Biden begins erasing girls on day one: transgender executive order

[Emily Lake]

I am talking about brains and the fact that they are different. There is, in the topic of brains, very little to note of difference between "gendered" and "sexed" linguistically when talking about brains. My point is that they are not absolutely linked to chromosomes.

The differences seen between "male and female brains" that you describe could be observed between two individuals both born with penises and grown from XY genetics. Which is to say, one of these persons is not what could reasonably be called "male" as the primary intent of the word indicates (entirely). They are instead invisibly intersexed (invisible insofar as you can't just look and see it) and this implies that the anatomy, behavior, and hormonal compatibility described by the brain may be to varying levels discordant, and that this is a function of brain development. That gender starts in the brain and consummates with puberty bringing in secondary characteristics via hormone exposure.

On what do you base this assertion?

 

[Emily Lake]

You have actual, visible, verifiable evidence that people can be born with discordant genitals. You have actual visible evidence that people can be born without brains at all. You have evidence that people can be born with with penises and ovaries both. You have seen evidence that people can be born with mirrored anatomies. You have seen evidence that people can be born in all manner of bizarre ways, including as whole mixtures of two completely different gamete pairs (chimerization). Yet you do not think that this is, perhaps, evidence that less visible combinations of dimorphic discordance exist? LOL!

Assertion from faith and rampant speculation.

There might be a teapot orbiting mercury - it's possible, right????

 

[Jarhyn]

You have actual, visible, verifiable evidence that people can be born with discordant genitals. You have actual visible evidence that people can be born without brains at all. You have evidence that people can be born with with penises and ovaries both. You have seen evidence that people can be born with mirrored anatomies. You have seen evidence that people can be born in all manner of bizarre ways, including as whole mixtures of two completely different gamete pairs (chimerization). Yet you do not think that this is, perhaps, evidence that less visible combinations of dimorphic discordance exist? LOL!

Assertion from faith and rampant speculation.

There might be a teapot orbiting mercury - it's possible, right????

These points postulate a curve. That curve has the shape "biological systems that differentiate may differentiate in probabilistics ways for probabilistics reasons. There is no system not seen to differentiate probibilistically.

We know there is great variation in the way brains happen, everything from starting conditions to chemical exposure to birth order to just plain fucking luck of happenstance or mutation or random methylation or demethylation of DNA.

My point is, the certainty that it can happen, given the frequency of variations,.leads to the hypothesis that biology is fucking messy, and you are an absurdity for claiming that something as complicated as sexual neural variation is as cut and dry as X or Y. We have the observable reality of people who express dysphoria. This is something they feel, and something they express that having cross hormonal treatment helps.

In my experience, some of them have a really hard time figuring out how to cope with actually being a woman, how to start approaching other women, as a woman. It can be really goddamn intimidating, especially when you are half insane because you don't know how to handle anything because it's fucking puberty all over again. The least you could do for a woman who is probably really having a hard time especially starting out is to stop maybe being such a jerk towards them?

I get it. It feels right to be so concerned with what is in someone's pants rather than, say, the emotions they are feeling and how they get through their day. Sometimes it feels good to be mean. But it's still shitty, and a reason to disregard your shitty opinions.

You don't want to accept the trees are a forest, and those dark columns further in are more trunks.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

There are exactly two things that transwomen don't experience of the female condition: having periods and worrying about pregnancy.

That is not it at all. A person with a vagina and a person with a penis have different organs, which result in different ways of experiencing the world associated with those differences, and as a result, different minds associated with those differences. Of course, there are other differences between female and male minds other than those which result from the distinctive experience of having two distinct organs. But that is one example of a distinctive difference, which includes but is not limited to having periods. Indeed, before they have any periods, girls already have experienced the world in distinctive ways that are different from those of boys. One obvious example is urinating, but more generally it is the experiences associated with one organ that boys do not have (and the same goes in the other direction).

In the matters described above (obviously there are others) the minds of transwomen are clearly like those of other males, and the minds of transmen are like those of other females.

Note also that the above differences exist even without hormonal differences, to a considerable extent. It is true taking hormones will likely also change to some extent the experiences associated with the distinct sexual organs (see above), but that does not come anywhere near erasing them.

Oh, and just in case, it is not true that transwomen have female minds, or transmen have male minds. That's a claim some people make (when they are not denying that there is such thing as female or male minds anyway), but in the significant respect explained above, it is the other way around (and I would argue in other respects as well, even if not all of them).

 

[SimpleDon]

So of course it happened. The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/jan/22/transgender-athletes-joe-biden-executive-order
The Guardian chose to honestly illustrate this story with a picture of the intact males--and shameless cunts--Andraya Yearwood and Terry Miller--competing against females in a 55-metre dash.

Joe Biden’s first day in office delivered an incremental victory for transgender athletes seeking to participate as their identified gender in high school and college sports.


Among the flurry of executive orders signed on Wednesday, Biden called on all federal agencies to enforce a US supreme court decision from last year that expanded the definition of sex discrimination to include discrimination based on sexual orientation as well as gender identity – with language that explicitly referenced the arena of high school and college sports.


“Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports,” the directive states, adding that the incoming administration is committed to “prevent and combat discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation”.
The order, which calls for a broader application of Donald Trump-appointed justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion in last year’s Bostock v Clayton county ruling, mandates that every agency must act to ensure the enforcement of this new rule within 100 days of 20 January.


Crucially, it states the Bostock decision should also apply to Title IX, the federal law that prohibits discrimination in federally funded schools, in keeping with Biden's campaign promise that his Department of Education would investigate and address any violations of transgender students’ rights. States that fail to comply would risk legal action or the loss of federal education funding.

...

“Running has been so important for my identity, my growth as a person, and my ability to survive in a world that discriminates against me,” Andraya Yearwood wrote to the court. “I am thankful that I live in Connecticut where I can be treated as a girl in all aspects of life and not face discrimination at school.”

...

Oh, and Chase Strangio is a shameless cunt too:

Added Chase Strangio, the ACLU’s deputy director for transgender justice: “Right now lawmakers are not only voting on trans lives but threatening the state’s federal funding.”

Also from the Guardian, male-bodied athletes of course retain their advantages even after transition, let alone before (like those shameless cunts Yearwood and Miller) there has been any medical transition of any kind
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...tment-period-for-trans-women-may-be-too-short

This is not the kind of tread that I normally comment on. I don't really understand straight, white male grievance and the politics based on it, especially today when there are much more substantive problems to concern us, people dying from a poorly managed pandemic, domestic and foreign terrorism, open insurrection, the economy in tatters, climate change, social and economic inequality, etc.

However, from just reading the title and the OP I want to point out that the poster of the OP, Metaphor, is posting from Australia leaving the possibility that he or she doesn't understand the US's three co-equal branches of government and how they are supposed to work together.

The Supreme Court ruled the 1964 Civil Rights Act covers the members of the LGBT+ community last summer. The order was to be enforced from 20 January 2021 on. The Supreme Court depends on the executive branch of government under the President to enforce its orders. The Trump administration had not moved to enforce this order, presumably because they assumed that they would not win the 2020 election. The Biden Executive Order was issued to correct this oversight of the previous administration.

Metaphor and others should direct their outrage to the US Supreme Court, not to Biden. But I would point out that the decision was a broad 6 to 3 one, supported by both conservative and liberal justices.

 

[Emily Lake]

My point is, the certainty that it can happen, given the frequency of variations,.leads to the hypothesis that biology is fucking messy, and you are an absurdity for claiming that something as complicated as sexual neural variation is as cut and dry as X or Y. We have the observable reality of people who express dysphoria. This is something they feel, and something they express that having cross hormonal treatment helps.

Are you asserting a neurological cause of dysphoria? If so, some research supporting your assertion would sure be handy.

As a consideration, we also have the observable reality of people who have psychotic episodes and believe that the reptilians are hunting them. Observing that a person has a specific mental framework or belief doesn't alter objective reality. Yes, in many cases, cross hormone treatment helps. But in many cases, it doesn't alleviate the distress to the level of well-being that a healthy human would experience. It is *a* treatment, it may not be the *righty* treatment. Especially since gender dysphoria is not something that is positively testable. It is inferred from personal experience.

In my experience, some of them have a really hard time figuring out how to cope with actually being a woman, how to start approaching other women, as a woman. It can be really goddamn intimidating, especially when you are half insane because you don't know how to handle anything because it's fucking puberty all over again. The least you could do for a woman who is probably really having a hard time especially starting out is to stop maybe being such a jerk towards them?

I'm not a jerk toward them. And in my experience it seems like a tough ride. But... and this is a large disagreement point here, they are not actually women. They are living as women in order to reduce their distress. They are not actually women in any meaningful way. And living as a woman in order to reduce mental distress doesn't entitle them the right to override the safety of women, nor to invade women's privacy and dignity, nor to be housed in the women's prison.

I'm all for alleviating distress. I'm not supportive of doing so at the cost of the rights of women.

I get it. It feels right to be so concerned with what is in someone's pants rather than, say, the emotions they are feeling and how they get through their day. Sometimes it feels good to be mean. But it's still shitty, and a reason to disregard your shitty opinions.

I get it. It feels good to dehumanize and denigrate your opponent, and to paint them as malicious and evil. It's much harder to recognize where they're coming from and to understand that what you're arguing for affects a whole lot of other people in very real ways. It's a lot easier to just write someone off as shitty and disregard them instead of putting in the effort to consider the effect of your agenda.

I'll be quite harshly frank here. Based on personal interactions, I have zero problem accepting krypton iodine sulfur into a female-only space. I want you nowhere near me when I'm unclothed or vulnerable. KIS has shown herself to be a caring, compassionate, and thoughtful woman. You've mostly shown yourself to be a selfish and entitled person who doesn't care about the harm done to others as long as you get what you want.

 

[Jarhyn]

Are you asserting a neurological cause of dysphoria? If so, some research supporting your assertion would sure be handy.

are you seriously asking the question of whether the neural structures, the structures whose shape and connectivity define and produce our behavior, ideas, feelongs, impact our behavior, beliefs, feelings?

LOL!

I figured you for a sex[essential]ist but you really go beyond the pale to prove it.

They are not actually women in any meaningful way.

KIS has shown herself to be a caring, compassionate, and thoughtful woman.

Take your fucking pick. Can't have it both ways.

 

[Emily Lake]

are you seriously asking the question of whether the neural structures, the structures whose shape and connectivity define and produce our behavior, ideas, feelongs, impact our behavior, beliefs, feelings?

LOL!

I figured you for a sex[essential]ist but you really go beyond the pale to prove it.

Bare assertions and a fallacious argument from disbelief, without even a shred of support for the claim you're making. Good on you.

KIS has shown herself to be a caring, compassionate, and thoughtful woman.

Take your fucking pick. Can't have it both ways.

Sure I can. I will treat KIS as a woman in social interactions, out of kindness and compassion for her suffering. It is courtesy and empathy. That doesn't, however, make KIS a woman in reality. KIS is someone living as a woman, presenting as a woman - and because of her behavior, I will treat her with courtesy.

You've mostly shown yourself to give no shits at all about females, so I don't feel that I need to extend any particular courtesy to you beyond the civility expected of the forum.

 

[Jarhyn]

Bare assertions and a fallacious argument from disbelief, without even a shred of support for the claim you're making. Good on you.

Take your fucking pick. Can't have it both ways.

Sure I can. I will treat KIS as a woman in social interactions, out of kindness and compassion for her suffering. It is courtesy and empathy. That doesn't, however, make KIS a woman in reality. KIS is someone living as a woman, presenting as a woman - and because of her behavior, I will treat her with courtesy.

You've mostly shown yourself to give no shits at all about females, so I don't feel that I need to extend any particular courtesy to you beyond the civility expected of the forum.

No. I actually literally study the science of how and why neurons, acting in concert, produce behavior.

There is a neurological basis for all behavior originating from thought, perception, or understanding because these things are accomplished by the sequential activation of neurons.

I mean shit, it's like you asking me to prove that algorithms have something to do with math. Math is MADE of Algorithmic description. It's algorithms all the way down.

Behavior is neurons, and the relationship those neurons have with hormonal biasing.

I give no shits about YOU. Specifically you, Emily Lake.

You have a magical definition of woman that relies on something that doesn't actually have any behavior in and of its own beyond spitting out eggs (depending; not necessary or sufficient, after all), and a combination of progesterone and estrogen (which you claim isn't actually what makes you a woman!)

You have displayed intransigence in any ability to understand the biology of it.

You get no civility from me because you refuse to accept that you could even be possibly wrong about what makes a person meaningfully "woman" for the rest of us. You set the bar to an unattainable peak, conveniently betraying in your own language that you don't even fully buy your own rhetoric.

I'm not going to accept your walk-back.

KIS has shown herself to be a caring, compassionate, and thoughtful woman.

KIS has shown herself to be a... woman.

You wish to exclude people for something you have no right to know. Something they have no obligation to tell you. Something they ought not tell you in particular because you will use it to "other" them. Something I hope sincerely puts egg on your face the day you lose a friend because you didn't know she was trans until after you alienate her.

 

[repoman]

Would it make a difference if the reason a person is transgender is much more subtle and multifactorial than another person being gay?

If (especially) a male was gay because of one highly specialized, hard coded region of the brain and a transgender is that way because of three brain regions that are more soft coded are some hinting that the trans person is less valid?

 

[Emily Lake]

No. I actually literally study the science of how and why neurons, acting in concert, produce behavior.

There is a neurological basis for all behavior originating from thought, perception, or understanding because these things are accomplished by the sequential activation of neurons.

I don't disagree with that. What I disagree with is your extrapolation from there to the assumption that the perceptions and understanding of said neuron clusters is REAL.

You say you study this. Alright. When a schizophrenic's brain has a bunch of neurons firing off and acting in concert that creates the thoughts and perceptions and understanding that reptilians are hunting them... Does that make their thoughts, perceptions, and understanding objectively real? Does their perception of hunting reptilians become truth for everyone else on the planet?

I mean shit, it's like you asking me to prove that algorithms have something to do with math. Math is MADE of Algorithmic description. It's algorithms all the way down.

It's much more like I'm asking you to prove that a particular algorithm that you've written down actually does what you claim it does and is mathematically sound.

Behavior is neurons, and the relationship those neurons have with hormonal biasing.

Sure. But behavior isn't reality, nor does it alter objective reality. When my bipolar sister goes into an episode and decides that the lady behind the counter that told her there are no coke zeros left is lying to her because she's just a mean person... that doesn't make it true. Her neurons lead her to behave in a certain way.. and I'm for damn sure that her hormonal cycles affect her disorder (and hence her behavior). That still doesn't make her perception or her understanding of the situation true.

You have a magical definition of woman that relies on something that doesn't actually have any behavior in and of its own beyond spitting out eggs (depending; not necessary or sufficient, after all), and a combination of progesterone and estrogen (which you claim isn't actually what makes you a woman!)

Well, that would be because "woman" is not a set of behaviors. The presence or absence of hormones doesn't make me female or male. The machinery for large immobile gametes makes me female. All of my hormonal processes fired off in the right order at the right stages of my development for a human with large immobile gametes, thus I developed the reproductive system and the secondary sex characteristics that are normally associated with a female. I have the lived experience of the physical repercussions of that very real biology, as well as the lived experience of my society's conditioning and treatment of females, and the expectations placed upon females... and the combination of those experiences and my actual real biology is what makes me a woman.

You have displayed intransigence in any ability to understand the biology of it.

You've displayed an intransigence to supporting your claims and a persistence in claiming that brains are gendered.

You get no civility from me because you refuse to accept that you could even be possibly wrong about what makes a person meaningfully "woman" for the rest of us. You set the bar to an unattainable peak, conveniently betraying in your own language that you don't even fully buy your own rhetoric.

What? It's not an unattainable peak for a female. It's the actual state of being for a female.

Honestly, what "being a duck" means to a rabbit is pretty much irrelevant, when the duck says "no, rabbits aren't ducks".

I don't contain any notable African heritage, and my skin is about as pale as the average Irishwoman can be. Even though I grew up with a black stepfather, my upbringing was largely on military bases, and then of a very run-of-the-mill white middle class suburb. I don't have the melanin of a black person in America, nor do I have the lived social experience of a black woman in America.

So you think that I have any place at all telling a black woman what being black is all about? Do you think I have any reasonable basis from which to declare that her understanding of black womanhood is incorrect, and that she's not giving enough consideration to what being black means to non-black people?

KIS has shown herself to be a caring, compassionate, and thoughtful woman.

KIS has shown herself to be a... woman.

KIS has shown themselves to be a caring compassionate person, who I am happy to do the courtesy of referring to as a woman. I'm happy to let KIS live her life as a woman and I support her efforts. Were KIS a rampant jerk expressing misogynistic views that female biology doesn't matter... I likely would not be quite so supportive.

You wish to exclude people for something you have no right to know. Something they have no obligation to tell you. Something they ought not tell you in particular because you will use it to "other" them. Something I hope sincerely puts egg on your face the day you lose a friend because you didn't know she was trans until after you alienate her.

It really depends. In many social situations, I don't give a crap what's in someone's pants, and I truly don't care how someone chooses to dress or comport themselves. I think everyone should be allowed to dress and express themselves however they want within the confines of a polite society (wearing a bathing suit to a business dinner is probably a no-go regardless of how you look in it).

I do, however, think that be-penised people shouldn't be granted access to female-only spaces as a right. Nor do I think that people who benefit from a male biology should compete against females in sports. Nor do I think that self-identification without a diagnosis should grant people the right to invade the spaces of others or to dictate their spaces.

I also think that the guidelines for treating minors presenting with gender issues needs to be tightened up. Not done away with, not banned - for some children it is the right treatment path. But I do think it needs to be more careful, and that clinicians should have the right to question a child's professed gender identity to ensure that it is legitimate and not a mask for a different problem.

 

[Trausti]

Would it make a difference if the reason a person is transgender is much more subtle and multifactorial than another person being gay?

If (especially) a male was gay because of one highly specialized, hard coded region of the brain and a transgender is that way because of three brain regions that are more soft coded are some hinting that the trans person is less valid?

Don’t think that people doubt brain development may affect transgenderism. It’s that this wouldn’t change the rest of their biology.

 

[Derec]

sure is a good thing, then that NOBODY IS ASKING FOR THAT except in your clearly deluded thought process.

Demanding that sports leagues abolish men/women designations in favor of leagues based on testosterone levels is definiely an example of that.

arguments, my position, stand on the (perhaps novel) idea that there are absolutely people alive today born with a penis who have not been significantly influenced in this way by testosterone.

[citation needed]

naw dude, that's communism.

I am not your dude, guy. And naw, you are wrong. That is the definition of socialism.


Communism is the theoretical end-stage of socialism characterized by the whithering away of the state, money and other things seen as holdovers from the capitalist pre-revolutionary times. That's why Communist Parties rules over socialist states - communism was their goal, but socialism was what they had. It also explains Radio Yerewan jokes like this one.

Q: "When the final phase of socialism, namely communism, is built, will there still be thefts and pilfering?"
A: "No, because everything will be already pilfered during socialism."

Though I don't mind that you can't tell the difference.

Oh, I can tell the difference. You obviously can't.

Also, society has changed a lot, academics has moved a lot, since Marx hit the scene.

Yes, indeed. Since his death in 1883 socialism has been tried in many countries on five continents and found wanting each time.
And that failure was so long ago that we have two generations (Millennials and Zoomers) that are utterly ignorant of how much of an epic fail socialism has been.

1. I don't care, but lion does. The question is why do you care that I bring it up?

I found it a weird thing to bring up.

2. Socialism is as old as society. That one guy wrote a lot about it at the time of the industrial revolution.

Both capitalism and socialism are both products of the industrial revolution. Not to say that economic systems based on free(ish) markets and those based on public ownership/control did not exist before, but they are not the same as what developed in the modern times.
And it was not just one guy who wrote about it. There were others, like Owen, although his system was weird and more of a backlash to the Industrial Revolution than anything else.

That Jesus, or marx, or any of the great socialist thinkers

Aside from the fact that we do not know how much, if anything at all, of the Biblical Jesus goes back to a historical Jesus, why do you think the Bible even portrays Jesus as a socialist? I know this is a common trope among Christian socialists, but I do not see it. The Christian commune in Acts could be described as socialist given their forced sharing of all property and death penalty for those who withhold any funds from the Politburo (Che Guevara would be proud!), but I do not see much of that in the character of Jesus himself.

didn't have a great grasp on the subject isn't really my problem. It doesn't change the fact that, for Lion, given that he literally claims to worship Jesus, he fails to do the most important thing Jesus actually asked for.

And what do you think Jesus actually asked for? Because there is a lot of things, and some are contradictory between gospels, but I do not recall any verse that says "verily I say unto you, means of production shall be owned by the community as a whole".