Mississippi Passes "More Dead Kids Please" bill. Texas responds w/ "hold my beer"

[Emily Lake]

There are large numbers of individuals who are not male or female;

The debate isn’t about intersex people. It’s about biologically male or female children; and the adults who lie that they can swap their sex.

People with disorders of sexual development are still only male or female. None of them are neither. None of them are a third sex.

Well, correct. But the intersex are a whole different category from the rest of us born with no ambiguity.

True, but they're still only male or female, and I'm incredibly tired of hearing activists use people with DSDs as a prop for their flawed propaganda. People with DSDs are irrelevant to discussions of transgender stuff - transgender people do not have DSDs for the most part.

All of the "sex is a spectrum" and "it's hard to determine sex so a perfectly phenotypical and karyotypical male could be a female" is pseudoscience based on magical thinking and rank belief.

 

[Emily Lake]

I don't believe in a magical gendered soul either. I believe in a brain with a connectivity between it's neurons which corresponds to a  Grammar which fairly statically consists a structure and weight of connection which encode for the holder a "gender" which largely informs them of how to operate their bodies, socially position themselves, and that also within that physical configuration is an image of a personal ideal, someone we each strive to be, and that too has something that satisfies zero or more of "he", and "she".

Your belief is exactly that: It is belief which has no basis in reality, no scientific backing, and is patently false.

If your belief were true, then humans would be able to believe themselves into having wings and the ability to fly. They could think themselves into being fish who can breathe underwater.

The neurological aspects of our brains are evolutionarily developed, and are still tied to our somatic and reproductive systems. They're all part and parcel of the same thing. In fact, our brains show the LEAST dimorphism between male and female. Our reproductive systems show the most, and our somatic systems show quite a lot of difference, our brains virtually none.

 

[Emily Lake]

It is well established that our kinesthetic senses are the result of particular brain formations, and the shape of the brain absolutely impacts behavior, qualia, and the behavioral outcome of hormones

PHRENOLOGY FOR THE WIN!

 

[Emily Lake]

he one I chose to concentrate on was the claim of two sexes, when clearly her own premise implies four distinct categories.

In order for there to be four categories, in the fashion you have claimed, the following combinations would need to be viable:

X0, XX, XY, YY, Y0, 00

But sex chromosomes are not codominant. The Y chromosome is dominant, and females do not carry Y chromosomes. It is impossible to have a YY combination - two males cannot reproduce. Similarly, if the male parent passes on a Y and the mother does NOT pass on a chromosome, there is no conception at all and there is no offspring.

And if we want to be really technical, you can (very rarely) get X0 (X from mother, missing chromosome from father) and end up with a female, but you CANNOT get 0X (missing chromosome from mother, X from father). The female's contribution is carried in the ova directly, and if it is absent, the ova is either non-existent or is damaged to an extent that contraception cannot occur.

Edit: I added 00 to the list of combinations, even though this isn't even an imaginary fetus. But I did technically leave it off.

 

[Emily Lake]

You are attempting to make a distinction that some aspect of a human imparts risk, either special behavioral risk, or special structural risk, and mitigate that risk.

It's evolved risk, Jarhyn.

Male elk during rut are extremely aggressive. Females are never that aggressive - they are defensive when protecting offspring, but are not aggressive. Male elk that are not aggressive don't get to mate.

Aggressiveness is evolutionarily tied to our species. It is part of the evolutionary inheritance of males. That does not mean that every single male is always aggressive. It means that males are statistically and meaningfully more aggressive than females of the human species.

You trying to tie this to some fantasy "hormonal situation" is pure science fiction.

 

[Emily Lake]

Your study does not speak to crimes, at least based on the abstract. It makes no conclusions about that. It makes conclusions about long term prognosis and outcome.

You clearly didn't even bother to read the entire abstract.

 

[Emily Lake]

trans people commit FAR fewer crimes than CIS folks

"trans people" is a phrase that in this case means "male people who have had their both their penis and testicles removed and who have zero testosterone being produced in their bodies"

Which is not at all synonymous with the general "transpeople" that everyone else talks about.

 

[Emily Lake]

trans people commit FAR fewer crimes than CIS folks

But ex-men commit sexual offenses at far greater rates the women; 'cause they're men. That's the point.

Ex-man commit sexual offenses at far greater rates than men.

 

[Toni]

So? Tomboys are tomboys. Masculine desires doesn't mean they wish to be male. You're trying to bin everybody into "male" or "female", reality is nuanced. It's only the ones with major mismatches that actually want to change.

I have no idea what 'masculine desires' are, except perhaps with regards to sex?

 

[Emily Lake]

No, because there are heavy incentives for trans people in the system to at least be out to the system, and there is a trend among sex offenders to use bad faith immediately after capture to claim they are trans. There is a selection bias to over-report being trans particularly among sex offenders.

I agree with you!

Now, let's start from this point of agreement and move forward.

Given that sex offender claim trans, it stands to reason that allowing male prisoners to be transferred to female prisons on the basis of their claim of being transgender is a really, really, really bad idea that puts women in danger from sex offenders.

Do you agree or disagree?

 

[Elixir]

No, because there are heavy incentives for trans people in the system to at least be out to the system, and there is a trend among sex offenders to use bad faith immediately after capture to claim they are trans. There is a selection bias to over-report being trans particularly among sex offenders.

I agree with you!

Now, let's start from this point of agreement and move forward.

Given that sex offender claim trans, it stands to reason that allowing male prisoners to be transferred to female prisons on the basis of their claim of being transgender is a really, really, really bad idea that puts women in danger from sex offenders.

Do you agree or disagree?

I have a question that arises from your question -
Assuming it is agreed that putting Trans people into the general prison population is a bad idea, would it be okay to have trans-only prisons? Would you need to separate the trans men from the trans women? Is the cost per prisoner going to go up? Who is going to pay?

 

[bilby]

You can't possibly say that humans have two eyes, it's too complicated for that.

You can say it. You won't be right though; Some have one, some have none.

You're making the error of applying a general rule to the specific.

And you're making the error of assuming that injury or developmental error CHANGES THE DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS OF HUMANS AS AN ENTIRE SPECIES

If an adult of the human species gets into an accident and loses a leg, that does not mean that defining humans, as a species, can no longer include "bipedal".

But it does mean that the definition of that individual as bipedal becomes false.

You're making the error of applying a general rule to the specific.

Populations don't commit crimes, or have sexual orientations, or fall in love, or become vegetarians. Individuals do that, and identifying that such things are negligible at the population level doesn't give you grounds to dismiss a claim to them from an individual.

 

[bilby]

But sex chromosomes are not codominant. The Y chromosome is dominant,

Except when it's not.

There are two semi-exceptions to this: Swyer syndrome and CAIS.. In the case of Swyer syndrome, the offspring inherits a damaged Y chromosome from the father - a chromosome in which the SRY gene doesn't work. Thus, the fetus never receives the prompt to switch from mullerian to wolfian developmental paths. People with Swyer syndrome are female phenotypical, but are sterile. They develop female-typical fallopian tubes, uterus, cervix, etc. but they don't have ovaries, they have undifferentiated tissue in place of ovaries. In CAIS, the SRY gene is there on the Y chromosome, but the body's ability to receive signals from it is damaged or absent. The receptor is carried on the X chromosome. For Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, the fetus develops female-typical anatomy, but generally has testicular tissue in place of ovaries. Most people, including doctors in any fields other than reproductive medicine, both of these types of people are treated as female. Note that Partial Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome produces people who are fully categorized as male, even if they have some underdeveloped reproductive features.

 

[Emily Lake]

No, because there are heavy incentives for trans people in the system to at least be out to the system, and there is a trend among sex offenders to use bad faith immediately after capture to claim they are trans. There is a selection bias to over-report being trans particularly among sex offenders.

I agree with you!

Now, let's start from this point of agreement and move forward.

Given that sex offender claim trans, it stands to reason that allowing male prisoners to be transferred to female prisons on the basis of their claim of being transgender is a really, really, really bad idea that puts women in danger from sex offenders.

Do you agree or disagree?

I have a question that arises from your question -
Assuming it is agreed that putting Trans people into the general prison population is a bad idea, would it be okay to have trans-only prisons? Would you need to separate the trans men from the trans women? Is the cost per prisoner going to go up? Who is going to pay?

I absolutely support having a separate wing.

Realistically, I think that wing would end up being transwomen only. There are very few transmen in prison, and those few that are generally get housed with the other female prisoners. If for some reason a transman really, really wanted to be housed with the transwomen, I don't object - I just think it's unlikely to come up.

All the people who are currently funding advocacy and activism and lobbying efforts could foot the bill. Otherwise, I dunno, we'll figure something out. Cost I can negotiate.

 

[Emily Lake]

But it does mean that the definition of that individual as bipedal becomes false.

Nobody except you is talking about a person-specific special definition of "human as it applies to Martha". The definition of the species is a species-level definition.

Flies have wings. You can rip the wings off of a fly, so that your specific individual fly doesn't have wings any more. But that doesn't make your fly into not-a-fly, nor does it make the entire category of flies into "insects that sometimes have wings and sometimes don't".

Please, please, I beg you, use some reasoning and some sense.

 

[Emily Lake]

But sex chromosomes are not codominant. The Y chromosome is dominant,

Except when it's not.

There are two semi-exceptions to this: Swyer syndrome and CAIS.. In the case of Swyer syndrome, the offspring inherits a damaged Y chromosome from the father - a chromosome in which the SRY gene doesn't work. Thus, the fetus never receives the prompt to switch from mullerian to wolfian developmental paths. People with Swyer syndrome are female phenotypical, but are sterile. They develop female-typical fallopian tubes, uterus, cervix, etc. but they don't have ovaries, they have undifferentiated tissue in place of ovaries. In CAIS, the SRY gene is there on the Y chromosome, but the body's ability to receive signals from it is damaged or absent. The receptor is carried on the X chromosome. For Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, the fetus develops female-typical anatomy, but generally has testicular tissue in place of ovaries. Most people, including doctors in any fields other than reproductive medicine, both of these types of people are treated as female. Note that Partial Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome produces people who are fully categorized as male, even if they have some underdeveloped reproductive features.

I need to convert so I can say "For the love of god".

Even in cases of karyotypic anomalies, the Y isn't "non-dominant". It's still the dominant gene! It's just broken! FFS, have an an inane argument that lacks a basis in reality.

 

[Bomb#20]

Has it never occurred to you that there might possibly be some prisoners in the British penal system who are trans, but who have refrained from announcing that fact?!?

No,

Then that's a massive failure on your part to think critically.

because there are heavy incentives for trans people in the system to at least be out to the system,

And it would be rational for a prisoner to depend on the prison staff to keep what they know about him or her confidential, and trust them to never reveal it to the other prisoners, because... ?

and there is a trend among sex offenders to use bad faith immediately after capture to claim they are trans.

So you admit that prisoner self-reporting to the MoJ is an unreliable trans identification procedure, and that prisoners' self-reporting may be influenced by incentives and not just by their own personal commitment to complete openness. And yet you insist on treating a statistic gathered by this method as settling the matter.

There is a selection bias to over-report being trans particularly among sex offenders.

Obviously. Otherwise prison-identified trans prisoners' crimes would not skew so wildly toward sex offenses. It's a mystery why you would assume sex-offender statistics tell us much at all about the population of trans criminals who aren't sex offenders. The prison system gives different incentives to sex offenders from regular criminals. Duh!

Your data is either bad for your claim or  really bad for your claim.

It's Oleg's data, not mine. You refused to read my data, remember?

I have clearly identified trends in my corner and you have what? A hand wave?

No, I have a study I linked to that you dismissed after reading only the abstract and reading it carelessly. The study I linked didn't have the blatantly obvious methodological problem the MoJ data supposedly "in your corner" has. (And if you seriously believed the MoJ data was reliable, why the devil would you imagine data saying 58.9% of transwomen criminals are sex offenders is "in your corner"?)

Because while you keep screaming "ItS A PrObLeM! PeNiS PerSoN WaNt bE WiTh WiMmINS!"

Stop putting words in my mouth. If you want to impute a view to me, quote me.

The fact is that you want to villainize trans people because the conservatives need a new enemy now that people like TeH GaYs too much to hate on them for now, at least in this moment in history.

Where "fact" is a word that here means "whatever imbecilic fantasy Jarhyn makes up out of whole cloth". You are trumping up false damaging claims about me and other posters with malice and with reckless disregard for the truth -- if we used real names here your libels would be actionable. I have never vilified trans people or treated them as enemies; you have never had a reason to believe I have; and I'm not a conservative. Stop assuming your opponents are the caricatures of them you draw in your own mind, and stop behaving like a jerk.

This will be true no matter how much sophistry you commit to.

You do not have a reason to think anything I wrote was sophistry. Try applying critical thought to your own beliefs for a change.

You are trying to paint trans folks as criminals.

I am trying to do nothing of the sort. You made that up. If I were to say Norwegians are no less likely to commit crimes than the average person, that would not be "trying to paint Norwegians as criminals".

They are not. They are not, by a whole base 10 order of magnitude,

You are basing that claim on data you already stipulated is unreliable.

and all you have to dispute that statistic, provided by OLEG in an attempt to suck up to you, that makes exactly this point.

That clause lacks a main verb so I have no idea what it's supposed to be asserting. But the bit it contains about Oleg is a libelous false accusation. Oleg was obviously attempting to prove his own contentions to any open-minded readers. Just because you're obsessed with me doesn't mean I'm the focus of every other poster's motivations. Why do you behave this way?

And to be clear, you actually had a responsibility to point that out, to maintain your own integrity, and find a statistic that cites your claim without such a clear statistical problem.

What planet are you from? What the devil do you imagine Oleg's data has to do with my integrity and responsibility? I found a statistic that cites my claim; I posted it upthread; you refused to read it; and then you libeled me. Why do you behave this way?

 

[Jarhyn]

No, because there are heavy incentives for trans people in the system to at least be out to the system, and there is a trend among sex offenders to use bad faith immediately after capture to claim they are trans. There is a selection bias to over-report being trans particularly among sex offenders.

I agree with you!

Now, let's start from this point of agreement and move forward.

Given that sex offender claim trans, it stands to reason that allowing male prisoners to be transferred to female prisons on the basis of their claim of being transgender is a really, really, really bad idea that puts women in danger from sex offenders.

Do you agree or disagree?

I already stated what I think is the correct way to arrange and locate prisoners: on the basis of whether they are effected by testosterone; on the basis of whether or not they ejaculate sperms.

Your question becomes loaded and is packed with bad faith from the moment you knew that and inserted sexist language into the question.

Trans people will generally be happy to comply with whatever, and bad faith comers will be turned away, as one will generally not miss their testicles nor seek testosterone to the point of physical competitive advantages, and the other will balk at making such a substantive change.

I'm not going to legally differentiate a sex offending eunuch, a sex offending "man without testicles", a sex offending woman, or a sex offending "woman with a penis", and the latter most certainly not if there is no differentiation between "a sex offending woman" and "a non-sex-offending woman".

Good faith would be accepting that the way prisons categorize is bad, and changing the way prisons categorize people, not to make them in line with colloquial, BAD categorizations of "man" and "woman" but by "sperm; testosterone."

 

[Emily Lake]

No, because there are heavy incentives for trans people in the system to at least be out to the system, and there is a trend among sex offenders to use bad faith immediately after capture to claim they are trans. There is a selection bias to over-report being trans particularly among sex offenders.

I agree with you!

Now, let's start from this point of agreement and move forward.

Given that sex offender claim trans, it stands to reason that allowing male prisoners to be transferred to female prisons on the basis of their claim of being transgender is a really, really, really bad idea that puts women in danger from sex offenders.

Do you agree or disagree?

I already stated what I think is the correct way to arrange and locate prisoners: on the basis of whether they are effected by testosterone; on the basis of whether or not they ejaculate sperms.

Your question becomes loaded and is packed with bad faith from the moment you knew that and inserted sexist language into the question.

Trans people will generally be happy to comply with whatever, and bad faith comers will be turned away, as one will generally not miss their testicles nor seek testosterone to the point of physical competitive advantages, and the other will balk at making such a substantive change.

I'm not going to legally differentiate a sex offending eunuch, a sex offending "man without testicles", a sex offending woman, or a sex offending "woman with a penis", and the latter most certainly not if there is no differentiation between "a sex offending woman" and "a non-sex-offending woman".

Good faith would be accepting that the way prisons categorize is bad, and changing the way prisons categorize people, not to make them in line with colloquial, BAD categorizations of "man" and "woman" but by "sperm; testosterone."

It's a very, very strange hill to die on here, to insist that we complicate language in a way that works for you, personally, even though it doesn't actually provide any new information at all, and doesn't create a meaningful difference. It's just extra words so that you don't have to be faced with the scientific terms of "male" and "female".

You want to have a special carve out for a special set of males who meet an arbitrary requirement of yours. Somewhere along the way, YOU decided that was the most important thing to focus on... and you ignore everyone else and their views. You even go so far as to claim it's "bad faith" when people don't adopt your super-special language to meet your super-special feelings.

You keep making sweeping declaration as to "what it's really about", even though other people keep telling you that is not what it's about from our perspective. Then you insist that we have to alter our views and our concerns to fit in with your arbitrary decision about "what it's really about" otherwise, you call us names and say we're not arguing from a genuine perspective.

Just because YOU PERSONALLY don't make a distinction between "eunuch" and "man without testicles" and "woman" and "woman with penis" doesn't mean that your personal preference has any bearing whatsoever on any of the rest of us.

Honestly, I think this is special pleading on your part - and I suspect it's special pleading for entirely personal reasons. Given that you have stated your intention to have your testicles removed for your own personal reasons... I think you're busy insisting that everyone else must equivocate on reality to suit your own view of yourself as "not man".

But honestly, removing your testicles doesn't make you a woman. A woman is not a "lesser man", women aren't just "men without balls". That you don't seem to understand the material differences between males and females of the human species is irrelevant - that's a failure on your part.

I'm not going to abandon my perspective just so you can feel better about yourself. How you feel about yourself is not my problem, and I'm sure as hell not going to refocus my entire position just for you.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So? Tomboys are tomboys. Masculine desires doesn't mean they wish to be male.

Yes. Exactly. That’s why transgenderism shouldn’t be pushed on children.

And it's not being pushed. That's trans-panic crap from the QOP. They consider any mention of it to be pushing it--the idea that you can stamp it out by making it socially unacceptable.

If you aren't trans you're not going to have any interest in transition. It's the same as society's acceptance of homosexuality doesn't make anyone gay or lesbian--it only brings some out of the closet.