"Always" to ax female symbol from sanitary products packages in nod to trans users....GOD HELP US!

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I have 20:10 vision so I am deformed.

Also people who are left handed. That's why the bible says they are evil.

 

[Patooka]

Nobody has ever explained why transgender people (who make up 1% of the population) are not considered a defect/deformity. If someone is born with 6 fingers, we call it a defect. We still teach everyone that humans are born with 5 fingers. No attempt is made to make the 6 fingered person seem normal. We all know it's a defect.

So why all the fuss to make trans people seem normal? Why not just treat it as a defect like we do everything else? (deformed skulls, deformed toes, deformed penis etc.)

The reason this is coming up is because the left is starting to say that "intersex people" are a third gender. Science says they are a deformity/defect, not a third gender. Once again, the left is anti-science.

WTF?

Yes, some people are born with an extra finger on one or both hands due to a genetic anomaly. It's not a 'defect' or a deformity.

There are many beneficial genetic anomalies present in humans. Some include Sickle Cell trait which allows individuals with the trait to be more resistant to malaria, lactose tolerance, and increased bone density and Distichiasis (double rows of eyelashes) which is sometimes congenital and often considered to be quite beautiful (see Elizabeth Taylor).

Science does not say that intersex people are a deformity or defect. I don't think you are actually familiar with science.

There is a fine line between deformity and what you are describing.

Most scientists would agree that something which occurs 99% of the time is normal and if something else occurs 1% of the time, it's a defect or a deformity.

Someone else in history made a big deal about contamination in the bloodlines and why they should be eradicated. I can't seem to remember who. But he became very popular and achieved quite a following that exists to this day, so you might be on to something here.

Personally, I think the whole thing is fucking repugnant but what do I know?

 

[Half-Life]

Scientists showed people with 6 fingers are better at certain tasks:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...ople-born-SIX-fingers-better-daily-tasks.html

By extrapolation, hermaphrodites are better at sex because they have more to offer.

It's science.

That webpage says that science considers it a defect.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Scientists showed people with 6 fingers are better at certain tasks:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...ople-born-SIX-fingers-better-daily-tasks.html

By extrapolation, hermaphrodites are better at sex because they have more to offer.

It's science.

That webpage says that science considers it a defect.

Can you quote that?
I can find defect in a headline and a summary, which would be written by the journalist, but cannot find 'science considers it a defect.'

 

[Half-Life]

Scientists showed people with 6 fingers are better at certain tasks:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...ople-born-SIX-fingers-better-daily-tasks.html

By extrapolation, hermaphrodites are better at sex because they have more to offer.

It's science.

That webpage says that science considers it a defect.

Can you quote that?
I can find defect in a headline and a summary, which would be written by the journalist, but cannot find 'science considers it a defect.'

"Polydactyly is a birth defect that occurs when a person is born with extra fingers or toes. It affects around one in every 700-to-1,000 births worldwide."

 

[Keith&Co.]

Can you quote that?
I can find defect in a headline and a summary, which would be written by the journalist, but cannot find 'science considers it a defect.'

"Polydactyly is a birth defect that occurs when a person is born with extra fingers or toes. It affects around one in every 700-to-1,000 births worldwide."

Yeah, that's the summary, in the little colored box. A journalist wrote that part. A dumbing-down. Not quoting a scientific source.
So, once again, you are just making shit up. Or unable to read, maybe?

Either way the article does not support your claim of what t he article says.










Again.

 

[Half-Life]

Can you quote that?
I can find defect in a headline and a summary, which would be written by the journalist, but cannot find 'science considers it a defect.'

"Polydactyly is a birth defect that occurs when a person is born with extra fingers or toes. It affects around one in every 700-to-1,000 births worldwide."

Yeah, that's the summary, in the little colored box. A journalist wrote that part. A dumbing-down. Not quoting a scientific source.
So, once again, you are just making shit up. Or unable to read, maybe?

Either way the article does not support your claim of what t he article says.










Again.

Keith, would you kindly explain to us what you consider a birth defect to be, then?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Keith, would you kindly explain to us what you consider a birth defect to be, then?

oh, don't try to push your failure on me.
YOU said that The Article said 'Science considers it a defect.'
This is clearly bullshit, as all the scientists quoted in the article were opposed to seeing it as a defect. Every time the reporter used something like 'traditionally seen as a defect' there was a 'but' right after.

So, your claim was not substantiated. Or, WRONG. Same as trying to use "rare" as part of the definition of defect.
Maybe you should stop pretending you can read if there isn't a video explaining the words?

 

[Half-Life]

Most scientists would agree that something which occurs 99% of the time is normal and if something else occurs 1% of the time, it's a defect or a deformity.

I think mostscientists would use the word 'rare' long before 'a deformity.' If we keep breeding out recessive genes untiil blue eyes are 1% of the population, that would, by your attempt at logic, mean the color has become a deformity.

And that's just stupid.

But really, what difference does it make if it's a deformity or just rare?

You never have explained why this matters to you.

Blue eyes do not cause a genetic disorder though. Once we get better at gene editing, we would be able to stop intersex and transgender people from happening. We can fix it.

You'd be for that, right? Hopefully you won't be against it just so you have a class of victims to prop up.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Blue eyes do not cause a genetic disorder though.

Cause? According TO YOU, they would BE a genetic disorder, once they occur in only 1% of the population. Or at least, you were sure that's how scientists would label them.

Once we get better at gene editing, we would be able to stop intersex and transgender people from happening. We can fix it.

Still doesn't fix your earlier mistake at how things are determined to be disorders.

And you still never explained what difference it would make? Rare, disorder, enhancement.... with evolution working the way it does, there's no telling what might be an advantage in the future.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Scientists showed people with 6 fingers are better at certain tasks:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...ople-born-SIX-fingers-better-daily-tasks.html

By extrapolation, hermaphrodites are better at sex because they have more to offer.

It's science.

That webpage says that science considers it a defect.

Well, science showed it's an advantage. Actions speak louder than words. You can tie your shoes better, swim faster, catch a baseball better, etc etc when you have 6 fingers.

The same with hermaphrodites. They can have sex with a man, sex with a woman, or sex with themselves better than you. Right?

 

[Half-Life]

Scientists showed people with 6 fingers are better at certain tasks:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...ople-born-SIX-fingers-better-daily-tasks.html

By extrapolation, hermaphrodites are better at sex because they have more to offer.

It's science.

That webpage says that science considers it a defect.

Well, science showed it's an advantage. Actions speak louder than words. You can tie your shoes better, swim faster, catch a baseball better, etc etc when you have 6 fingers.

The same with hermaphrodites. They can have sex with a man, sex with a woman, or sex with themselves better than you. Right?

So you are saying 6 fingered people and hermaphrodites should be considered more normal than everyone else?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Well, science showed it's an advantage. Actions speak louder than words. You can tie your shoes better, swim faster, catch a baseball better, etc etc when you have 6 fingers.

The same with hermaphrodites. They can have sex with a man, sex with a woman, or sex with themselves better than you. Right?

So you are saying 6 fingered people and hermaphrodites should be considered more normal than everyone else?

More effective when their differences are functional. If someone is more effective, you don't call them more defective. That is a contradiction.

Now just admit hermaphrodites are better than you at sex so we can move on from your topic du jour.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well, science showed it's an advantage. Actions speak louder than words. You can tie your shoes better, swim faster, catch a baseball better, etc etc when you have 6 fingers.

The same with hermaphrodites. They can have sex with a man, sex with a woman, or sex with themselves better than you. Right?

So you are saying 6 fingered people and hermaphrodites should be considered more normal than everyone else?

No, you're the one confusing 'rare' and 'common' with 'normal' and 'defective.'
But, that seems like a conservative. If it'snot mainstream, it's wrong.

 

[Half-Life]

Well, science showed it's an advantage. Actions speak louder than words. You can tie your shoes better, swim faster, catch a baseball better, etc etc when you have 6 fingers.

The same with hermaphrodites. They can have sex with a man, sex with a woman, or sex with themselves better than you. Right?

So you are saying 6 fingered people and hermaphrodites should be considered more normal than everyone else?

No, you're the one confusing 'rare' and 'common' with 'normal' and 'defective.'
But, that seems like a conservative. If it'snot mainstream, it's wrong.

You seem to have defined defect and deformity out of existence.

 

[Half-Life]

Well, science showed it's an advantage. Actions speak louder than words. You can tie your shoes better, swim faster, catch a baseball better, etc etc when you have 6 fingers.

The same with hermaphrodites. They can have sex with a man, sex with a woman, or sex with themselves better than you. Right?

So you are saying 6 fingered people and hermaphrodites should be considered more normal than everyone else?

More effective when their differences are functional. If someone is more effective, you don't call them more defective. That is a contradiction.

Now just admit hermaphrodites are better than you at sex so we can move on from your topic du jour.

If hermaphrodites were better at sex, it would follow that would be selected for over the course of evolution. Same with 6 fingers. You guys claim that someone with 6 fingers has an advantage. Why didn't evolution select this to become the norm?

Why do you guys always contradict yourselves depending on the argument?

Sometimes people are born with no arm. Defect?

 

[Half-Life]

Well, science showed it's an advantage. Actions speak louder than words. You can tie your shoes better, swim faster, catch a baseball better, etc etc when you have 6 fingers.

The same with hermaphrodites. They can have sex with a man, sex with a woman, or sex with themselves better than you. Right?

So you are saying 6 fingered people and hermaphrodites should be considered more normal than everyone else?

No, you're the one confusing 'rare' and 'common' with 'normal' and 'defective.'
But, that seems like a conservative. If it'snot mainstream, it's wrong.

Down syndrome, defect or normal?

 

[Half-Life]

Having both sets of genitals is a deformity. It’s a false equivalence to compare that to red hair. If the left keeps maintaining these intellectually dishonest stances, they will lose the culture war.

Don't you guys realize that all these new positions are part of the Marxist doctrine? The idea that gender can be whatever we want, transgenders are normal, intersex is a third sex, these are all ways you are being brainwashed by communist doctrine. We fought against this and now because of millennials not knowing any better, these ideas are coming back. The sooner you realize "scientific consensus" means nothing and they are in bed with the Marixist elites, the more you will understand how evil this all is.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Most scientists would agree that something which occurs 99% of the time is normal and if something else occurs 1% of the time, it's a defect or a deformity.

I think mostscientists would use the word 'rare' long before 'a deformity.' If we keep breeding out recessive genes untiil blue eyes are 1% of the population, that would, by your attempt at logic, mean the color has become a deformity.

And that's just stupid.

But really, what difference does it make if it's a deformity or just rare?

You never have explained why this matters to you.

Blue eyes do not cause a genetic disorder though. Once we get better at gene editing, we would be able to stop intersex and transgender people from happening. We can fix it.

You'd be for that, right? Hopefully you won't be against it just so you have a class of victims to prop up.

Well, let's assume there is a simple and singular genetic cause (not all heredity conditions are purely genetic, and even those that are can be a complex interaction of multiple genes)...

There is a hesitancy to do such a thing for a few reasons:

i) There is general discomfort with eugenics. In some cases there are genetic disorders which lead to immense suffering and often premature fatality where no one would shed a tear if they simply disappeared from the gene pool. In other cases, it's harder to say where lines should be drawn and what statement that makes. It's also hard to know what ramifications there would be. For instance, the skin colour we generally refer to as 'white' has a much higher predisposition to skin cancer. Why wouldn't we want to reduce this risk by selecting for darker skin? If we did, what further complications might arise? How far would we go to optimize newborns and how might this affect the genetic diversity of the species? I understand that is a slippery slope fallacy, but I do think it contributes to a feeling of general uneasiness regarding this form of eugenics.

ii) It has a vaguely genocidal feel to it. In the hypothetical case where we removed whiteness from the gene pool, it would likely be classified as a genocide of sorts. Transgender identities? Perhaps not, but it feels similar. I have an odd perspective on it. If you asked me if, given the chance, I would redo my life as a cisgender person, I'd say no. Despite the pain and sacrifice it has caused, it feels too much like erasure of who I am. Yet if I were to have a child and a doctor could guarantee they would be cisgender, I'd consider it. It's not that I would feel a transgender child would be inferior or any less worthy than any other; it's just hard to know that that child would have to make sacrifices and endure hardships which could otherwise be avoided. It becomes a complicated question about what it would mean to remove part of the diversity in the human population, and whether it would be better to do so, or if it would be better to learn to better recognize and embrace it.

iii) Resource allocation. Despite the level of theoretical knowledge and practical ability we have in medicine, it's not like we're at a point where we can run endless tests and treatments on all pregnancies. Of all the potential causes for concern, how high would transgender identities rank?


Personally, I don't really care if someone refers to the underlying cause of my atypical gender identity as a 'defect' or as divergent, aberrant, deviant etc. The problem is, people seem to quickly lose the context in which these terms are used. Medically and statistically, I am an outlier and it results in some measure distress and discomfort. But the idea that I have a 'disorder' of sorts gets taken too far. People try to use it to treat me as generally inferior when I am certainly not. It's been used to disqualify me from vocations and positions for no valid reason. It's used to treat me as if I am morally inferior, which is utter fucking nonsense. It's used to treat me as if I have cognitive, psychological or physical defects I don't have. It is just generally stigmatized.

Terms like 'defect' in reference to a genetic trait, perhaps, become imprecise because they take on a shit load of cultural baggage. Terms like 'disorder' with regard to gender identity similarly suffer and end up replaced with 'dysphoria' which is more specific to where the disorder lies. And so it goes, slowly and painfully as we realize our language has an awful lot of baggage based on antiquated world views and prejudices.

 

[Patooka]

Having both sets of genitals is a deformity. It’s a false equivalence to compare that to red hair. If the left keeps maintaining these intellectually dishonest stances, they will lose the culture war.

People with your attitude and belief system lost an actual war in 1945. You'll lose this one as well.