with true Dignity, Integrity, and willing to sacrifice himself to take care of others.'A real Man' is someone who has the up most respect for Women, therefore does not harm them in any way.'A real Man' is someone who doesn't give up as easily..."


That was the sense I was talking about as a "real man", and it seems that me and google are on the same page with that phrase.


What you are talking about is someone who has effeminate mannerisms, and
certainly their masculinity is questioned, and, especially in times gone by they were ridiculed, shunned, or bullied.

Similarly, and with some overlap, a homosexual might be considered less masculine.

So those are three different senses in which someone's "manhood" might be thrown into doubt. However, in none of those senses would anyone think to call those people actual women.

Interestingly, we can think of the corresponding cases for women.

"Real woman" is somewhat fuzzier, and used far less frequently as a phrase than "real man". Googling the phrase ends up with far more diverse answers. Interestingly, the most common use of the phrase in the top google hits was actually some sort of "less than perfect" sense. "Real women" were ordinary women who were not supermodels or did not fit some sort of idealized version of beauty or sex appeal. However, there were also other uses of the phrase for all sorts of different attributes. The phrase wasn't as common or the usage not as consistent as "real man".

On the other hand, corresponding to the sense of effeminacy in men, women who are "butch" might be called less feminine, and homosexual women might have their femininity questioned.

Again, though, though, these sorts of women would not be considered actual men. People who were not "real men", or men who were "girly" or women who were "butch" weren't perceived as the opposite sex. They were more perceived as somehow sexless.

So there are multiple senses of words that might be used, or have been used in the recent past, to signal that a person who was a given biological sex somehow did not fit into some sort of idealized version of that sex, and so were not "really" a man or a woman, or were "less of" a man or woman, but in no sense of those words was there ever a sense that made them actually part of the other sex.

In short, I'm still not following your reasoning. If we talk about biological males who were somehow said to not be "real men", or otherwise characterized as something other than male, they sure as heck weren't considered to be "real women" either.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2020, 08:33 PM   #2291
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,194
For an analogous situation, for many races there are derogatory terms oreo/banana/etc. for not being "real" Black/Chinese/etc people. But no one takes that to mean Rachel Dolezal could possibly be a Black person. (Again, I'm not claiming trans people are like Dolezal, I am making the reference in the context of an argument I think is problematic and reject.)

My problem with the line of argument is that it seems to endorse that gender non-conforming people really aren't men or women, so it is a weirdly conservative and reactionary take.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

Last edited by Tsukasa Buddha; 2nd January 2020 at 09:10 PM.
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2020, 10:24 PM   #2292
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,947
Sorry, but do you mind clarifying your question in the last paragraph?

Yes I am probably dim
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2020, 09:33 AM   #2293
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,478
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
JK Rowling comes out in support of fired anti-trans bigot in the UK.

Rowling finally a mask-off TERF

https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...maya-forstater
Originally Posted by Strawberry View Post
It's about time Rowling stood up for what is right, since she's one of the few women in a position to do so without being sacked or no platformed, which is the usual reaction of the increasingly delusional and authoritarian trans lobby.
Saw an interesting exchange on this topic recently, between a former JREF poster and another skeptic blogger named Andy Lewis.

https://twitter.com/skepchicks/statu...04236620460032

https://twitter.com/lecanardnoir/sta...23227644420101

http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2020...cepticism.html
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2020, 04:41 PM   #2294
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,430
You know, I read that and didn't clock the "Rebecca" part at the time. My bad. Sudden lightbulb moment.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2020, 04:55 PM   #2295
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,478
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
You know, I read that and didn't clock the "Rebecca" part at the time. My bad. Sudden lightbulb moment.
I think it's fair to say that Andy is doing scientific skepticism somewhat better than Rebecca at this point, inasmuch as he is carefully outlining and addressing specific scientific questions under dispute. He is, alas, completely failing at signaling social virtue in the usual sense.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2020, 01:54 AM   #2296
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 44,307
Graham Linehan (author of Father Ted, Black Books and The IT Crowd, among other things), is under attack on Twitter (there's a hashtag!) for making what seem to me reasonable points.

Quote:
So why is all this happening? It’s happening because of one phrase, because of one piece of dogma, perhaps initially meant as a kindness, but which has mutated into a tribal signal and an expression of literal truth. That statement is, of course, “Trans women are women”. An ideology that came out of the whackiest corner of American academia, has, via social networks, cognitively conquered mainstream organisations all through the western world, including—sorry, Sacha— including the ADL.

You may remember someone projected the phase on the side of Westminster, but perhaps you forgot, as I did, that they actually preceded it with the words. ‘Repeat after us’.

“Repeat after us. Trans women are women”. Projected onto the seat of power in the UK.

But here’s one major problem with the phrase. Before you can redefine what the word woman means, you must receive the unanimous approval of every woman living on earth.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2020, 08:51 AM   #2297
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 41,052
I don't think unanimous approval is necessary.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2020, 08:58 AM   #2298
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,478
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I don't think unanimous approval is necessary.
I'd be impressed if enough consensus was achieved among native speakers of English (men and women alike) to get the new meaning of the word listed as a lexical definitionWP in one or two standard dictionaries of the language.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2020, 09:34 AM   #2299
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 45,286
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I'd be impressed if enough consensus was achieved among native speakers of English (men and women alike) to get the new meaning of the word listed as a lexical definitionWP in one or two standard dictionaries of the language.
I wouldn't, because it doesn't actually take consensus among native speakers of English, but only among the editors of said standard dictionary. Although ideally the editor's consensus matches the consensus of English speakers, there is no mechanism to actually enforce that. And we are under exactly the conditions where you might expect them to diverge: a politically contentious issue with strident activists who apply pressure to use preferred definitions.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

Last edited by Ziggurat; 13th January 2020 at 09:36 AM.
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2020, 09:47 AM   #2300
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 45,286
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
Quote:
You may remember someone projected the phase on the side of Westminster, but perhaps you forgot, as I did, that they actually preceded it with the words. ‘Repeat after us’.
Yeah, that's some totalitarian **** right there. An attitude summed up by the phrase "You will be made to care."
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2020, 10:12 AM   #2301
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 41,052
Sooner or later, M-W and Oxford are going to turn into Urban Dictionary.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2020, 01:51 PM   #2302
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,478
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
And we are under exactly the conditions where you might expect them to diverge: a politically contentious issue with strident activists who apply pressure to use preferred definitions.
Fair point, but have said activists converged on a definition which isn't explicitly self-referential yet? (I hear dictionarists are uptight about that sort of thing.)
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; 13th January 2020 at 01:52 PM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2020, 03:16 AM   #2303
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,320
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post

When I google the phrase "real man",
Why would you do that? I haven't used the expression 'real man' as far as I am aware, so how is that relevant to what I am saying?

How do you expect to follow my (pretty straightforward) reasoning if you go off on tangents like this?
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2020, 05:38 AM   #2304
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,943
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Why would you do that? I haven't used the expression 'real man' as far as I am aware, so how is that relevant to what I am saying?

How do you expect to follow my (pretty straightforward) reasoning if you go off on tangents like this?
Well it seems I am not very good at following pretty straightforward reasoning. I keep thinking you must be getting at something, but it seems that I'm not very good at figuring out what it is, so I'll give up trying to figure out the import of any questions you have.

I'll continue to answer them, though, if you would like answers. I'll go back to your last one.

Quote:
I doubt that any trans man is claiming to be biologically male, so when a trans man says "I am a man" and a biological male is told by someone "you are not a man" then they are presumably talking in the same sense, yes?
The answer is no.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:50 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.