Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Richard Dawkins takes a risk: Sex is binary

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Gotta hand it to him: This is pretty risky in the age of non-binary. Harry Potter author J. K Rowlings got cancelled for saying that being a woman matters: And so now:

The Sunday Times condensed my words into the headline that I have adopted for this piece: Race is a spectrum. Sex is pretty damn binary. Unlike my wombat conjecture, this point really is childishly obvious. When a female and a male mate, each offspring is either female or male, extremely seldom a hermaphrodite or intersex of any kind. [2] Arusha really was a cow, not a half-way bull. But her intermediate colouring made us suspect that this “pedigree Jersey” was actually half Ayrshire—an artificial insemination screw-up. When two people of different races mate, their offspring is of mixed race and this shows itself in many ways, including skin colour. After generations of intermarriage, beginning with the exploitation of enslaved women and girls, African Americans constitute a rich spectrum such that some individuals, when required to tick the “race or ethnicity” box on official forms, might justifiably feel free to “identify as” whatever they choose.

Meghan (née Markle), Duchess of Sussex

The Duchess of Sussex identifies as “mixed race” but is frequently referred to in the press as black. Barack Obama sees himself (and is commonly described) as black although, having one white parent, he might equally well tick the white box. The “one-drop rule,” once enshrined in the laws of some segregationist states, asserted that one drop of African “blood” was enough to make a person count as black—thus making blackness the cultural equivalent of a genetic dominant. It never worked in reverse, and it still exerts a powerful hold on American discourse—while “African Americans” actually run a smooth gamut from those of pure African descent to those with perhaps one African great great grandparent. Were race not a spectrum, Rachel Dolezal’s critics should have spotted that she wasn’t “really” black, simply by taking one look at her. It’s precisely because black Americans are a spectrum that it wasn’t obvious. With negligible exceptions, on the other hand, you can unwaveringly identify a person’s sex at a glance, especially if they remove their clothes. Sex is pretty damn binary.

Richard Dawkins, “Race Is a Spectrum. Sex Is Pretty Damn Binary.” at Areo Magazine (January 5, 2022)

Dawkins is walking a road here. He’s interfering with a scam. Where people get rights or don’t get them based on “race” or claims about non-binary sex. Better wish him luck.

Comments
>So, even if transgender or same-sex attraction are “incurable disorders”, shouldn’t society do what it can to make their lives as happy and meaningful as possible? To a point, yes. I'd say that point should be where it starts negatively impacting the future for the whole of us. And of course that debate also continues with no end in sight.EDTA
January 8, 2022
January
01
Jan
8
08
2022
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
Sex is binary, except when it isn’t. There are at least SIX biological sexes, going by genetics:
True. But as EDTA has pointed out, they do not form a spectrum or a gradation. There are two roughly equally sized and very large modes (XX and XY) with an additional four very small modes.Joe Schooner
January 8, 2022
January
01
Jan
8
08
2022
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT
Sex is binary, except when it isn't. There are at least SIX biological sexes, going by genetics: X XX XXY XY XYY XXXYET
January 8, 2022
January
01
Jan
8
08
2022
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
EDTA@47. You have a very good point that gender identity is not a spectrum like autism is. There are two major modes, where people identify with their binary biological sex, and a very small proportion (~<1%) who do not identify with their biological sex. The same is true of sexual attraction. But you could also say the same about people who are paralyzed, who are blind, who are deaf, who are severely mentally handicapped (they are a very small percentage of the population). And people and governments spend billions in attempts to make their lives as happy and meaningful as possible. Wheelchair accessible buildings and bathrooms. Audible crosswalks. Textured edges to train platforms. Closed captioning. You don’t hear many people complain about these additional expenses just to accommodate a low percentage of the population. So, even if transgender or same-sex attraction are “incurable disorders”, shouldn’t society do what it can to make their lives as happy and meaningful as possible?Joe Schooner
January 8, 2022
January
01
Jan
8
08
2022
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
If you were caucasian, and were transported to the US Deep South in, say, 1949, would you be an anti-black racist?
If I were transported to the 1949 Deep South I would have the moral values I have now so I would be anti-racist. Or, at least, as anti-racist as I am now. However, if I were born in the Deep South in 1878 (being my current age in 1949), I would like to think that I would be anti-racist. But, depending on my upbringing, I might just as easily be an ant-black racist.Joe Schooner
January 8, 2022
January
01
Jan
8
08
2022
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
JS, >Subjective moral values, not relativism. But, whatever....Did you read what you wrote? In the past there were behaviors that were considered morally acceptable that today we would not. Yes, in _practice_, morality does vary over time, and across societies. I don't think anyone is arguing that unless I've misunderstood. The more important question is what we say about them in retrospect. Maybe this question will clarify things: If you were caucasian, and were transported to the US Deep South in, say, 1949, would you be an anti-black racist? You can't (easily) say, "No, because rasicm is wrong." You'd really put your foot into a trap with that statement, because you'd be making a moral assertion across a span of time when societal attitudes changed. I am curious how you will answer.EDTA
January 8, 2022
January
01
Jan
8
08
2022
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
It has been a while since we jumped into this debate with both feet! Let's go! From Sev, quoting Novella, "In both cases the first thing we must realize is to avoid the false dichotomy as sex and gender occur along a spectrum, and are not binary." In fairness, he does later mention in passing that the vast majority take exactly one of the main two biological and societal pathways. But when non-scholars speak on this subject, they always leave out the fact that the proportion taking a main path is significantly larger than those taking a side-path--orders of magnitude larger. It is extremely misleading to say that something is a "spectrum", which to the untrained in statistical thinking, carries the strong connotation of a uniform distribution. I hate to do this, but I have to agree with Jerry Coyne when he said that sex is bimodal: It's a distribution with two huge humps, one for females and one for males. The misleading way of stating things is over-used and over-emphasized in a willful attempt to mislead. In other words, the dichotomy is real. It's not false. A statistical minority of exceptions does not ruin a useful dichotomy. Continuing with the physical/biological/sex angle only (not gender): The first question to ask is one that I never hear asked, so here goes (and flame away!): Given that a small minority are biologically outside the two main sexes, it is already the case they they did not develop as chemistry/biology/evolution intended. Biology clearly intends one of the two main paths. Anything outside those is maladaptive; that's basic evolution. As a result, do we know that it is even possible for them to find the same degree of happiness as the rest? Someone born without a standard set of limbs isn't going to be capable of being as happy as the rest of us. (And they may not be permitted to drive a vehicle, enter the military, etc.) So why would we assume that those on a non-binary developmental path are capable of being 100% as happy in life as the rest of us? If they cannot achieve identical life satisfaction due to biological differences, then that fact should alter our approach. The second question follows directly from the first: To what extent should we refashion society to try to equalize the happiness of those not on the two main developmental paths, given that it comes at the expense of the rest? Of course, the first response here will be "It doesn't diminish the happiness of those on the two main paths. Why does the existence of something like same-sex marriage harm your marriage, you blankety-blank homophobe freedom-in-the-area-of-sex-hating idiot??" We have addressed that question in-depth here many times, but it always seems to need re-emphasis. Society only has so much attention to invest in its institutions, and focus put on a new one (same-sex marriage, e.g.) always necessarily means less placed on another (traditional marriage, e.g.). As a result of diminished focus, marriage today is little more than "extreme dating", with marriages dissolving at a rate not seen in US history (except perhaps right after WWII--war marriages were brittle for other reasons). Children suffer without solid families. I recently read of some research that showed that children from dysfunctional families are more likely to support Hitler-style tyrants as leaders. (Wonderful news that was.) There's a direct impact for you! I could list more reasons, but I figure those who want to flame me are already typing away... Third, ancillary question: Why are we so worried about maximizing/equalizing the emotional state of everyone in the first place? I'll answer that one for you: We in the West are so comfortable that we have slouched to the point of complete hedonism, and emotions are paramount in a hedonistic world. Therefore, we can supposedly afford to focus on something as ephemeral and fleeting as emotions, to the neglect of the real fundamentals of a strong society. And we are neglecting the fundamentals of what makes a strong (i.e., vibrant, democratic etc.) society. (And I'd be happy to lecture everyone on what those fundamentals are, although KF has done a fine job in many other threads.)EDTA
January 8, 2022
January
01
Jan
8
08
2022
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
If boys grow up truly believing men and women are not different, then they see no distinction between hitting a man and hitting a woman.
Why not teach children never to hit anyone. Period.Joe Schooner
January 8, 2022
January
01
Jan
8
08
2022
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
Seversky quotes Novella to encapsulate his views on gender, and, I guess, to support his view that we should radically change society, (see Fasteddious at 20), so as to accommodate gender confused people who want us all to live in their imaginary world of make-believe. Yet why should anyone trust what Darwinists such as Novella, Dawkins, Pinker, or etc.. etc.., themselves have to say about gender, or about anything else in reality, since Darwinists themselves claim that their very own perceptions of reality are not true and trustworthy, but that their very own perceptions of reality are merely illusions, i.e. merely a "constructed representation'?
“the illusion that our brains evolved to have, a very compelling and persistent illusion – namely that the reality we perceive is real, rather than a constructed representation.” – Steven Novella – academic clinical neurologist at Yale University School of Medicine "Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life."? - Richard Dawkins - quoted from "The God Delusion" Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself - Nancy Pearcey - March 8, 2015 Excerpt: Steven Pinker writes, "Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not." The upshot is that survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false. To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion -- and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value. So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself.,,, Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality. The reason so few atheists and materialists seem to recognize the problem is that, like Darwin, they apply their skepticism selectively. They apply it to undercut only ideas they reject, especially ideas about God. They make a tacit exception for their own worldview commitments. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/why_evolutionar094171.html
It seems readily apparent to me that Darwinists, since they themselves claim that they cannot know what is true and real about reality, (and claim that what they perceive is merely a 'constructed representation', an illusion, of reality), should be the very last people in the world to try to offer anyone else advice on how we, as a society, should handle the biologically reality of “Sex is pretty damn binary”.
Genesis 5:2 He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created. Matthew 19:4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’
Of supplemental note, Darwinists, (besides not being able to trust their very own perceptions so as to be able to differentiate what is real from what is illusory), don't even have a realistic clue how sex could have originated in the first place. i.e. "Sex is the QUEEN of evolutionary biology problems."
Sex, the Queen of Problems in Evolutionary Biology - Jonathan McLatchie - July 13, 2011 Excerpt: The origin of sexually reproducing organisms from asexually reproducing ancestors is a profound mystery which has baffled many an evolutionary biologist. The origin and subsequent maintenance of sex and recombination is a phenomenon not easily explained by Darwinian evolution. Indeed, there are several substantive, well-known reasons why the origin of sex presents a serious problem for conventional evolutionary explanations. https://evolutionnews.org/2011/07/spinning_fanciful_tales_about_/ "How did the sexes originate? Why is it that the vast majority of living things require a "male and female" to reproduce? If evolution were true - doesn't it make much more sense that EVERY living organism was self-replicating and required no useless energy expenditure? When did the first male get here? When did the first female get here? How? Why? Wouldn't they have had to appear fully functional and at the same time in order for the next generation of organisms to arrive? Of course, they would. So, how is it that the first male and female for almost 2 million living organisms arrived together and fully functional so that reproduction could take place? "Sex is the QUEEN of evolutionary biology problems." - Dr. Graham Bell - 'The Masterpiece of Nature' The Evolution and Genetics of Sexuality - 1982, - The Masterpiece of Nature examines sex as representative of the most important challenge to the modern theory of evolution.,,, Another whack at the “sex paradox” - July 1, 2014 Excerpt: The article is most informative about tests done on the various theses but in the end (they state). And so the paradox of sex lives on. “We still really don’t know the answer to this very most basic question,” says Mark Welch. “We don’t know why sex exists.” https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/another-whack-at-the-sex-paradox/ Knowledge gap on the origin of sex - May 26, 2017 Excerpt: There are significant gaps in our knowledge on the evolution of sex, according to a research review on sex chromosomes. Even after more than a century of study, researchers do not know enough about the evolution of sex chromosomes to understand how males and females emerge. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170526084533.htm New book challenges sexual selection theory in evolution – May 20, 2018 Excerpt: Darwin’s Secret Sex Problem What Darwin Ignored,,, Darwin never seriously confronted the crucial, insurmountable gap in his grand theory between asexual replication and sexual reproduction. Nor could Darwins famed natural selection have provided simultaneous on-time delivery of the first male/female pair of millions of sexually unique species required for evolutions bedrock premise of common descent, a fundamental flaw fatal to the romanticized microbe-to-man Evolution Story. https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/new-book-challenges-sexual-selection-theory-in-evolution/
bornagain77
January 8, 2022
January
01
Jan
8
08
2022
03:10 AM
3
03
10
AM
PDT
Athletically, biological males will always perform better than biological females. Regardless of surgeries and delusions, the differences remain. Women have compacted internal organs, which makes the lungs smaller. Men have larger rib cages and greater lung capacity, which is why they do better with anything requiring endurance. Different muscle structures mean men are stronger than women.BobRyan
January 8, 2022
January
01
Jan
8
08
2022
01:13 AM
1
01
13
AM
PDT
It used to be, boys were told never to hit girls. Part of teaching boys to be men was ensuring they knew boys were biologically stronger than girls. By telling boys they are no different from girls increases the likelihood of abuse later in life. If boys grow up truly believing men and women are not different, then they see no distinction between hitting a man and hitting a woman.BobRyan
January 8, 2022
January
01
Jan
8
08
2022
01:09 AM
1
01
09
AM
PDT
JS “Your question was answered but you refuse to accept it. “ Because you have not answered my question. You answered a question I did not ask. I did not ask If a person’s behavior causes harm then should the behavior that causes the harm be mitigated. I asked if biological men who think they are women should be allowed to compete in women’s sports.? Do you? Vividvividbleau
January 7, 2022
January
01
Jan
7
07
2022
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT
OK, so society in the US prior to the 60s openly said discrimination on the basis of race was OK. So “society” was right at that time? Relativism leads places you probably don’t want to go.
Subjective moral values, not relativism. But, whatever. Did you read what you wrote? In the past there were behaviors that were considered morally acceptable that today we would not. And today we have moral values that people in the past would find immoral. That definitely looks like the result of subjective moral values. That you find the plasticity of moral values to be repulsive isn’t evidence for objective moral values.Joe Schooner
January 7, 2022
January
01
Jan
7
07
2022
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT
Richard Dawkins takes a risk: Sex is binary
Yes, I would say that sex in the sense of human procreation is binary but, apart from that, it's not quite so simple. I'd say that this blog post from way back in 2013 pretty much encapsulates my views:
Gender – It’s Complicated Published by Steven Novella under Culture and Society A new study by gender researcher, Laurel Westbrook, explores attitudes toward gender determination in various contexts. The issue of gender is interesting partly because it is one of those topics that at first seems fairly straightforward when in fact it is quite complex, not only biologically, but ethically. By now many people are familiar with the distinction between sex and gender, sex referring to biological characteristic relative to male and female, and gender being a social construct relative to masculine and feminine. In both cases the first thing we must realize is to avoid the false dichotomy as sex and gender occur along a spectrum, and are not binary. Sex Biological sex in humans is determined by several factors. Developmentally there are two main factors, genetics and hormonal environment. The system is binary in that there appears to be a female developmental pathway and a male developmental pathway, and most individuals do end up unambiguously toward one end or the other of this axis. However, this developmental scheme can be altered in every conceivable way. The XX (female) and XY (male) chromosomal makeups are not the only possibilities. There are individuals with XXX, X, XXY and other permutations. Even with typical XX and XY chromosomes, sexual development is highly dependent on the relative concentrations of masculinizing (such as testosterone) and feminizing (estrogen) hormones in the womb and in the body as development occurs. There are not only genetic, but epigenetic, and maternal factors that can affect this. There are also specific conditions, such as adrenal hyperplasia, that can result in an increase in masculinizing hormones, resulting in ambiguous genitalia. Biologically there are three aspects of sex – primary sexual characteristics (genitalia and reproductive organs) secondary sexual characteristics (distribution of hair and body fat), and sexual orientation. While these properties tend to segregate together, they also occur in every possible permutation. Sexual orientation is a bit socially controversial, but there is not much scientific debate about the fact that biological factors on the brain have a strong influence on sexual orientation. People, in other words, do not just choose to be heterosexual, homosexual, or somewhere in between, they appear to be born with their orientation. This is not to say that culture and society do not affect behavior, but the evidence suggests that basic sexual desires are hardwired into our brains, and can even be considered a secondary sexual characteristic. […] Gender As complicated as the biology of sex can be, gender is even more complex, in my opinion, because we are dealing with more abstract constructs rather than measurable biological properties. Gender refers to the purely social construct of feminine and masculine. How to dress, behave, adorn oneself, and one’s role in the family and in society are all socially determined, with tremendous variations across different societies and over historical time. Essentially most people self-identify as either a man or a woman, and tend to follow the social norms for that gender. As with sex, however, this is a false dichotomy in that there are transgender individuals who do not adhere to this simple scheme. One thing I find interesting is that different societies tend to tolerate different degrees of bending gender roles. In Western society, at least in the last generation or so, we tend to be more progressive in our attitudes toward gender and gender roles. Men can be “metrosexual” and women can wear business suits and take on traditional male roles in society.
Seversky
January 7, 2022
January
01
Jan
7
07
2022
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT
VB, there is obviously no point in trying to have a discussion with you. Your question was answered but you refuse to accept it. That is your problem.Joe Schooner
January 7, 2022
January
01
Jan
7
07
2022
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT
EDTA “Relativism leads places you probably don’t want to go.” Yeh just observe JS responses. Fun to watch doncha think? Vividvividbleau
January 7, 2022
January
01
Jan
7
07
2022
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT
JS “VB, you obviously have a serious reading comprehension problem. Your question has clearly been answered. If a person’s behavior causes harm then the behavior that causes the harm should be mitigated” Project much? I have documented the harm and the harm is men who think they are women competing in women's sports. I am asking you if men who think they are women should be allowed to compete in women's sports.? You have not answered my question. Hey I understand you wanting to dodge the question, throw up chaff, no one likes to have their hypocrisy exposed. Vividvividbleau
January 7, 2022
January
01
Jan
7
07
2022
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT
EDTA said, “Which side gets to decide whether harm is difficult to detect?” and “Who gets to decide that freedom gets the benefit of doubt?" JS: Society. OK, so society in the US prior to the 60s openly said discrimination on the basis of race was OK. So "society" was right at that time? Relativism leads places you probably don't want to go.EDTA
January 7, 2022
January
01
Jan
7
07
2022
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT
VB, you obviously have a serious reading comprehension problem. Your question has clearly been answered. If a person’s behavior causes harm then the behavior that causes the harm should be mitigated.Joe Schooner
January 7, 2022
January
01
Jan
7
07
2022
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT
JS “What about “Then don’t allow them to compete in women’s sports.” don’t you understand?” And I said I am for that and I am asking you if you are for that. Pretty simple question really, only requires a yes or no. Sorta surprised that a champion for women’s rights just a week ago, one who criticized men for trampling on women’s rights and the society that enabled that behavior can’t give a yes or no answer. Vividvividbleau
January 7, 2022
January
01
Jan
7
07
2022
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT
That’s not an answer. I am against allowing biological men who think they are women competing against biological women because of the harm it perpetrates against women in sports. Let me ask you again are you?
What about “Then don’t allow them to compete in women’s sports.” didn’t you understand? If a person’s behavior causes harm then you mitigate the behavior that causes harm.Joe Schooner
January 7, 2022
January
01
Jan
7
07
2022
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT
JS “Everyone’s rights should be championed.” That’s not an answer. I am against allowing biological men who think they are women competing against biological women because of the harm it perpetrates against women in sports. Let me ask you again are you? Vividvividbleau
January 7, 2022
January
01
Jan
7
07
2022
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT
I’m for that are you? After all you are supposedly a champion for women’s rights.
Everyone’s rights should be championed.Joe Schooner
January 7, 2022
January
01
Jan
7
07
2022
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT
So the questions become, “Which side gets to decide whether harm is difficult to detect?” and “Who gets to decide that freedom gets the benefit of doubt?
Society.Joe Schooner
January 7, 2022
January
01
Jan
7
07
2022
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT
JS “Then don’t allow them to compete in women’s sports.” I’m for that are you? After all you are supposedly a champion for women's rights. Vividvividbleau
January 7, 2022
January
01
Jan
7
07
2022
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT
But it is not difficult to see harm as it relates to women sports.
Then don’t allow them to compete in women’s sports.Joe Schooner
January 7, 2022
January
01
Jan
7
07
2022
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT
JS “If harm is so difficult to detect, perhaps the best course is to assume no harm. “ But it is not difficult to see harm as it relates to women sports. Last week you were championing women’s rights in a conversation with SB and how men historically have denied them rights. Now you are supporting men that are trampling on women and their rights to compete fairly with other women. Watch this is stunning, turn on the audio. https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1470978594256130050?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1470978594256130050%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2Fwatch-heres-what-it-looked-like-when-u-penn-trans-swimmer-destroyed-female-competition Here are more examples https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGduDUGIHgQ Vividvividbleau
January 7, 2022
January
01
Jan
7
07
2022
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT
JS @ 19, I know you see this coming: >"If harm is so difficult to detect, perhaps the best course is to assume no harm. The benefit of the doubt should be in favor of freedom." So the questions become, "Which side gets to decide whether harm is difficult to detect?" and "Who gets to decide that freedom gets the benefit of doubt?"EDTA
January 7, 2022
January
01
Jan
7
07
2022
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT
The other question is, what role does Evolution play in a sudden expansion of genders? Survival advantage? Random mutations? Extinction?
Why ask this? I don’t think anyone here is promoting evolution.Joe Schooner
January 7, 2022
January
01
Jan
7
07
2022
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT
Fast “Transgender people…” Here is where the problem starts, the use of “transgender “ because whoever controls the language controls thoughts. There are no transgender people. There are biological males who think they are women and biological women who think they are men. “They are not free to force the rest of us to accommodate their proclivities…” Yes it’s not enough for biological men or women who think they are women or men ,which is a lie that this transforms them to something they are not,they also demand we must participate in the lie. As an unknown author once said “ In a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act” Welcome to the world of post modernism. Vividvividbleau
January 7, 2022
January
01
Jan
7
07
2022
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply