After The Election

[Cavebear]

There were some things I disliked about the Democratic Party campaign that I ignored for "the greater good" of avoiding Trump.

Immigration is an issue. I am all in favor of legal immigration, but I want them to come from "everywhere". Too many from one foreign culture stresses the "melting pot". Nations have borders for a reason. Immigration is beneficial, but we should get to choose who comes in.

Speaking of immigration, separating children from parents is not what we are about. And deliberately "losing" track of where the children went is just plain wrong.

Trans-gender issues are important. People should have right to live in the body they feel "right" in. I don't quite understand myself that but I'm willing to grant it. But I object to former males playing women's sports. There is a limit to how much change there can be and you can't change basic genetics.

Harris did not actively promote transgender changes, but supported it when mental health was involved. And so do I.

The way to end MAGA-talk is still to confront it with facts. I won't change my opinion about that. And MAGA views are not rational or thoughtful. I will fight the MAGA worldpoint.

Trump is showing his absolute disregard for any sense of the qualifications of Cabinet members. In fact, I suspect it is to deliberately cause the general government to fail. That is an act of treason. It is a typical start of a dictatorship. I fear for our democracy.

Thoughts welcome...

[Rhythmcs]

They've already told anyone who would listen they don't care about facts or for half measures. There's a better chance of attracting magats by offering wild eyed left wing populism than through so called moderate views on a given issue.

[Minimalist]

Um.....I guess you thought it was okay when you voted for the dumb piece of shit.


https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-ma...rs-1987371

Donald Trump's Deportation Plan Causes 'Panic' Among Farmers

President-elect Donald Trump Fuckface's deportation plan is causing widespread "panic" among farmers at risk of losing staff and business.
Agricultural output will fall between $30 and $60 billion if Trump's flagship policy is carried out, according to the American Business Immigration Coalition (ABIC).
One of the most prominent features of Trump's immigration policy was the removal of millions of undocumented immigrants. Trump advocated for the immediate deportation of individuals who were in the U.S. illegally, particularly those who had committed crimes.
Restaurant owners and agricultural leaders are calling for a balanced approach that supports businesses and preserves the workforce that is critical to their survival.

It isn't as if he didn't tell you fools what he had in mind.

[pattylt]

Well, they FA and now get to FO. I’m done feeling sorry for myself and now will smugly sit back and watch the shitshow unfold. Some CEOs are now suddenly concerned about tariffs as well. Oh, quell surprise!

[Thumpalumpacus]

The American electorate apparently had little problem with your fair complaints.

[SYZ]

Richard Holden, Professor of Economics at UNSW Business School,
said last week that if Trump were to go ahead with across-the-board
tariffs or very significant tariffs on China, that could easily usher in
retaliatory tariffs and an era of deglobalisation—and "that would be
very bad for the US economy,  and for Australia in particular".

"China might do the same thing and say, ‘Well, if the US is going to
impose big tariffs on Australia, which is a military and security ally
of the US, then we’ll have big tariffs on Australia", he said.

Planned US import tariffs have China in particular in their sights. If
introduced, Chinese exports and overall economic performance are
likely to drop.  Considering China is a major export market for Australia,
such an event would have negative consequences for the Australian
economy.

Currently, most goods imported into the US under the
Australia Free Trade Agreement (AUFTA) are free of duty
and merchandise processing fee (MPF).

The 2004 United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement
(USAFTA)—Proclamation 7857,  [...] of the USAFTA Act
authorises the President to proclaim such modifications
or continuation of any duty, such continuation of duty-free
or excise treatment, or such additional duties, as the
President determines to be necessary or appropriate
to carry out with [...] respect to Australia.

[pattylt]

Richard Holden, Professor of Economics at UNSW Business School,
said last week that if Trump were to go ahead with across-the-board
tariffs or very significant tariffs on China, that could easily usher in
retaliatory tariffs and an era of deglobalisation—and "that would be
very bad for the US economy,  and for Australia in particular".

"China might do the same thing and say, ‘Well, if the US is going to
impose big tariffs on Australia, which is a military and security ally
of the US, then we’ll have big tariffs on Australia", he said.

Planned US import tariffs have China in particular in their sights. If
introduced, Chinese exports and overall economic performance are
likely to drop.  Considering China is a major export market for Australia,
such an event would have negative consequences for the Australian
economy.

Currently, most goods imported into the US under the
Australia Free Trade Agreement (AUFTA) are free of duty
and merchandise processing fee (MPF).

The 2004 United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement
(USAFTA)—Proclamation 7857,  [...] of the USAFTA Act
authorises the President to proclaim such modifications
or continuation of any duty, such continuation of duty-free
or excise treatment, or such additional duties, as the
President determines to be necessary or appropriate
to carry out with [...] respect to Australia.

Did Australia have something comparable for their end?  I can’t imagine declaring the US president can change the rules but Australia can’t?

[Minimalist]

Fuckface loses one of his bragging points!


https://www.thenation.com/article/politi...-narrowed/

Donald Trump Has Not Won a Majority of the Votes Cast for President

Donald Trump’s popular vote total has fallen below 50 percent, and his margin over Kamala Harris has narrowed considerably as all the votes are counted.

Over the weekend, as California, Oregon, Washington, and other Western states moved closer to completing their counts, Trump’s percentage of the popular vote fell below 50 percent. And his margin of victory looks to be much smaller than initially anticipated. In fact, of all the 59 presidential elections since the nation’s founding, it appears that—after all of the 2024 votes are counted—only five popular vote winners in history will have prevailed by smaller percentage margins than Trump.

Of course Fuckface will instantly call this FAKE NEWS and insist that any votes not for him should never be counted.

[Inkubus]

There may be no Physician more qualified and capable than Dr. Oz to Make America Healthy Again

After he appeared in dozens of Oprah segments, he started The Dr Oz Show, where he doled out health advice to viewers.  But the line between promotion and science on the show was not always clear, and Oz has recommended homeopathy, alternative medicine and other treatments that critics have called “pseudoscience”.

So what's the up and down on Tucker Carlson. Where will he end up?

[pattylt]

I think Tucker made some very unflattering statements about Trump off air but reported. This was a while ago so maybe he’s kissed his ass enough to be forgiven? Trump seems to hold some grudges for a long time and others he forgets about in a day. It may depend if Trump wants to allow Tucker into the new billionaire’s government party or not.

[epronovost]

Trans-gender issues are important.  People should have right to live in the body they feel "right" in.  I don't quite understand myself that but I'm willing to grant it.  But I object to former males playing women's sports.  There is a limit to how much change there can be and you can't change basic genetics.

Perhaps you should apply your own council fully. If you don't understand transgender people or even how sexual dimorphism actually works and it's impact on the body and performance of athletes, maybe you should leave it to people actually understand those issues better and are actually really concerned about it. Let sporting bodies come with their own rules and regulation and trust them when it comes down to integration or not. Also, I'd like to note that if it's fair for transwomen to compete with cisgender women, then it's fair for them to win said competition too. Too often people accept transwomen in women's competition only if they lose them and question their right to participate if they so happen to win. I'd also note that transphobia has completely infected this debate with cisgender women becoming victim to it like the famous case of Iman Khelif in the last Olympics.

PS: Considering all of Mexico and Central and South American countries as of "one culture" is a rather racist take. It's not because they share Spanish as a language (and even then, Haitian speak mostly French of creole) that they are of the same culture. Furthermore, those culture are very close to that of the US in most point; far more than East Asians or Europeans (except perhaps the UK and Ireland) for example.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Fuckface loses one of his bragging points!


https://www.thenation.com/article/politi...-narrowed/

Donald Trump Has Not Won a Majority of the Votes Cast for President

Donald Trump’s popular vote total has fallen below 50 percent, and his margin over Kamala Harris has narrowed considerably as all the votes are counted.

Over the weekend, as California, Oregon, Washington, and other Western states moved closer to completing their counts, Trump’s percentage of the popular vote fell below 50 percent. And his margin of victory looks to be much smaller than initially anticipated. In fact, of all the 59 presidential elections since the nation’s founding, it appears that—after all of the 2024 votes are counted—only five popular vote winners in history will have prevailed by smaller percentage margins than Trump.

Of course Fuckface will instantly call this FAKE NEWS and insist that any votes not for him should never be counted.

Does it matter? I mean, at all?

[Thumpalumpacus]

There may be no Physician more qualified and capable than Dr. Oz to Make America Healthy Again

After he appeared in dozens of Oprah segments, he started The Dr Oz Show, where he doled out health advice to viewers.  But the line between promotion and science on the show was not always clear, and Oz has recommended homeopathy, alternative medicine and other treatments that critics have called “pseudoscience”.

So what's the up and down on Tucker Carlson. Where will he end up?

He's not an appointee, appears to be running for first as a buttsucker, but nothing more. No one, especially a conservative, trusts anyone named Tucker.

[Cavebear]

Trans-gender issues are important.  People should have right to live in the body they feel "right" in.  I don't quite understand myself that but I'm willing to grant it.  But I object to former males playing women's sports.  There is a limit to how much change there can be and you can't change basic genetics.

Perhaps you should apply your own council fully. If you don't understand transgender people or even how sexual dimorphism actually works and it's impact on the body and performance of athletes, maybe you should leave it to people actually understand those issues better and are actually really concerned about it. Let sporting bodies come with their own rules and regulation and trust them when it comes down to integration or not. Also, I'd like to note that if it's fair for transwomen to compete with cisgender women, then it's fair for them to win said competition too. Too often people accept transwomen in women's competition only if they lose them and question their right to participate if they so happen to win. I'd also note that transphobia has completely infected this debate with cisgender women becoming victim to it like the famous case of Iman Khelif in the last Olympics.

PS: Considering all of Mexico and Central and South American countries as of "one culture" is a rather racist take. It's not because they share Spanish as a language (and even then, Haitian speak mostly French of creole) that they are of the same culture. Furthermore, those culture are very close to that of the US in most point; far more than East Asians or Europeans (except perhaps the UK and Ireland) for example.

OK. Transgender is partly about appearence and partly about internal self-image. I agree that physical changes can be done surgically and through hormonal adjustments. I said previously that I do not object to that. I agree that people should be allowed to live in the self-image they choose. That doesn't bother me.

But I do object to transgenders competing with cisgenders. Not all the surgery and drugs in the world will (currently) make a former male a full female. The body is still mostly the same. A trans female is not going to become pregnant no matter what surgeons do (yet). A trans male is not going to impregnate a cis female.

Neither is going to be what they fully desire. A trans female is still going to have both XY genes. A trans male is still going to have XX. I think I understand the actuality of genetics pretty well.

You also mentioned "Considering all of Mexico and Central and South American countries as of "one culture" is a rather racist take". I disagree. I know more about colonization than you may realize. I know why Mexico to Tierra Del Fuego speaks Spanish but Brazil speaks Portuguese, for example. I said "one culture" based on the general common language. Which of course has some variations developed over time.

Of course there are differences between Venezuela and Argentina. But those are similar to the US with variations among Eastern/Western/Northen/Southern regions. Massachusetts and Maryland are not the same as Kansas and Idaho either. While there are local differences, the general language/culture of non-Brazilian South and Central America is not all that great.

If you would like to discuss colonization, languages, and cultures, please start a new thread. I will be glad to participate.

[Deesse23]

PS: Considering all of Mexico and Central and South American countries as of "one culture" is a rather racist take. It's not because they share Spanish as a language (and even then, Haitian speak mostly French of creole) that they are of the same culture.

*cough* Brazil/portugese *cough*
South America has 440mio people, Brazil has 220, thats 50%.

I was in Spain, and i was in Portugal. Try and tell them they are the same. Good luck with that.

[Mathilda]

Trans-gender issues are important.  People should have right to live in the body they feel "right" in.  I don't quite understand myself that but I'm willing to grant it.  But I object to former males playing women's sports.  There is a limit to how much change there can be and you can't change basic genetics.

Perhaps you should apply your own council fully. If you don't understand transgender people or even how sexual dimorphism actually works and it's impact on the body and performance of athletes, maybe you should leave it to people actually understand those issues better and are actually really concerned about it. Let sporting bodies come with their own rules and regulation and trust them when it comes down to integration or not. Also, I'd like to note that if it's fair for transwomen to compete with cisgender women, then it's fair for them to win said competition too. Too often people accept transwomen in women's competition only if they lose them and question their right to participate if they so happen to win. I'd also note that transphobia has completely infected this debate with cisgender women becoming victim to it like the famous case of Iman Khelif in the last Olympics.

Also trans women have been allowed to compete in the Olympics for over 20 years and there have been no significant wins, far below average considering the ratio of trans to cis women. The whole debate about banning trans women from sport is not about fairness but about normalising banning trans people from public life. It focuses on competitions but when regulations are brought in bans women from all grass root sports as well. Why shouldn't trans people be allowed to say healthy and integrate in society? All the arguments transphobes use that sound plausible and intuitive is actually wrong and not backed up by evidence. This is because their arguments are based on comparing cisgender men with cisgender women.

I used to agree that sporting bodies should follow the science and bring in their own regulations but they can no longer be trusted to do that. Transphobes have managed or are attempting to ban trans women from many sports for the flimsiest of reasons (e.g. chess, darts, pool etc)

The motivation is not fairness but segregation from public life and the eventual elimination of trans people. And sex testing ultimately negativly affects far more cisgender women and girls than it does any transgender person. It's about policing women's bodies.

[Mathilda]

But I do object to transgenders competing with cisgenders.  Not all the surgery and drugs in the world will (currently) make a former male a full female.  The body is still mostly the same.  A trans female is not going to become pregnant no matter what surgeons do (yet).  A trans male is not going to impregnate a cis female.

I was not aware that breeding was a sport.

You're thinking of trans people who have transitioned later in life and who are unlucky to be visibly trans, or people early in their transition or non-binary people. All the attack ads put out by the Republicans are only going to show the least conventionally attractive trans people. In reality you've probably met many trans people and not even realised it.

Why does it matter to you if a trans person plays sport in some local game somewhere? Because that's ultimately what these bans are for. And if you're own concerned with professional sports at an international level then why should that matter either? It's a form of entertainment to generate money. None of it means anything. Everyone that competes at an international level is a freak in some way. And if your concern is that trans people will dominate the sport then why hasn't this happened in the many decades that trans people have been allowed to compete but failed to win?

Neither is going to be what they fully desire.  A trans female is still going to have both XY genes.  A trans male is still going to have XX.  I think I understand the actuality of genetics pretty well.

Actually you don't. Many people aren't XX or XY and don't even realise it, especially trans people who are more likely to be some form of intersex. Your genes don't determine everything about you, they're just instructions for your body. HRT can send your body down a different sex development pathway, literally changing your sex at a fundamental level.

[Cavebear]

But I do object to transgenders competing with cisgenders.  Not all the surgery and drugs in the world will (currently) make a former male a full female.  The body is still mostly the same.  A trans female is not going to become pregnant no matter what surgeons do (yet).  A trans male is not going to impregnate a cis female.

I was not aware that breeding was a sport.

You're thinking of trans people who have transitioned later in life and who are unlucky to be visibly trans, or people early in their transition or non-binary people. All the attack ads put out by the Republicans are only going to show the least conventionally attractive trans people. In reality you've probably met many trans people and not even realised it.

Why does it matter to you if a trans person plays sport in some local game somewhere? Because that's ultimately what these bans are for. And if you're own concerned with professional sports at an international level then why should that matter either? It's a form of entertainment to generate money. None of it means anything. Everyone that competes at an international level is a freak in some way. And if your concern is that trans people will dominate the sport then why hasn't this happened in the many decades that trans people have been allowed to compete but failed to win?

Neither is going to be what they fully desire.  A trans female is still going to have both XY genes.  A trans male is still going to have XX.  I think I understand the actuality of genetics pretty well.

Actually you don't. Many people aren't XX or XY and don't even realise it, especially trans people who are more likely to be some form of intersex. Your genes don't determine everything about you, they're just instructions for your body. HRT can send your body down a different sex development pathway, literally changing your sex at a fundamental level.

*Sigh*. When I try to keep things basic, I'm accused of not understanding. If I want to get detailed, it just takes too long to explain. I know about XXY. I know about XYY. As I best understand it (and how it is explained on some sites discussing transgender in a positive way) it is more about how you feel. So that is fine with me.

But my point is that whatever transgender operations and medications you take, there is still going to be some basic limitation to being what you want. No male to female and no female to male is going to be completely what they wish for. HRT can only do so much.

Please keep in mind that I am not against anyone struggling with gender identity. I just know the limitations of current medicine...

[SYZ]

... Did Australia have something comparable for their end?  I can’t imagine declaring the US president can change the rules but Australia can’t?

Australia and the US are long-term trade and investment
partners, conducting US$77 billion in two-way trade and
an investment relationship valued at US$1.6 trillion, making
the US Australia’s largest economic partner. Approximately
25% of Australia’s inward foreign investment is from the
US (US$740 billion or AUD$1.09 trillion).

Australia’s largest exports to the US are financial services,
gold, sheep and goat(!) meat, transportation services and
vaccines.  The largest US exports to Australia include financial
services, travel services, telecoms/computer/information
services, royalties and trucks.

More than 97% of Australia's non-agricultural exports to the
US—excluding textiles and clothing (or "yarn forward") —are
tariff free, and 75% of agricultural tariff lines have been eliminated.

   I doubt that Australia would initiate any changes to the joint
   Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement, regardless of
   what the orange buffoon will or won't do.

[Cavebear]

Perhaps you should apply your own council fully. If you don't understand transgender people or even how sexual dimorphism actually works and it's impact on the body and performance of athletes, maybe you should leave it to people actually understand those issues better and are actually really concerned about it. Let sporting bodies come with their own rules and regulation and trust them when it comes down to integration or not. Also, I'd like to note that if it's fair for transwomen to compete with cisgender women, then it's fair for them to win said competition too. Too often people accept transwomen in women's competition only if they lose them and question their right to participate if they so happen to win. I'd also note that transphobia has completely infected this debate with cisgender women becoming victim to it like the famous case of Iman Khelif in the last Olympics.

Also trans women have been allowed to compete in the Olympics for over 20 years and there have been no significant wins, far below average considering the ratio of trans to cis women. The whole debate about banning trans women from sport is not about fairness but about normalising banning trans people from public life. It focuses on competitions but when regulations are brought in bans women from all grass root sports as well. Why shouldn't trans people be allowed to say healthy and integrate in society? All the arguments transphobes use that sound plausible and intuitive is actually wrong and not backed up by evidence. This is because their arguments are based on comparing cisgender men with cisgender women.

I used to agree that sporting bodies should follow the science and bring in their own regulations but they can no longer be trusted to do that. Transphobes have managed or are attempting to ban trans women from many sports for the flimsiest of reasons (e.g. chess, darts, pool etc)

The motivation is not fairness but segregation from public life and the eventual elimination of trans people. And sex testing ultimately negativly affects far more cisgender women and girls than it does any transgender person. It's about policing women's bodies.

This does get so damn complicated. I want fairness. There is a reason that cis women have their own competions. In most cases strength matters and it is unfair for the women to have to compete against men (or former men) at those. Women excel at some skills, men at others. And never the two should quite meet (yet).

Can you imagine a trans woman doing the balance beam? Oppositely, can you imagine a trans male competing at wrestling? I'm talking about at the highest levels where the differences really show.

1998 Serena Williams played an exhibition match and lost to the 203rd-ranked male player. It just goes that way sometimes. So I am very cautious about "male/female skills". If even trans females play in cis women's sports, what happens if an all trans team plays in the women's NCAA tournament. I'm not making light of this. Someone will try it. What happens then?

I'll be honest here. A talented woman boxer could probably beat the absolute crap out of me. If I joined some skilled women at basketball, they would just laugh. But if I boxed (with little skills) with a moderately skilled woman, I would probably win anyway.

So I want to allow guys to compete against each other and women to have the same right among themselves. I really don't know what to do for trans people who want athletic competition, but I am very sure that mixing them in sports with their previous physical existence is probably not a good thing.

[SYZ]

... HRT can send your body down a different sex development pathway, literally changing your sex at a fundamental level.

As I understand it, there are numerous variables in transitioning,
many psychological. Research suggests that HRT is not responsible
for any change in attraction (asexuality aside because that factors
increases/decreases in libido—whereas a change from straight to
gay or bisexual or whatever typically doesn't factor in libido changes).

HRT is a major part of transitioning but it's not the only part. Plenty
of people who transition and note a change in orientation do so before
ever having commenced HRT.

This, again, points to the change happening without HRT being a factor.
Researchers don't know the specific cause, but have enough data to
say it's not HRT causing the change.

[SYZ]

I know this subject is a bit off-topic (but it does have a loose
connection with Donald Trump's negative transgender opinions).

I do not and will not describe myself as "cisgender".  It's a nonsense
term.  I am a heterosexual male.  End of story.

Cisgender (also styled as cisgendered and often shortened to cis)
describes someone whose internal sense of gender corresponds
with the sex the person was identified as having at birth.

The term "cisgender" was coined in 1994 in a Usenet newsgroup
about transgender topics as Dana Defosse, then a graduate student,
sought a way to refer to non-transgender people that avoided
marginalizing transgender people or implying that transgender
people were an other, or abnormal.

She explained why she chose "cis":  atoms grouped on the same
side of a molecule are labelled with the Latin prefix cis-—while
molecules with atoms grouped on opposite sides are referred to
as trans–.

("cis" literally means on the same side)

    What an absurd, modern etymology.     

[epronovost]

But my point is that whatever transgender operations and medications you take, there is still going to be some basic limitation to being what you want.  No male to female and no female to male is going to be completely what they wish for.  HRT can only do so much.

It doesn't need when it comes down to athletic competition either; as pointed out before transgender women have been competing against cisgender women in a variety of sporting events and somehow it's only a problem when they win them... how strange. One would assume that in a fair competition all competitors are allowed to win, but I have yet to see a competition where a transgender woman win and people say that it's fair. Fuck, we are now at a point where when a woman wins too much or in a too decisive manner, she gets the pleasure of being mocked or even seriously accused of being transgender or intersex like Iman Khelif of the Williams sisters for example.

PS: If you think Argentinians and Venezuelans are as culturally similar as people from Massachusetts vs people from Alabama vs people from California, I'm afraid you know very little about the history of South America, Argentinians and Venezuelans too.

[Mathilda]

... HRT can send your body down a different sex development pathway, literally changing your sex at a fundamental level.

As I understand it, there are numerous variables in transitioning,
many psychological. Research suggests that HRT is not responsible
for any change in attraction (asexuality aside because that factors
increases/decreases in libido—whereas a change from straight to
gay or bisexual or whatever typically doesn't factor in libido changes).

You're confusing gender identity with sexuality. The two are independent of each other.

Both are inherent to who and what you are from an early age even if they aren't immediately realised.

HRT is a major part of transitioning but it's not the only part. Plenty
of people who transition and note a change in orientation do so before
ever having commenced HRT.

This, again, points to the change happening without HRT being a factor.
Researchers don't know the specific cause, but have enough data to
say it's not HRT causing the change.

What changes are you specifically referring to?

[Mathilda]

I do not and will not describe myself as "cisgender".  It's a nonsense
term.  I am a heterosexual male.  End of story.

People used the exact same argument about being labelled as heterosexual. They'd say, I'm not heterosexual, I'm normal. The implication being that being homosexual was abnormal and not a merely natural part of human diversity in the same way that being trans is. Transphobia is just recycled homophobia.

Cisgender (also styled as cisgendered and often shortened to cis)
describes someone whose internal sense of gender corresponds
with the sex the person was identified as having at birth.

The term "cisgender" was coined in 1994 in a Usenet newsgroup
about transgender topics as Dana Defosse, then a graduate student,
sought a way to refer to non-transgender people that avoided
marginalizing transgender people or implying that transgender
people were an other, or abnormal.

She explained why she chose "cis":  atoms grouped on the same
side of a molecule are labelled with the Latin prefix cis-—while
molecules with atoms grouped on opposite sides are referred to
as trans–.

("cis" literally means on the same side)

    What an absurd, modern etymology.     

You're argument then must also apply to the term transgender as well then. But then we wouldn't have language to differentiate between people who feel or have felt the need to transition and those who don't. So what term do you think would be an improvement upon trans- or cis- gender?

How about Transsexual / cissexual? Actually some trans people think that would be an improvement because it's not the gender that's changed but the physical sex. The problem with this though is that it gets conflated with sexuality and sexual attraction. But as your previous post shows, this happens anyway with cissexuals as they often struggle with the concept of a gender identity or gender dysphoria. Not that if doesn't apply to them as well but because it has become so normalised in society these terms aren't required. In the same way transphobia is a relatively new term because it used to be so ubiquitous that it was hard to imagine anything else. But cissexuals do indeed experience gender dysphoria and receive gender affirming case as well, it's just not recognised as such by them.

Language has evolved and it allows people to better describe and understand themselves. What's absurd about that?