>Batswana woman who has studied his work as part of her MA thesis in the University of Botswana. She said that there are significant gaps in how he represented the culture

So see. There you go. It was reasonable to think that he had a good understanding of the culture. Now it's reasonable to think that he doesn't. I'd be a little cautious to take a goodsread comment as law, but it's unlikely she'd make up studying it as an MA.

I would give him a little more credit than that. I'm not going as far as to say he's an expert on the culture, but he grew up around it and interacted with it. I would assume it's mostly accurate unless told otherwise. He probably knows more about the local culture than a lot of anthropologists do on the subject.

>If they’re not yours, why defend them?

Because the truth matters. I do not like Republicans, but I criticize them on what they're actually doing.

>Your party still proposed it, though.

Not my party, bud. And the fact that I have to say that again pretty much sums up the issue.

No. I don't give a damn if a trans kid plays in school sports because school sports are an extremely trivial matter to worry about. I just think that with all of the other horrible things you can peg Republicans for that's actually true, falsely accusing them of hiring anti-trans doctors to molest children is unnecessary.

>would never let some random school doctor -

It doesn’t say a school doctor. It would be your child's pediatrition. It would be your choice which doctor.

>Exactly what sort of individual do you think would want the job of “examining” a bunch of 11 or 12 year old athletes’ genitals?

Oh.... I don't know... a pediatrition? You know... the people who went to medical school and specialized in child development. Which includes sexual development.

Dude. It's very clear because of some other very reasonable concerns that you've become accustomed to assuming the worst and never questioning things when it comes to Republicans. But I am literally giving you the bill. The bill that was passed from the place that you referenced. And does not mention forced digital examinations, coach picked doctors, or locker room examinations. All it requires is a physicians statement, which you can readily get from your kids' pediatrition.

No...

1. physical sex is already in these kids medical records. No further examination needed.

2. pelvic examinations are already a normal part of physical examinations for children because doctors make sure kids are developing regularly.

Nowhere does it mention a "digital examination" at all.

My brother in Christ, there was no such thing.

Here is the bill from Ohio

>(C) If a participant's sex is disputed, the participant shall establish the participant's sex by presenting a signed physician's statement indicating the participant's sex based upon only the following: >(1) The participant's internal and external reproductive anatomy; > (2) The participant's normal endogenously produced levels of testosterone; >(3) An analysis of the participant's genetic makeup.

In other words. The doctor's physical that they had to do to play in school sports in the first place would have confirmed their physical sex.

https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsearch-prod.lis.state.oh.us%2Fsolarapi%2Fv1%2Fgeneral_assembly_134%2Fbills%2Fhb151%2FPH%2F02%2Fhb151_02_PH%3Fformat%3Dpdf&data=05%7C01%7CDarcie.Loreno%40fox8.com%7C6f4ca795a5394e33303f08da4a61672c%7C9e5488e2e83844f6886cc7608242767e%7C0%7C0%7C637904079443584385%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3LZyUmOqpHSA1qbfqS4ZS33H%2Fnz%2Bs33Wgd0smlcngYo%3D&reserved=0

>be subject to mandatory molestation to “make sure they’re not trans”?

Ok dude. I was with you up until that point. Nobody was ever suggesting what you are accusing them of. When that was being discussed, all that would have happened or been needed was to check their physical that they had to turn in from the doctor, which would have already had their sex on it. There was not going to be lockerroom examinations.

Where were we talking about killing people? You've read something into my comment that was not there.

I'm not going to lie and say that the division isn't high, and that most of that division isn't centered around tolerance/culture wars. But I think it's extremely hyperbolic to suggest that the US is not comparatively one of the most tolerant countries in the world or that it doesn't have a culture of tolerance. Anywhere that you have diversity, you're going to have some intolerance. If you don't believe me, ask your average European about their opinions on gypsies or Muslim refugees.

>, but it creates an unending cycle of insults and tension, where it's difficult to avoid spiraling into violence.

But not impossible. And so long as the violence is at a maintainable level, then I would argue the benefits of legislating it do not outweigh the cons. The vast majority of people argue about tolerating certain views/lifestyles without shedding blood.