Sex is not just hormones or genitalia. It goes to the cellular level.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

 

 

[Mikey 16,575]

Quoting from above: " your sex is what your sex is, not what you want your sex to be. "  That's kinda' what I've always thought. I do have sympathy for those who feel they are in a 'wrong" body. If someone wants to call me a heartless idiot that knows absolutely nothing about this subject they'd probably be close to the truth.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Something that drives me crazy about all of these kinds of debates is how it's cast as such a black/white issue.  You either fully embrace the paradigm of trans activists and affirm that trans women are actual women, that women can have penises and men can have vaginas and birth children, etc., or you hate trans people and are a bigot.  No one will acknowledge that you can have compassion and empathy for people experiencing gender dysphoria, that you can care about and love people going through it while not being willing to submit to things that obviously discard basic common sense. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

It was either Bamagrad or the GeorgiaFan (cant remember his screen name anymore) that once said about homosexuals that "you either celebrate that they are gay or you must be a homophobe and a hater. You cannot amicably disagree nor not fully support them without being called a homophobe and a hater."  

Unfortunately, this is true. We have the SJW types that now demand total capitulance to THEIR ideas or you are a homophobe, gender-phobe, Islamaphobe, phobe-of-phobe.

To be truly Liberal is to be able to see the COMPLETE spectrum of thought, not to DEMAND acceptance of only one vision of what should be. 

+100 for the cajones to even put this out there on this forum.

[homersapien 11,362]

http://www.meddean.luc.edu/Lumen/Meded/urology/hrmphdt.htm

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncpuro0028

[homersapien 11,362]

32 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

ITo be truly Liberal is to be able to see the COMPLETE spectrum of thought, not to DEMAND acceptance of only one vision of what should be. 

 

What a straw man argument. 

And very revealing.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

http://www.meddean.luc.edu/Lumen/Meded/urology/hrmphdt.htm

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncpuro0028

 

[homersapien 11,362]

https://www.whatisepigenetics.com/what-is-epigenetics/

[homersapien 11,362]

27 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

 

"Sometimes nature has errors in development..."

That's a loaded comment, to say the least.

[AUDub 11,147]

25 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

 

Intersex conditions help reveal how muddy the waters can be. 

It’s not as simple as having a male set of genes and a female set of genes that are uniformly and universally working in a predictable way in every brain. Biology, psychology, human growth and development, are extremely muddled. A lot of people don't like that. They want it to be a simple, clean "XX=woman, XY=man," but it doesn't work that way. It never has. 

If reducing every individual to the nature of their gametes was the case, the idea of a binary would be ironclad, but that's not how it works. 

[AUDub 11,147]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

"Sometimes nature has errors in development..."

That's a loaded comment, to say the least.

The author of that TERFy screed may have an MD, but there's a lot of Dunning-Kruger floating around in her words. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Just now, AUDub said:

Intersex conditions help reveal how muddy the waters can be. 

It’s not as simple as having a male set of genes and a female set of genes that are uniformly and universally working in a predictable way in every brain. Biology, psychology, human growth and development, are extremely muddled. A lot of people don't like that. They want it to be a simple, clean "XX=woman, XY=man," but it doesn't work that way. It never has. 

If reducing every individual to the nature of their gametes was the case, the idea of a binary would be ironclad, but that's not how it works. 

But it also reveals just how far some are willing to bend things to create this notion that sex is just what someone subjectively feels and that the rest of the world should orient their entire understanding and vocabulary around said feelings.  When we see birth defects or conditions in other ways, such as Trisomy 11, we don't suggest that the person is some new species or non-human.  We don't toss out the entire paradigm of what it means to be biologically human.  

What the pseudoscience of transgenderism wishes us to do is to take rare abnormalities and expand them into a complete re-structuring of our understanding of the sexes.  They wish us to extrapolate intersex conditions into an acceptance of believing that perfectly normal male and female humans with perfectly normal chromosomes and perfectly functional genitalia and reproductive organs are to be seen as actually the opposite sex from what all those factors say they are, on the basis of what someone feels and believes.  

And to be clear, we aren't saying that if someone wishes to dress, style themselves, change their name and so on to live as the opposite sex that they can't do that in their private lives.  I don't give two hoots what they want to do and what their friends and family agree to as far as pronouns, names and such.  But when they want society and everyone in it to join them in the reality they've created for themselves, I draw the line.

[homersapien 11,362]

26 minutes ago, AUDub said:

The author of that TERFy screed may have an MD, but there's a lot of Dunning-Kruger floating around in her words. 

Deciding what constitutes a natural "mistake" is a proposition loaded with philosophical implications. We've seen this sort of attitude all too often in our past.  It's dangerously authoritarian.

[homersapien 11,362]

22 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

But it also reveals just how far some are willing to bend things to create this notion that sex is just what someone subjectively feels and that the rest of the world should orient their entire understanding and vocabulary around said feelings.  When we see birth defects or conditions in other ways, such as Trisomy 11, we don't suggest that the person is some new species or non-human.  We don't toss out the entire paradigm of what it means to be biologically human.  

What the pseudoscience of transgenderism wishes us to do is to take rare abnormalities and expand them into a complete re-structuring of our understanding of the sexes.  They wish us to extrapolate intersex conditions into an acceptance of believing that perfectly normal male and female humans with perfectly normal chromosomes and perfectly functional genitalia and reproductive organs are to be seen as actually the opposite sex from what all those factors say they are, on the basis of what someone feels and believes.  

And to be clear, we aren't saying that if someone wishes to dress, style themselves, change their name and so on to live as the opposite sex that they can't do that in their private lives.  I don't give two hoots what they want to do and what their friends and family agree to as far as pronouns, names and such.  But when they want society and everyone in it to join them in the reality they've created for themselves, I draw the line.

This is a false narrative.  There is nothing about "them" that represents a serious threat to you or anyone else.   You are better than this Titan.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

56 minutes ago, homersapien said:

This is a false narrative.  There is nothing about "them" that represents a serious threat toyou or anyone else.   You are better than this Titan.

If it was just a matter of their private lives, then I would agree with you.  A man who chooses to wear dresses and makeup, have long hair, call himself Jessica, and gets his friends and family to agree to refer to him with feminine pronouns and such doesn't affect me.  

But you and me both know that's not what is happening or demanded of us.  There are people in this country and other Western nations whose jobs have been lost or threatened because they won't join in the charade of calling someone something they aren't or won't affirm the "scientific" certainty of transgenderism.  There are some countries that are writing the failure to comply with the new views and such as hate crimes.  

Just this weekend I saw another instance of a trans girl who slaughtered the field in a girl's high school wrestling tournament because "she" is actually a boy with all the size and muscle advantages you'd expect.  And when coaches or parents point out the obvious unfairness of allowing such a "girl" to compete with biological girls (not to mention its deleterious effects on girls' sports in general; , they're dismissed as backwards bigots - scarcely better than a Southern racist from the 1950s.

This does affect other people.  It's not just a private matter.  

[Mims44 1,867]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Deciding what constitutes a natural "mistake" is a proposition loaded with philosophical implications. We've seen this sort of attitude all too often in our past.  It's dangerously authoritarian.

well...

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

This is a false narrative.  There is nothing about "them" that represents a serious threat to you or anyone else.   You are better than this Titan.

Deciding what constitutes a "serious threat" is a proposition loaded with philosophical implications. We've seen this sort of attitude all too often in our past.  It's dangerously authoritarian.

[homersapien 11,362]

52 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

If it was just a matter of their private lives, then I would agree with you.  A man who chooses to wear dresses and makeup, have long hair, call himself Jessica, and gets his friends and family to agree to refer to him with feminine pronouns and such doesn't affect me.  

But you and me both know that's not what is happening or demanded of us.  There are people in this country and other Western nations whose jobs have been lost or threatened because they won't join in the charade of calling someone something they aren't or won't affirm the "scientific" certainty of transgenderism.  There are some countries that are writing the failure to comply with the new views and such as hate crimes.  

Just this weekend I saw another instance of a trans girl who slaughtered the field in a girl's high school wrestling tournament because "she" is actually a boy with all the size and muscle advantages you'd expect.  And when coaches or parents point out the obvious unfairness of allowing such a "girl" to compete with biological girls (not to mention its deleterious effects on girls' sports in general; , they're dismissed as backwards bigots - scarcely better than a Southern racist from the 1950s.

This does affect other people.  It's not just a private matter.  

Well, here's a case of a transgender male being forced to compete in the girls division because he was declared female at birth and Texas has a "birth certificate" rule, so I guess that's a problem than can cut both ways.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/25/transgender-wrestler-mack-beggs-wins-texas-girls-title

Regardless, I don't feel like anyone is making "demands" of me nor do I feel like this issue as a whole is a problem desperately in need of legal remedies. 

 

[homersapien 11,362]

57 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

well...

Deciding what constitutes a "serious threat" is a proposition loaded with philosophical implications. We've seen this sort of attitude all too often in our past.  It's dangerously authoritarian.

Correct.  It was particularly common during the period of racial apartheid.  And we are seeing it today in the way Trump demagogues immigration.

The issue here is less philosophical than it is one of rational vs. irrational fear.  And that doesn't mean it's inherently "authoritarian" but playing on irrational fear is a major tool of authoritarians.

Regardless, I don't see the analogy to declaring a particular result of a natural process - genetic and epigenetic determination - as a "mistake".  Hell, the expression of genetic mutation is the basis of evolution.  One might as well declare God made a mistake.

So, the philosophical question here is (1) what constitutes a "mistake" given the nature of the process,  as well as (2) the question of standing - who are you to make such a judgement?

(Of course, I see what you were trying to do, but putting your gambit over logic handicapped you. )

[Mims44 1,867]

18 hours ago, homersapien said:

So, the philosophical question here is (1) what constitutes a "mistake" given the nature of the process,  as well as (2) the question of standing - who are you to make such a judgement?

(Of course, I see what you were trying to do, but putting your gambit over logic handicapped you. )

Well, after being intentionally dense for the start of that post, you hit it on the head again.

My point was to merely point out the hypocrisy of calling someones genetic differences a mistake being wrong citing the "Who are you" thought, and in the next breath deciding what constitutes a serious threat for every individual.

 

 

IE:

19 hours ago, homersapien said:

This is a false narrative.  There is nothing about "them" that represents a serious threat to you or anyone else.   You are better than this Titan.

 Homer would ask this poster, Who are you to make such a judgement?

[Mims44 1,867]

20 hours ago, homersapien said:

Deciding what constitutes a natural "mistake" is a proposition loaded with philosophical implications. We've seen this sort of attitude all too often in our past.  It's dangerously authoritarian.

To switch to a new point from above....

declaring something a "mistake" is merely an opinion and is not inherently bad. Seeing people who have differences as "lesser thans" or deserving of less freedoms or rights because they have something "wrong" with them is the problem. After all, you could easily apply this train of thought to many others such as;

You could easily make the argument that a man with low mobility sperm is a genetic mistake, same with ED, or a woman with a tilted or inverted uterus. A man or woman attracted to the same sex...etc etc

[homersapien 11,362]

1 hour ago, Mims44 said:

Well, after being intentionally dense for the start of that post, you hit it on the head again.

 

I am never intentionally dense.  I do sometimes overestimate my audience though.

[homersapien 11,362]

6 hours ago, Mims44 said:

My point was to merely point out the hypocrisy of calling someones genetic differences a mistake being wrong citing the "Who are you" thought, and in the next breath deciding what constitutes a serious threat for every individual.

IE:

 Homer would ask this poster, Who are you to make such a judgement?

BS.  There is no equivalence between declaring someone's genetic outcome as a mistake and expressing an opinion that transexuals do not constitute a serious threat.  The former is an objective result of nature, the latter relates to emotions (fear).

You are really stretching.

But if it satisfies you, it's all technically just opinion.  The former is more philosophical while the other is based in rationality (common sense.)

[Grumps 3,704]

It is pretty interesting that on this issue science isn't regarded to be as reliable as it is in other situations.

[DKW 86 7,419]

One of my daughter's competitive dance team members is in the process of going from female to male. Ash/Ashley had always been a violent or ugly child to deal with. She thru a cell phone at her mom from about 2 feet away that smacked her mom in the face. I was about to go to jail before getting my emotions in check. If my child had done that to my wife,  i would have smacked the teeth out of their head. Ash was this way for years. As soon as she got away from home, she announced she was lesbian and now has morphed with surgery into what looks, appears, and is said to be a likable, affable male. If i shared the pics, you would never know. 

The parents, they are one of my mercy cases. We saw each other at a parade downtown a while back. I talked with both of them for about 90 minutes. We talked about everything BUT Ash. They looked so relieved to just not have to deal with the transformation. It was a great day for me and them. As for Ash, I cant say that it wasnt overall positive. A lot of heartache for all involved no doubt, but they seem to be happier now. (Granted i know minimally of the home life and she lives hours away now.) 

I wouldnt wish all this on anyone, but...I know how absolutely unhappy Ash was before. Lashing out violent, so violent I almost got between her and her mom. I dont know, this is all over my paygrade. I will say this. I dont think parents should be making decisions for their kids. I think the kids should be left as they are until after 18. Even as ugly as it was, I dont think Ash was in their right mind in High School...Making a decision then could be the worst of all worlds.