What? No 'This week in trans' thread about Passport X?

[ZiprHead]

No, the reality is that a woman who walks up to the desk and presents a passport that says she's a male is going to raise red flags needlessly.

Kind of depends on whether that "woman" has a beard, and looks like a dude, doesn't it?

Pretty sure that if Alex Drummond showed up with a passport that says "male", nobody will bat an eye, regardless of the fact that they would probably wear a dress.

I have no idea who that person is. And androgeny has been a thing in rock music since David Bowie and the New York Dolls.

 

[ZiprHead]

You would have to explain what you mean by 'living rent free in my head'.

I think you mean something like 'why does the existence of trans people bother you relentlessly', and the short answer is, it doesn't. So you're going to have to be more specific in your question if that isn't what you meant.

Methinks thou doth protest too much?

What happened? Were you once expecting a Dick and got a Jane?

 

[Emily Lake]

No, the reality is that a woman who walks up to the desk and presents a passport that says she's a male is going to raise red flags needlessly.

Kind of depends on whether that "woman" has a beard, and looks like a dude, doesn't it?

Pretty sure that if Alex Drummond showed up with a passport that says "male", nobody will bat an eye, regardless of the fact that they would probably wear a dress.

I have no idea who that person is. And androgeny has been a thing in rock music since David Bowie and the New York Dolls.

That person is Alex Drummond, a transgender identified male who considers themself to be a lesbian because they are attracted to females with vaginas.

With respect to androgeny... I don't think anyone ever mistook Bowie for a woman. Gender benders are a fantastic thing, I'm all for it. Insisting that bending those social norms actually makes one the opposite sex in any meaningful way is something altogether different.

 

[Metaphor]

You would have to explain what you mean by 'living rent free in my head'.

I think you mean something like 'why does the existence of trans people bother you relentlessly', and the short answer is, it doesn't. So you're going to have to be more specific in your question if that isn't what you meant.

Methinks thou doth protest too much?

What happened? Were you once expecting a Dick and got a Jane?

I have explained, in numerous posts, the reason why I find gender ideology and the current state of trans activism to be problematic. And one of the reasons is the obtuse denial that trans activists are saying what they are saying and doing what they are doing.

I only ever have sex with men, so the only thing I get in a sex-partner's underpants is a cock and balls.

 

[Arctish]

Unless Zzyym produces BOTH functional eggs and functional sperm, they are either male or female, not both. They may very well have ambiguous or mixed sexual characteristics, but sex is still actually binary.

Also, nobody refuses to acknowledge that some people have DSDs. The question, however, is what do people with rare and deleterious medical conditions have to do with transgender ideology?

Zzyym's parents and doctors attempted to 'fix' them via multiple surgeries during childhood. There is no way to tell now what Zzyym's reproductive abilities might have been had they been allowed to develop naturally. They might even have been one of the rare intersex people who could produce both types of gametes.

Also, I think it's important to note that some people are completely unable to produce gametes. If we use gamete production as the standard for sex designations, they would be considered sexless.

No. Emily has been quite clear about this.

Nah, Dana is either male or female. It just might not be unambiguous from primary or secondary sex characteristics. All mammals are either male or female at the end of the day. There is not third sex. And while it's possible for a person of either sex to be sterile, their bodies are still formed around the production of one gamete or the other.

This discussion reminds me of the debate surrounding pandas and their being placed in the Order Carnivora despite being vegetarians. Whether or not they belong there depends on the specific characteristics one uses to determine eligibility.

You and Emily are using gametes as the ultimate determining factor for assigning a sex. You both appear to be ignoring people whose bodies are capable of producing both types of gametes and those whose bodies cannot produce gametes at all. I am pointing out the obvious flaw in your system.

 

[Arctish]

Zzyym's parents and doctors attempted to 'fix' them via multiple surgeries during childhood. There is no way to tell now what Zzyym's reproductive abilities might have been had they been allowed to develop naturally. They might even have been one of the rare intersex people who could produce both types of gametes.

Also, I think it's important to note that some people are completely unable to produce gametes. If we use gamete production as the standard for sex designations, they would be considered sexless.

For the bazillionth time...

1) The gamete that a body is arranged to produce is what determines sex, regardless of whether they actually do produce that gamete or not. Sterility does not make a person sexless. If they are a sterile person with testes, they are male. If they are a sterile person with ovaries, they are female.

2) I think there's been one single documented case of a human who produced both eggs and sperm, and that person did NOT have a DSD, that person was a mosaic - literally multiple people in one. People with DSDs cannot produce both functional eggs and functional sperm at the same time. The level of testosterone needed to produce sperm will also destroy eggs; testosterone low enough to allow viable egg release is too low to generate sperm.

For the bazillionth time plus one, it isn't always the case that a person's body is arranged to produce just one type of gamete, or any gametes at all.

Some people have the XX/XY karyotype and streak gonads. They don't have male bodies. They don't have female bodies. They have fibrous tissue instead of gonads. They don't produce gametes, or have organs that can produce gametes, or a chromosome pattern that indicates one sex designation is more appropriate than the other.

The M/F binary system of designating sex works well enough for most people but not for all. The X category is more accurate and appropriate for persons like Dana Zzyym who have mixed, blended, or atypical sex characteristics. I have no idea why this is controversial.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I don't know. Maybe you should ask a TSA agent. My guess is they see that sort of thing fairly often.

There was a character in a Fletch mystery i read thirty years ago who was transitioning. She got pulled over for sonething and at thast moment realized she had not updated all her papers. Half her wallet was for her female Identity, half was still for her old one.
But the cops took it in stride, they saw this sort of thing from time to time.
I don't know how carefully Mcdonald reasearched for tjis, but it seemed plausible then, and can only have gotten more frequent since.

 

[ZiprHead]

You would have to explain what you mean by 'living rent free in my head'.

I think you mean something like 'why does the existence of trans people bother you relentlessly', and the short answer is, it doesn't. So you're going to have to be more specific in your question if that isn't what you meant.

Methinks thou doth protest too much?

What happened? Were you once expecting a Dick and got a Jane?

I have explained, in numerous posts, the reason why I find gender ideology and the current state of trans activism to be problematic. And one of the reasons is the obtuse denial that trans activists are saying what they are saying and doing what they are doing.

I only ever have sex with men, so the only thing I get in a sex-partner's underpants is a cock and balls.

You've explained why you find those things problematic. You haven't explained why they are so problematic to YOU. Why are so invested in this quest?

 

[Metaphor]

You would have to explain what you mean by 'living rent free in my head'.

I think you mean something like 'why does the existence of trans people bother you relentlessly', and the short answer is, it doesn't. So you're going to have to be more specific in your question if that isn't what you meant.

Methinks thou doth protest too much?

What happened? Were you once expecting a Dick and got a Jane?

I have explained, in numerous posts, the reason why I find gender ideology and the current state of trans activism to be problematic. And one of the reasons is the obtuse denial that trans activists are saying what they are saying and doing what they are doing.

I only ever have sex with men, so the only thing I get in a sex-partner's underpants is a cock and balls.

You've explained why you find those things problematic. You haven't explained why they are so problematic to YOU. Why are so invested in this quest?

Why am I the one who needs to explain something? Why do you find it acceptable that gender ideologists and trans activists have so warped language that it is now acceptable to utter incoherent nonsense like 'assigned male at birth'? Why do you find it acceptable that children are put on puberty blockers, made infertile, and have their sexual response completely compromised for life? Why do you find it acceptable that lesbians relate stories of being pressured into sex with transwomen, and then get labelled transphobic for talking about that pressure? Why do you find it acceptable that trans activists and their cheerleaders continually erase same-sex attraction by pretending people are attracted to 'gender' and not sex? Why do you find at acceptable that sex segregation in sports is now 'gender' separation, and why don't you find the dishonest, brain-atrophying, ignorant apologia and blatant denial of male advantage, maddening?

 

[laughing dog]

It is true that if you do not already think the incoherent use of language in response to trans ideology isn't a problem, then pointing out incoherent use of language in response to trans ideology won't make you see it as a problem.

More hyperbolic bullshit.

Oh, I get it. You don't know what 'hyperbole' means.

LOL - your command of the English language is pretty much "incoherent".

 

[ZiprHead]

Why am I the one who needs to explain something? Why do you find it acceptable that gender ideologists and trans activists have so warped language that it is now acceptable to utter incoherent nonsense like 'assigned male at birth'? Why do you find it acceptable that children are put on puberty blockers, made infertile, and have their sexual response completely compromised for life? Why do you find it acceptable that lesbians relate stories of being pressured into sex with transwomen, and then get labelled transphobic for talking about that pressure? Why do you find it acceptable that trans activists and their cheerleaders continually erase same-sex attraction by pretending people are attracted to 'gender' and not sex? Why do you find at acceptable that sex segregation in sports is now 'gender' separation, and why don't you find the dishonest, brain-atrophying, ignorant apologia and blatant denial of male advantage, maddening?

The only one of those things that bothers me is the puberty blockers of children and I'd have to know the details of each individual case to determine my thoughts. Not to mention the vast majority of trans kids never get that treatment.

The rest is simply unimportant to the vast majority of the people of this world. People have far larger problems in their lives. I suspect that since these are your biggest problems then you are part of a very elite class of people.

 

[laughing dog]

Personally, I all dishonest, brain-atrophying and ignorant apologia of all types maddening, including that of small-minded bigotry,

 

[Trausti]

Zzyym's parents and doctors attempted to 'fix' them via multiple surgeries during childhood. There is no way to tell now what Zzyym's reproductive abilities might have been had they been allowed to develop naturally. They might even have been one of the rare intersex people who could produce both types of gametes.

Also, I think it's important to note that some people are completely unable to produce gametes. If we use gamete production as the standard for sex designations, they would be considered sexless.

For the bazillionth time...

1) The gamete that a body is arranged to produce is what determines sex, regardless of whether they actually do produce that gamete or not. Sterility does not make a person sexless. If they are a sterile person with testes, they are male. If they are a sterile person with ovaries, they are female.

2) I think there's been one single documented case of a human who produced both eggs and sperm, and that person did NOT have a DSD, that person was a mosaic - literally multiple people in one. People with DSDs cannot produce both functional eggs and functional sperm at the same time. The level of testosterone needed to produce sperm will also destroy eggs; testosterone low enough to allow viable egg release is too low to generate sperm.

For the bazillionth time plus one, it isn't always the case that a person's body is arranged to produce just one type of gamete, or any gametes at all.

Some people have the XX/XY karyotype and streak gonads. They don't have male bodies. They don't have female bodies. They have fibrous tissue instead of gonads. They don't produce gametes, or have organs that can produce gametes, or a chromosome pattern that indicates one sex designation is more appropriate than the other.

The M/F binary system of designating sex works well enough for most people but not for all. The X category is more accurate and appropriate for persons like Dana Zzyym who have mixed, blended, or atypical sex characteristics. I have no idea why this is controversial.

But surely when we're talking about transgender people we mean people born fully male or female who want to be seen as otherwise? The existence of person with a unique/rare karyotype seems a bit of a red herring.

 

[ZiprHead]

But surely when we're talking about transgender people we mean people born fully male or female who want to be seen as otherwise? The existence of person with a unique/rare karyotype seems a bit of a red herring.

You should tell that to Emily.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why would an airport scanner be set to "F" or anything like that? There is no such thing.

Because the stupid scanners have M and F buttons rather than simply matching the image against both templates.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Never seen such a report. But I assume since trans people live rent free in your head you would know all about that sort of thing.

Why is that by the way?

It only takes being aware of flying issues. I see occasional mentions of the problem.

 

[Emily Lake]

For the bazillionth time plus one, it isn't always the case that a person's body is arranged to produce just one type of gamete, or any gametes at all.

Some people have the XX/XY karyotype and streak gonads. They don't have male bodies. They don't have female bodies. They have fibrous tissue instead of gonads. They don't produce gametes, or have organs that can produce gametes, or a chromosome pattern that indicates one sex designation is more appropriate than the other.

The M/F binary system of designating sex works well enough for most people but not for all. The X category is more accurate and appropriate for persons like Dana Zzyym who have mixed, blended, or atypical sex characteristics. I have no idea why this is controversial.

I swear you're not even trying to pretend that you read my post.

 

[Emily Lake]

Why am I the one who needs to explain something? Why do you find it acceptable that gender ideologists and trans activists have so warped language that it is now acceptable to utter incoherent nonsense like 'assigned male at birth'? Why do you find it acceptable that children are put on puberty blockers, made infertile, and have their sexual response completely compromised for life? Why do you find it acceptable that lesbians relate stories of being pressured into sex with transwomen, and then get labelled transphobic for talking about that pressure? Why do you find it acceptable that trans activists and their cheerleaders continually erase same-sex attraction by pretending people are attracted to 'gender' and not sex? Why do you find at acceptable that sex segregation in sports is now 'gender' separation, and why don't you find the dishonest, brain-atrophying, ignorant apologia and blatant denial of male advantage, maddening?

The only one of those things that bothers me is the puberty blockers of children and I'd have to know the details of each individual case to determine my thoughts. Not to mention the vast majority of trans kids never get that treatment.

The rest is simply unimportant to the vast majority of the people of this world. People have far larger problems in their lives. I suspect that since these are your biggest problems then you are part of a very elite class of people.

Huh. You're dismissing out of hand as "unimportant" the negative affects that befall homosexual people and women as a result of gender ideology... and you have the gall to call those of us who actually are affected by this "elites"?

What the hell has the world come to when straight men feel free to denigrate women and gays/lesbians as unimportant elitists who are unworthy of any compassion or even thought? I'm quite inclined to see that as an exertion of straight male privilege.

 

[ZiprHead]

Why am I the one who needs to explain something? Why do you find it acceptable that gender ideologists and trans activists have so warped language that it is now acceptable to utter incoherent nonsense like 'assigned male at birth'? Why do you find it acceptable that children are put on puberty blockers, made infertile, and have their sexual response completely compromised for life? Why do you find it acceptable that lesbians relate stories of being pressured into sex with transwomen, and then get labelled transphobic for talking about that pressure? Why do you find it acceptable that trans activists and their cheerleaders continually erase same-sex attraction by pretending people are attracted to 'gender' and not sex? Why do you find at acceptable that sex segregation in sports is now 'gender' separation, and why don't you find the dishonest, brain-atrophying, ignorant apologia and blatant denial of male advantage, maddening?

The only one of those things that bothers me is the puberty blockers of children and I'd have to know the details of each individual case to determine my thoughts. Not to mention the vast majority of trans kids never get that treatment.

The rest is simply unimportant to the vast majority of the people of this world. People have far larger problems in their lives. I suspect that since these are your biggest problems then you are part of a very elite class of people.

Huh. You're dismissing out of hand as "unimportant" the negative affects that befall homosexual people and women as a result of gender ideology... and you have the gall to call those of us who actually are affected by this "elites"?

What the hell has the world come to when straight men feel free to denigrate women and gays/lesbians as unimportant elitists who are unworthy of any compassion or even thought? I'm quite inclined to see that as an exertion of straight male privilege.

 

[Emily Lake]

But surely when we're talking about transgender people we mean people born fully male or female who want to be seen as otherwise? The existence of person with a unique/rare karyotype seems a bit of a red herring.

You should tell that to Emily.

I've said it's a red herring multiple times. People with DSDs have nothing at all to do with gender identity.

Those who seem to have become faithful adherents to gender ideology are the ones who keep using DSDs as if they somehow support their argument that male people without DSDs are in some fashion actually women, and that female people without DSDs are someone literally men.