• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Biden begins erasing girls on day one: transgender executive order

So we have 12 pages of avoidance of discussing the OP. One person has admitted they don't like the executive order, one more has admitted he 'doesn't give a fuck', but I don't know what that really means. If it was rescinded tomorrow, would he not give a fuck?

I suspect there are a number of posters who disagree with the executive order but are too afraid to say so.

Please, don't be afraid. Being in the majority does not make you wrong.

I disagree with the executive order

And for that reason, I bask and glorify in you being put out by it. Mostly because it takes a really shitty viewpoint to disagree with ceasing to discriminate on the basis of sex, but rather on the basis of some real, substantial thing (such as hormone exposure).
 
Last edited:
So we have 12 pages of avoidance of discussing the OP. One person has admitted they don't like the executive order, one more has admitted he 'doesn't give a fuck', but I don't know what that really means. If it was rescinded tomorrow, would he not give a fuck?

I suspect there are a number of posters who disagree with the executive order but are too afraid to say so.

Please, don't be afraid. Being in the majority does not make you wrong.

I disagree with the executive order

And for that reason, I bask and glorify in you being put out by it. Mostly because it takes a really shitty person to disagree with ceasing to discriminate on the basis of sex, but rather on the basis of some real, substantial thing (such as hormone exposure).

Truly a mystery how forensic scientists/anthropologists can tell the sex of long-deceased person just by the bones. It's voodoo, I tell ya.

Birth canals are different all over the world, countering a long-held evolutionary theory

The shape of a mother’s birth canal is a tug-of-war between two opposing evolutionary forces: It needs to be wide enough to allow our big-brained babies to pass through, yet narrow enough to allow women to walk efficiently. At least that’s been the common thinking. But a new study reveals birth canals come in a variety of shapes in women around the world.

The idea that women’s pelvises have been shaped by an evolutionary compromise—also known as the “obstetrical dilemma”—has been influential in anthropology, says Jonathan Wells, an expert in human evolution at University College London who was not involved with the work. But recent studies have challenged it, and the new findings add to that research, he says. If the obstetric dilemma held true, one would expect birth canals around the world to be relatively standardized, Wells says. But that’s not what researchers found.

But what of the birth canals of women with penises?
 
Discrimination on the basis of sex isn't always bad.

We allow discrimination on the basis of sex to allow things such as female only sports.

That is rooted in basic physiology that gives males a huge advantage due to puberty.

Given the known advantages of male physiology, the presumption should be against trans women being allowed to participate in a female category of sports.
 
Lol. I absolutely LOVE IT when males tell females what the most impactful things about being female are. Thank you for mansplaining that the only reason females get discriminated against is because of my clothing selections. :rolleyes: It's almost as if a male person raise as a male doesn't actually understand anything at all about being female.

Ah yes. So you are ignoring that whole "hormones" thing, then. The fact is YOU and YOUR behavior are what exclude transwomen from the experience of being a woman. I honestly don't give a shit if you are a woman. You're still espousing shitty fucking views that don't correspond to the actual reality of cultural womanhood. It has nothing to do with you being a woman and everything to do with your generalizing your views to all women. You don't get to decide for "women" any more than I do. You get to decide for yourself. And that's it. As for me, I choose to decide for myself that I am going to respect people based on the lives they live, brains they have (and the hormones they soak in), behavior they engage in, and image they present.

No, I'm not ignoring hormones. But if you think that hormones are all there is to being female, you're woefully mistaken. Yes, estrogen and testosterone are powerful chemicals. Yes, they drive certain secondary sex characteristics. But there are many more things to being female that you have just dismissed out of hand as "unimportant".

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that if something is unimportant to you, then it is unimportant to everyone.

It's clear that the physical structure and biology of a female is unimportant to you. That doesn't make it not impactful and meaningful to females. Periods and all of the pain, discomfort, embarrassment, and responsibility that comes with them isn't something you can just toss out as unimportant. Pregnancy isn't something you can ignore and decide isn't important. PCOS, ovarian cancer, cervical cancer, PPV, fibroids, endometriosis, menopause, and a host of other issues that are specific to the female reproductive system. A plethora of illnesses, disorders, and diseases that express differently in females than in males. Hundreds of drugs that affect females differently than males.

And culturally, it's not "presentation" that drives the sex-based biases. It's intimately tied to our reproductive capacity. Females get promoted at slower rates than males do... not because of our clothing choices, but because we might get pregnant and take time off to have babies. Females are placed in fewer executive roles in part because we sometimes get cranky during that time of the month and can't be trusted to make good decisions. Females are frequently expected to take on organizing, homemaking, and caregiving duties even if she is the breadwinner in her household, because we are just naturally motherly and it's our natural role to take care of others. The cultural and social biases that disadvantage females across the whole globe are NOT based on "presentation" - they're based on expectations and confining gender roles imposed upon us as a result of our physical biology.

But these just aren't important to you. I wonder why that might be... perhaps because they are something you have not and cannot every fully experience? No, that couldn't be the reason.

I'm not excluding you from the experience of being a woman. Jesus H. Roosevelt Christ. You fucking actual real biology denies you that experience.

You should not be subject to violence or ostracism or harassment for your choice of clothing and presentation. But that identity does NOT entitle you to appropriate womanhood, and it does NOT obligate females to surrender their rights, their spaces, and their dignity to your feelings.

If you want to be a woman, fine. How about you start treating females with some decency and respect, and try to understand the struggles and challenges that females face? How about you get involved in making the world better for females?
 
So we have 12 pages of avoidance of discussing the OP. One person has admitted they don't like the executive order, one more has admitted he 'doesn't give a fuck', but I don't know what that really means. If it was rescinded tomorrow, would he not give a fuck?

I suspect there are a number of posters who disagree with the executive order but are too afraid to say so.

Please, don't be afraid. Being in the majority does not make you wrong.

I disagree with the executive order

And for that reason, I bask and glorify in you being put out by it. Mostly because it takes a really shitty viewpoint to disagree with ceasing to discriminate on the basis of sex, but rather on the basis of some real, substantial thing (such as hormone exposure).

OMG I can't stop laughing.

Did you seriously just claim that sex isn't a real substantial thing?
 
So we have 12 pages of avoidance of discussing the OP. One person has admitted they don't like the executive order, one more has admitted he 'doesn't give a fuck', but I don't know what that really means. If it was rescinded tomorrow, would he not give a fuck?

I suspect there are a number of posters who disagree with the executive order but are too afraid to say so.

Please, don't be afraid. Being in the majority does not make you wrong.

I disagree with the executive order

And for that reason, I bask and glorify in you being put out by it. Mostly because it takes a really shitty viewpoint to disagree with ceasing to discriminate on the basis of sex, but rather on the basis of some real, substantial thing (such as hormone exposure).

The real point is that this will be a constant power struggle that has to be done like mowng the lawn - no matter what side you are on.

If the end goal is Z then only say you want A to strong opponents and that you want C to moderates and E to strong allies. Then in three years A-C-E becomes C-E-G, fives years G-J-N. Make sure at this point that you retrench and punish anyone below E on the spectrum of whatever issue this is. Make sure you talk about how you don't feel safe.

What are your REAL goals for biological males in women's sports or for the place of women's sports at all? Are you willing to hide these goals and argue in bad faith to achieve them? I think yes, because you see your opponents as immoral.
 
The satire isn't deliberate.
Gender fluid theory mocks itself without any help from me.

Im making a logical argument. If discrimination is bad, then let's ban it.

You mock yourself without any help from me.

Discrimination on the basis of sex, gender, or identity are bad specifically because they are indirect proxies for measurable individual capabilities.

How do you not grok this?

Like, if I'm hiring for the tallest ten persons, and I kick out every woman who walks through the door "because she is a woman" without measuring her height, I have discriminated. If I measure every person who walks in and the ten tallest happen to be men, I have not.

Here, it is not "man" or "woman", it is "steroid exposure" that we care about. Always has been. Will continue to be.

You are making a straw-man argument based on your failure to understand identity theory (that identities are not something that can or should suffer the action of discrimination).

You are talking right past me.
:shrug:

If you're against performance enhancing drugs in sport - a different topic - just say so.

Now, if I'm paying to watch a given sport, I'm the customer and I'll discriminate for and against my preferred viewing content however I choose.
 
Ah yes. So you are ignoring that whole "hormones" thing, then. The fact is YOU and YOUR behavior are what exclude transwomen from the experience of being a woman. I honestly don't give a shit if you are a woman. You're still espousing shitty fucking views that don't correspond to the actual reality of cultural womanhood. It has nothing to do with you being a woman and everything to do with your generalizing your views to all women. You don't get to decide for "women" any more than I do. You get to decide for yourself. And that's it. As for me, I choose to decide for myself that I am going to respect people based on the lives they live, brains they have (and the hormones they soak in), behavior they engage in, and image they present.

It's right to respect people's lives they live in, behaviour they engage in, and image they present. But that doesn't change the reality of biological sex, and there are circumstances where biological sex matters. "Woman" is the correct biological term for female adult humans.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand on to biology, I guess. You shouldn't have stepped in that one. Just FYI.

Biological sex is not one thing (or two things). The fact that you pose it as one is problematic to say the least.

The fact is, sex is a lot of things, all mashed together and appearing comorbid enough to give the illusion, but not reality, of a binary.

There ARE two general modes. Two normals. But remember, the thing about normals is that they are like imaginary numbers. They aren't real. They are, well, hypothetical.

Now, back to biology... The thing you think of as biological sex is, in fact, many things. It is a laundry list of processes, mostly gated by chemical rates. Or as my friend G, who literally studies the chemical-mechanical functions of biological processes, states "It's all just rate controlled reactions."

Those rates, whether a single chemical unit or ten, are made, determines ultimately whether you end up making testosterone or estrogen. The problem is that according to biology (Google: dihydrogen testosterone exposure fetal development), it's actually a secondary reaction from the mother that regulates that step. And the thing about rate dependent chemistries is that outside factors make impacts to those rates. A significant portion of everyone is visibly affected by these rates.

And, these rates also impact, ultimately, what brain structures grow. It is more sensitive, I would imagine, than something as raw and varied as what drives our junk determinant signaling (DHT). And now we are talking the part that actually thinks about and "knows" itself. We know for a fact that the brain knows itself, knows things about itself, how it is going to relate to itself, determined before any sexually differentiating chemistry exists besides DHT. And here's the thing. DHT doesn't drive all the brain differentiation.

Usually the quantities of various stuff expressed on the X that is missing on the Y account for at least some of those initial likelihoods of differences. But that's all it is: probabilities.

There are well known studies that indicate (Google: Mother antibody feminization) that indicate in fact that there is a biological effect shown, quite clearly, that biological processes can absolutely push such an end as to create very interesting amalgams of sexual brain development traits. Sometimes this amalgam is more complete. Sometimes it's entirely in the brain, and the brain just has a bad time when given the body it didn't evolve to be grown into, but was on account of being, for example, the second or third XY processed by their mother.

I look forward to scolding you when you try to speak again about another topic you have read nothing about and understood less of.

These are all things that exist in the world. We aren't asking you to be a trans-whatever non-man xir person or whatever. Personally, I see that as a slur, so, don't be like Lion. or like me, I guess. Bad me. You get the point? I am not asking you to change who you are or how you act in general. I asking you that IF you wish to claim you talk about biology, understand that the biology is not this simple "X or Y, and that does it" kind of matter.

I have thought about this for so long. I have had so many questions about what happened and why. I am asking you that you stop trying to tell other people who they are and how they were born when you don't actually know.

I'm willing to keep an open mind knowing what can happen. It seems this leads to better outcomes.
 
The satire isn't deliberate.
Gender fluid theory mocks itself without any help from me.

Im making a logical argument. If discrimination is bad, then let's ban it.

You mock yourself without any help from me.

Discrimination on the basis of sex, gender, or identity are bad specifically because they are indirect proxies for measurable individual capabilities.

How do you not grok this?

Like, if I'm hiring for the tallest ten persons, and I kick out every woman who walks through the door "because she is a woman" without measuring her height, I have discriminated. If I measure every person who walks in and the ten tallest happen to be men, I have not.

Here, it is not "man" or "woman", it is "steroid exposure" that we care about. Always has been. Will continue to be.

You are making a straw-man argument based on your failure to understand identity theory (that identities are not something that can or should suffer the action of discrimination).

You are talking right past me.
:shrug:

If you're against performance enhancing drugs in sport - a different topic - just say so.

Now, if I'm paying to watch a given sport, I'm the customer and I'll discriminate for and against my preferred viewing content however I choose.

The fuck do you think testosterone is? What do you think steroids in general are made with?
 
Those rates, whether a single chemical unit or ten, are made, determines ultimately whether you end up making testosterone or estrogen. The problem is that according to biology (Google: dihydrogen testosterone exposure fetal development), it's actually a secondary reaction from the mother that regulates that step.

The birthing person, you transphobe.

There are well known studies that indicate (Google: Mother antibody feminization) that indicate in fact that there is a biological effect shown, quite clearly, that biological processes can absolutely push such an end as to create very interesting amalgams of sexual brain development traits. Sometimes this amalgam is more complete. Sometimes it's entirely in the brain, and the brain just has a bad time when given the body it didn't evolve to be grown into, but was on account of being, for example, the second or third XY processed by their mother.

The birthing person, you transphobe.
 
And for that reason, I bask and glorify in you being put out by it. Mostly because it takes a really shitty viewpoint to disagree with ceasing to discriminate on the basis of sex, but rather on the basis of some real, substantial thing (such as hormone exposure).

The real point is that this will be a constant power struggle that has to be done like mowng the lawn - no matter what side you are on.

If the end goal is Z then only say you want A to strong opponents and that you want C to moderates and E to strong allies. Then in three years A-C-E becomes C-E-G, fives years G-J-N. Make sure at this point that you retrench and punish anyone below E on the spectrum of whatever issue this is. Make sure you talk about how you don't feel safe.

What are your REAL goals for biological males in women's sports or for the place of women's sports at all? Are you willing to hide these goals and argue in bad faith to achieve them? I think yes, because you see your opponents as immoral.

My real goals are that people who have not been in "unacceptable" (subject to league policy) contact with testosterone may compete with like contestants. For those who have exposure on the basis of medically controlled bounds, and test cleanly for levels thereof*, the standard leagues we already have (it's not "men's football", it's the "national football league") already have those rules.

That's where I see sports ending up.

Personally, I'd not mind seeing no-holds-barred chemolympics, but that gets a little headonistic and self-destructive. The standard leagues may stand as "bad enough".

I will always tell people where I think we need to be, rather than fucking around with half measures and slow boil and overton window or whatever.

I've been arguing this for years. Since the first time trans in sports came up. Since there were "what if" about literally every actual situation brought up in this thread. Some things we decried as ridiculous things that the GoP would insist would happen (those taking testosterone competing against those not!), and that if we wanted to avoid bad ends, decide on the basis of hormones and testosterone which you and others said was ridiculous -- "ThInK Of the ChIlDrEn". Or someone too like you to care. And then we say we should have a choice, ultimately, of which puberty we experience, and you then stutter and go back to ThInK Of ThE ChIlDrEn.

I've done this at least 5 times now.





*(specifically testosterone. For other steroids, they take the same piss in a cups that everyone else gets, gotta keep it interesting and equally scandalous!)

Edit: it seems we have this discussion once with every republican president when they swing against trans people, and then two or so times per Dem administration. It's getting old. Can we please talk about something more interesting like android rights, or replicants or clones or aliens or whatever? I have very similar views: if they can demonstrate they are people, we accept them as such and ascribe to mutual education in matters of evidence and observation, under the understanding that not understanding stuff really blows, and it's something we can never actually complete even if we unify physics, even if we unify philosophy, even if we unify computational mechanics to biological brain function.

You want to be all master race. I want to be all "more of us, and we have better reasons to stay together than you have to hate."

You, ultimately, accept your hate. I don't hate you. If you tomorrow or today, or in the post I'm editing behind say you accept this, that people ought have choice over the decision, ultimately, of the puberty they have, even if you don't necessarily think that's a good idea (hint: they aren't doing it in a vacuum! They have parents, therapists, psychiatrists, people who have been in school far longer than me to scrutinize their decision. They have gone to school on how to effectively scrutinize them!), I would burn my favourite hat.
 
You are talking right past me.
:shrug:

If you're against performance enhancing drugs in sport - a different topic - just say so.

Now, if I'm paying to watch a given sport, I'm the customer and I'll discriminate for and against my preferred viewing content however I choose.

The fuck do you think testosterone is? What do you think steroids in general are made with?

Wanna start a new thread in the Natural Sciences forum?
 
You are talking right past me.
:shrug:

If you're against performance enhancing drugs in sport - a different topic - just say so.

Now, if I'm paying to watch a given sport, I'm the customer and I'll discriminate for and against my preferred viewing content however I choose.

The fuck do you think testosterone is? What do you think steroids in general are made with?

Wanna start a new thread in the Natural Sciences forum?

No, you made this political. You base your political opinion on it. You wish to make a decision on the politics of this statement.

One league allows what is almost statistically indistinguishable now from "only within an acceptable limit: testosterone; don't care about estrogen.".

One league requires "only within acceptable limit of exposure: naught but estrogen."

It seems.simple.that this decides what the leagues ought allow, but make those scientific and hormonal barriers be the bar. Let them call themselves as they wish, makes nevermind matter to me.

Maybe women lose exclusive access to a league that is in fact as, if Metaphor were to be someone I might respect, to continue the unlikely trend of caring about gender double standards rather than just attacking people he doesn't like with smears, would appreciate that Women's NBA is fundamentally sexist, though admittedly only in response to being forced to, through sexism. We can drop all the sexism right now. Remove the sexes from the league requirements of the one that has sex based requirements (which include schools!), And just let kids play with kids!

I'll call me as I wish, which is for now he, or they, as the latter befits anyone but particularly me. I choose not to disclose on the form HR isn't supposed to look at but totally does.

So I'm going to keep this here because there is already a thread going there and I already said my piece a couple posts back on the scientific facts of the matter. I can go further into the statistics of the thing, if you really want that.

If you want to make this religious, I look at the world and bodies and minds this "god" of yours "planned" and I weep for the chaos and the need of hubris to improve.

Whatever we happened to become, I expect it is something that can read the universe to see the best path towards the least death, to be understood as the death of idea in addition to mere flesh. For such things there is a very important rule: love your neighbor as yourself, and don't deign to tell them which goals they ought not have through action. We will in turn protect you and them from that.

It's the basic idea of society. Being social. Socialism. Jesus was a socialist.
 
Do you agree with this executive order, that trans-identified males should be able to compete against females in high school sports?

I do agree with the EO. I don't agree with your assessment of what it entails.
It is extremely important to try and eliminate sexual discrimination in our society. This is what the EO is attempting to do. It does not specify that trans women will or ought to be able to compete against females in high school sports.

This is a nice analyses of the EO HERE

And this youtube video goes into much more detailed legal analysis which begins about 4 minutes into the video:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?fbclid=IwAR2EwmfToHvhpf__cmWX-9HJh7-vf4cWEa2SNrJ_mGThFXqs9LK8XkKhRpg&v=A7vXwe6lJE4&feature=youtu.be&ab_channel=CathyBrennan[/YOUTUBE]
 
Biological sex is not one thing (or two things). The fact that you pose it as one is problematic to say the least.

The fact is, sex is a lot of things, all mashed together and appearing comorbid enough to give the illusion, but not reality, of a binary.

No, sex is literally two things. For 99.9% of people, it is one thing. It is the type of gamete and the presence of a functioning SRY receptor. That is all. End of story.

Sex is NOT a spectrum. You are conflating the variety of secondary sexual characteristics with actual biological sex.

The PROCESS of development is complex, and sexual development is part of that development and is also complex. But sex itself is very clearly defined and is very clearly binary.
 
I do agree with the EO. I don't agree with your assessment of what it entails.
It is extremely important to try and eliminate sexual discrimination in our society.

Interesting. I'd also very much like to end sex discrimination in our society. I'm not particularly convinced that replacing "sex" with "gender identity" is going to accomplish that, however.
 
Biological sex is not one thing (or two things). The fact that you pose it as one is problematic to say the least.

The fact is, sex is a lot of things, all mashed together and appearing comorbid enough to give the illusion, but not reality, of a binary.

No, sex is literally two things. For 99.9% of people, it is one thing. It is the type of gamete and the presence of a functioning SRY receptor. That is all. End of story.

Sex is NOT a spectrum. You are conflating the variety of secondary sexual characteristics with actual biological sex.

The PROCESS of development is complex, and sexual development is part of that development and is also complex. But sex itself is very clearly defined and is very clearly binary.

And again, you fail *hard* at the biology. Did I stutter? Did I say "spectrum"? I DID NOT.

My conversation is one of granularity, not spectral distinction.

You are conflating a discussion of granularity and quanta (a real thing) with spectrum, which is also present but not really touched on in my post.

The fact that you want to discuss sex, but are ignoring the reality of the granularity of the problem, means you don't understand the subject in any real terms.

When someone ends up with all the brain bits you yourself would call "female" and that brain is exposed to all the hormones that make it feel and continue to become more of what you would call "female", that means that all the "person" parts of the human are what you would call "female". I call that person a female (insofar as YOUR definitions would be concerned) regardless of the parts that I can't see. They don't make any difference to me, mere trivia at best and invasion of privacy more like. They would bbe what you would call "female" even if they were just their brain in a jar, especially so, even.

Female here is conflated across measures of granularity, that you wish to insist a person is male because penis, or because XX. That doesn't work in reality, it only works when you are being sloppy, using one term to proxy many terms for various discrete systems.
 
Remove the sexes from the league requirements of the one that has sex based requirements (which include schools!), And just let kids play with kids!

But once those kids go through puberty, gender based physical differences become huge. For vast majority of people.
You can't let a tiny fraction of intersexed individuals dictate matters for the rest of humanity.

It's the basic idea of society. Being social. Socialism.
Being social != socialism. Socialism is an ideology that states that means of production should be communally owned.

Jesus was a socialist.

1. This is an atheist forum. What do we care what Jesus might have been?
2. Socialism proper arose only after the Industrial revolution. Calling Jesus a socialist is thus an anachronism. It also requires cherry-picking verses. For an counterexample, in the Parable of the Talents seeking profit is seen as good.
 
Back
Top Bottom