"Children cannot consent to puberty blockers" and being in the wrong body

[Bomb#20]

It follows directly. Would you tell a gay male that they don't prefer "regular males" if they say that they're not attracted to transgender identified females, because they are females and they're same-sex attracted? By adopting this pretense that sexual attraction is not tied to actual for-realsies sex, you end up making orientation just a "preference".

Sexual preference is, in fact, a preference. Which people are absolutely allowed to have. Why should you be permitted to tell anyone who they may or may not prefer?

You go first. Why should you be permitted to keep on beating your wife? Emily didn't tell anyone who they may or may not prefer; she criticized bilby for telling excreationist he couldn't prefer regular females. She gave you zero reason to think your "You don't get to tell other people who they are, who they want to be, or who want they want to be with." rant at her was fact-based; you assigned that behavior to her because your religion tells you it's what unbelievers do. Stop believing everything you think. And if people butting into each other's sex lives is that important an issue to you, go rant at bilby about it.

You don't get to tell other people who they are, who they want to be, or who want they want to be with. No one elected you.

Are you suggesting having been elected entitles elected officials to tell other people who they are, who they want to be, or who want they want to be with?!?

No one asked for your input.

Fair point. Bit of an oversight, that. Emily, may we please have your input?

Happy? Which part of "discussion board" didn't you understand when you got your account here?

 

[Jarhyn]

So no,

It follows directly. Would you tell a gay male that they don't prefer "regular males" if they say that they're not attracted to transgender identified females, because they are females and they're same-sex attracted? By adopting this pretense that sexual attraction is not tied to actual for-realsies sex, you end up making orientation just a "preference".

Sexual preference is, in fact, a preference. Which people are absolutely allowed to have. Why should you be permitted to tell anyone who they may or may not prefer? The world would be such a nicer place if "liberals" like you would just get the ever loving fuck out of our underpants, out of our bedrooms, definitely out of our doctor visits, and ideally, out of our lives, at least with your Victorian, pre-science, pseudoscience bullshit. You don't get to tell other people who they are, who they want to be, or who want they want to be with. No one elected you. No one asked for your input. We certainly don't work for you. So what gives? Just grow up, and fucking live with the fact that not everyone is like you and there is no goddamned reason why they should have to be. If you don't want other people to tell you who and what you are, and I know that you do not, consider leading by example for a change.

And if you're going to pretend to know something about biology, learn to read a book every now and then instead of the internet.

Some (probably developmentally delayed nazi types), don't understand that "sexual preference", just like sex, is a cluster concept; it's not that someone prefers A or B, it's more like a scoring system for most people; they have specific weight of preference for various expressions of specific features.

Some of those features are polymorphic and have a principally bimodal distribution. We tend to call some of those features "sexual" features, but the point here is that again, sex isn't really real in that way; it's not a single binary thing, it's a bunch of traits hiding in a trenchcoat.

Sexual preference isn't a preference for when people say the posture of the figure slouches left or right, so to speak, sexual preference is whether the sum total of features inside the trench coat break a threshold score without hitting a "deal breaker". It's something that happens Ala Carte on the individual features.

People will often characterize that as being perfectly straight or gay, especially those who identify as "men", but that's not actually a natural description of the attraction.

Mostly we just accept this because we know language can't always be perfect, but some utter fools and Nazis like to play games.

Here they are already lying their asses off, and yes they are LIES at this point. There is no fucking excuse. We have Sapolski and all sorts of evidence collected all over academia about the effects of control of hormones on precocious (and normal) puberty, and all of this, and the responses to that are fucking Cass and SMEG.

 

[Jarhyn]

Fact Check: Trump's HHS Review On Trans Care Filled With Pseudoscience, Pushes Conversion Therapy

The review, which was made possible by an executive order calling transgender healthcare "mutilation," reached its predetermined conclusion on its May 1st publication date.

www.erininthemorning.com

The HHS fake science report is out, with direct references to studies that have already been dropped from their original journals for being junk (see also the Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria), defending conversion camps.

We already knew it was heading here.

If you reference this as an argument to back your claims, favoring it over actual science, you are a Nazi, backing Nazi scientist with all the other Nazis.

 

[Toni]

The opposite of trans- is cis-, so if you are talking about only those women who are not transwomen, then you are talking about ciswomen.

Transwoman aren't women at all - they're men. They're men who think of themselves as being more like females than like males, and perhaps they prefer stereotyped female attire, and perhaps they have issues with their male bodies... but they're still not actually women. There isn't a subset of females that is comprised of

What has been discussed exhaustively in either this or some other thread is that sex and gender are NOT as simple as XX vs XY or variations with extra X or extra Y chromosomes. For reasons unknown at this time, sometimes a single gene migrates off the Y chromosome which alters the continuing development of some male characteristics.

This is a link to a WIKI entry that discusses the SRY gene and its importance:

Sex-determining region Y protein - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Most of the time, when a developing sperm cell undergoes crossover during meiosis, the SRY gene stays on the Y chromosome. If the SRY gene is transferred to the X chromosome instead of staying on the Y chromosome, testis development will no longer occur. This is known as Swyer syndrome, characterized by an XY karyotype and a female phenotype. Individuals who have this syndrome have normally formed uteri and fallopian tubes, but the gonads are not functional. Swyer syndrome individuals are usually considered as females.<a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-determining_region_Y_protein#cite_note-:0-22"><span>[</span>22<span>]</span></a> On the other spectrum, XX male syndrome occurs when a body has 46:XX Karyotype and SRY attaches to one of them through translocation. People with XX male syndrome have a XX Karyotype but are male.<a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-determining_region_Y_protein#cite_note-23"><span>[</span>23<span>]</span></a> Individuals with either of these syndromes can experience delayed puberty, infertility, and growth features of the opposite sex they identify with. XX male syndrome expressers may develop breasts, and those with Swyer syndrome may have facial hair

 

[Emily Lake]

It follows directly. Would you tell a gay male that they don't prefer "regular males" if they say that they're not attracted to transgender identified females, because they are females and they're same-sex attracted? By adopting this pretense that sexual attraction is not tied to actual for-realsies sex, you end up making orientation just a "preference".

Sexual preference is, in fact, a preference.

Ahh, I see. It's really just a preference, not really a hardwired orientation then? Like having a preference for strawberry ice cream over chocolate... but you know, if strawberry's not available some other flavor will do just fine? Seriously, if it's a preference, then it can change over time - or be changed for that matter. Never mind that orientation can be observed via MRI, and activity in the part of the brain associated with sexual attraction, arousal, and bonding is activated in response to images. So you know, we have actual scientific proof that homosexuality is wired into our brains and is immutable. But sure, it's just a preference.

Whereas gender identity is somehow elevated to the mystical status of something permanent and unassailable. This is of course totally supported by... nothing at all. It's an article of faith, a talking-point developed and spread by activist organizations. We'll just skip right past the fact that it can change - and has been observed to change all over the place. We have children who express a cross-sex gender identity at the onset of puberty, but if you let them complete a normal puberty they become comfortable with their sexed bodies and are simply homosexual. We have people who became convinced by activists, social media, and irresponsible therapists that their transient discomfort with their naturally changing bodies is evidence of being transgender, and who then undergo puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, and in many cases surgical alteration... only to discover when they're more mature that they were NOT transgender, and they're left with permanently damaged bodies, reduced health, and in many cases sterility and lack of sexual function. We'll just ignore the high prevalence of autism in youth who express gender discomfort and pretend like somehow people with autism aren't normally sexed individuals who experience social awkwardness and delayed bonding development, and who are furthermore particularly susceptible so artificial narratives and love-bombing that tell them that it's nothing about them or their neurodivergent condition, it's just that they're really transgender and if they just alter their body then everything will be great - except that lopping off body parts and taking exogenous cross-sex hormones that their bodies didn't evolve to process at those levels is NOT a reasonable treatment for autism at all, and it doesn't address the actual issues in any way. And we'll just pretend that somehow it's perfectly normal for entire friend groups of middle-school and early high-school girls to all discover that they're actually "boys" within a short window of each other. And we'll overlook the pre-existing history of childhood sexual abuse that's often present in youth who express discomfort and fear of their developing bodies - because you know, it couldn't possibly be that they associate their sexed body with the abuse and trauma they've endured, and anyway, lopping off boobs or balls is totally a fix for that prior trauma.

Yep, we'll just completely ignore the huge swathes of untreated trauma and neurodivergence involved, and we'll just repeat the catechism that gender identity is innate and immutable... but yeah, sexual orientation is totally just a preference.

Which people are absolutely allowed to have. Why should you be permitted to tell anyone who they may or may not prefer?

I'm not telling anyone who they may or may not prefer. I am, however, saying that it's not a mere preference. It's regressive as fuck to retroactively redefine homosexuality as just a preference now that it doesn't fit the activist narrative that is needed in order to convince people that gender identity is somehow more important and more meaningful than sex. You're undoing decades of good work to get society to simply accept homosexuality.

The world would be such a nicer place if "liberals" like you would just get the ever loving fuck out of our underpants, out of our bedrooms, definitely out of our doctor visits, and ideally, out of our lives, at least with your Victorian, pre-science, pseudoscience bullshit. You don't get to tell other people who they are, who they want to be, or who want they want to be with. No one elected you. No one asked for your input. We certainly don't work for you. So what gives? Just grow up, and fucking live with the fact that not everyone is like you and there is no goddamned reason why they should have to be. If you don't want other people to tell you who and what you are, and I know that you do not, consider leading by example for a change.

Lol, people like YOU tell me who and what I am all the goddamned time, it never seems to slow you down one bit. You're perfectly happy and comfortable - and seemingly you feel righteously justified in judging and denigrating me left and right for not parroting your articles of faith. I don't accept religious souls as being legitimate, even if that religion is the blind belief in gender identity.

And if you're going to pretend to know something about biology, learn to read a book every now and then instead of the internet.

Have you bothered to actually do any research, read any actual evolutionary biology? Any developmental biology? Anything about the evolution of sexual reproduction, and the mechanisms involved?

Or have you just selectively ingested rhetoric from gender theorists and social scientists that suits your bias and confirms your pre-existing beliefs about yourself? I mean, those are pretty convenient - it's a lot like intelligent design, it gives you the illusion of science and let's you indulge in the comfort of insisting that anyone who doesn't get it is of course, ignorant and mislead, and you - one of the special chosen and enlightened apostles of the true faith - you know better because.... well, because it makes you feel good.

 

[Emily Lake]

just like sex, is a cluster concept;

Sex is not a cluster concept.

Secondary sexual characteristics show variation around a mean within each specific characteristic, giving rise to quite a bit of variance for each sex. A female human being (woman) may have small boobs or large, wider or narrower hips, greater or lesser fat deposits on her hips and buttocks, etc. Similarly, a male human being (man) may have a wider or narrower chin, thicker or thinner and coarser or finer facial hair, more or less fat deposits around his abdomen, etc. But each of those is a variation around the mean for that sex.

Sex-correlated traits show even broader variation, and aren't directly tied to sexual development at all. So males are generally taller and females are generally shorter, men have larger feet and hands where women have smaller.

Neither secondary sex characteristics nor sex-correlated traits are actually sex. Sex is a reproductive role that exists within anisogamous species - regardless of whether the individual actually reproduces or not. It's based on the type or reproductive system that evolved within that species - and there are only two evolved systems in each anisogamous species. Only two, not one and a half, not three, and not zero. Two. Sex is a binary process, and it has evolved as binary systems.

What I'll grant is that the indicators that we use to infer someone's sex are clusters based on visual cues.

You, however, insist on pretending that it's a very fuzzy cluster, with a lot of overlap, and is very difficult to classify. It's not. Sex in humans in highly clustered, with pretty tight loci, and the proportion of non-child individuals who cannot be sexed with well over 95% accuracy is vanishingly small. Visual identification of sex when there isn't intentional mimicry or efforts to obfuscate is more accurate than almost any predictive cluster model than humans have come up with. Humans outperform facial recognition algorithms when it comes to determining sex, and facial recognition is some of the most accurate models we have.

 

[Emily Lake]

sex isn't really real in that way; it's not a single binary thing

Sex is absolutely real, and it's absolutely binary.

Where do you think babies come from? Do you genuinely think they get hidden under the cabbage leaves by storks in mail-carrier hats?

 

[Emily Lake]

What has been discussed exhaustively in either this or some other thread is that sex and gender are NOT as simple as XX vs XY or variations with extra X or extra Y chromosomes. For reasons unknown at this time, sometimes a single gene migrates off the Y chromosome which alters the continuing development of some male characteristics.

This is a link to a WIKI entry that discusses the SRY gene and its importance:

Sex-determining region Y protein - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Most of the time, when a developing sperm cell undergoes crossover during meiosis, the SRY gene stays on the Y chromosome. If the SRY gene is transferred to the X chromosome instead of staying on the Y chromosome, testis development will no longer occur. This is known as Swyer syndrome, characterized by an XY karyotype and a female phenotype. Individuals who have this syndrome have normally formed uteri and fallopian tubes, but the gonads are not functional. Swyer syndrome individuals are usually considered as females.<a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-determining_region_Y_protein#cite_note-:0-22"><span>[</span>22<span>]</span></a> On the other spectrum, XX male syndrome occurs when a body has 46:XX Karyotype and SRY attaches to one of them through translocation. People with XX male syndrome have a XX Karyotype but are male.<a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-determining_region_Y_protein#cite_note-23"><span>[</span>23<span>]</span></a> Individuals with either of these syndromes can experience delayed puberty, infertility, and growth features of the opposite sex they identify with. XX male syndrome expressers may develop breasts, and those with Swyer syndrome may have facial hair

Perhaps you may have noticed that I made no reference to chromosomes?

Sex isn't defined by chromosomes, chromosomes are the mechanism by which instructions of sex differentiation in development are delivered in mammals and birds. But sex differentiation in other species aren't dependent on chromosomes - alligators, for example, differentiate based on the temperature of the nest. In other species all juveniles start out the same sex, and environmental factors after maturation drive some to transform. Clownfish are sequential hermaphrodites that all start out male; when there's a vacancy in the colony, the largest male will undergo a process that changes them into a female. But humans aren't clownfish, and we're not hermaphroditic.

There are many genetic elements that are tied to X or Y chromosomes, simply because the triggers for those attributes are located on the Y. The SRY gene plays a pivotal role in sex differentiation, but it has other dependencies - specifically the receptors for androgens.

 

[Toni]

What has been discussed exhaustively in either this or some other thread is that sex and gender are NOT as simple as XX vs XY or variations with extra X or extra Y chromosomes. For reasons unknown at this time, sometimes a single gene migrates off the Y chromosome which alters the continuing development of some male characteristics.

This is a link to a WIKI entry that discusses the SRY gene and its importance:

Sex-determining region Y protein - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Most of the time, when a developing sperm cell undergoes crossover during meiosis, the SRY gene stays on the Y chromosome. If the SRY gene is transferred to the X chromosome instead of staying on the Y chromosome, testis development will no longer occur. This is known as Swyer syndrome, characterized by an XY karyotype and a female phenotype. Individuals who have this syndrome have normally formed uteri and fallopian tubes, but the gonads are not functional. Swyer syndrome individuals are usually considered as females.<a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-determining_region_Y_protein#cite_note-:0-22"><span>[</span>22<span>]</span></a> On the other spectrum, XX male syndrome occurs when a body has 46:XX Karyotype and SRY attaches to one of them through translocation. People with XX male syndrome have a XX Karyotype but are male.<a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-determining_region_Y_protein#cite_note-23"><span>[</span>23<span>]</span></a> Individuals with either of these syndromes can experience delayed puberty, infertility, and growth features of the opposite sex they identify with. XX male syndrome expressers may develop breasts, and those with Swyer syndrome may have facial hair

Perhaps you may have noticed that I made no reference to chromosomes?

Sex isn't defined by chromosomes, chromosomes are the mechanism by which instructions of sex differentiation in development are delivered in mammals and birds. But sex differentiation in other species aren't dependent on chromosomes - alligators, for example, differentiate based on the temperature of the nest. In other species all juveniles start out the same sex, and environmental factors after maturation drive some to transform. Clownfish are sequential hermaphrodites that all start out male; when there's a vacancy in the colony, the largest male will undergo a process that changes them into a female. But humans aren't clownfish, and we're not hermaphroditic.

There are many genetic elements that are tied to X or Y chromosomes, simply because the triggers for those attributes are located on the Y. The SRY gene plays a pivotal role in sex differentiation, but it has other dependencies - specifically the receptors for androgens.

Yes. In other words, individuals who are born with the appearance of being male may indeed not be male except for their external genitalia. Individuals who are born apparently female with female external genitalia are sometimes not female in any way other than genitalia.
There are variations on this and on other determining factors that cause people to express or fail to express gender characteristics.

I get that it is difficult to consider putting children through procedures and regimes that will permanently alter their bodies and minds. Hey, I'm all in favor of not allowing anyone to get tattoos until they are 18!

But I do think that parents need to pay attention to their children and to seek out specialized care for any child who is questioning whether or not they are truly male or truly female or something in between.

The thing is, I don't think it is any of my business or yours what is or is not in anyone else's pants. It's just not.

 

[Politesse]

Ahh, I see. It's really just a preference, not really a hardwired orientation then?

Why are you assuming that both could not be true at the same time? Well, I know why - you're trying to ascribe to humans a mystical ability to detect sex in others without error under the guise of championing my romantic identity for me, just the same way you usually use "women's rights" as an excuse for the same - but you're not giving anyone a good reason to agree with you. I prefer not to be set on fire, also. That's partially an instinctive reaction, but also a geniune preference on my part.

Like having a preference for strawberry ice cream over chocolate... but you know, if strawberry's not available some other flavor will do just fine?

This doesn't even make sense. Why wouldn't a preson be capable of likeing both strawberry and pistachio ice cream? Also, romantic attraction is absolutely nothing like ice cream.

Seriously, if it's a preference, then it can change over time - or be changed for that matter.

Well, yes. People's romantic attractions aren't necessarily the same throughout their lifetime. I take it you never went through puberty, but most people do.

Never mind that orientation can be observed via MRI, and activity in the part of the brain associated with sexual attraction, arousal, and bonding is activated in response to images.

This doesn't make any sense. Like yes, if someone feels an attraction to someone, it will be "observed via MRI" just like literally all other neural processes. If your brain state isn't observable via MRI, the only possible explanation for this is that you are deceased. Even coma patients show some forms of neural activity.

So you know, we have actual scientific proof that homosexuality is wired into our brains and is immutable. But sure, it's just a preference.

I mean, we definitely do not, but that also has nothing to do with your war against human freedom of expression. Even if I were convinced that homosexuality were "hardwired into the brain", I would still feel that individual's have a right to choose their own gender identity, romantic attraction, consent to relationships, and so forth.

 

[Jarhyn]

I would still feel that individual's have a right to choose their own gender identity, romantic attraction, consent to relationships, and so forth.

Like, I don't get how this is so hard to understand for some folks:

If I could open a console and type "set Self.Sexuality=Self.Sexuality.Straight", I think it would still be my right to do that, and nobody else's.

If I could do that with regards to sexually polymorphic traits, I would think the same of those.

I didn't pick those things, I just probed the ways I could be until I found the ways I preferred to be.

I don't always live to my preference; if someone is put at risk of being changed in a "hardware" rather than "software" sense against their consent, I limit that behavior.

I just find it absolutely fucking dishonest as all shit, complete fucking "Nazi behavior" for someone to hate the homeless, hate those different from them, hate gay people, hate trans people, and hate women so much that they would side with the political groups that imprison the homeless, throw gays and trans people into camps, and seek to enslave women with pregnancy to call themselves anything like a "liberal" or to even tolerate that kind of behavior with anything but vocal derision regularly directed at it.

If there were science to use to make the statement, they wouldn't be using 40 year old studies but the fact is, the people who build their cities and networks and delivery logistics systems and rockets and tanks and fighter jets? We're all just like this.

Go ahead Nazis, go gargle on SMEG. Or SEMG. Either way, it reminds me of the smell from the fires of 1933 and burning books, mixed with something cheesy. Let's never actually forget which books were burned.

 

[Emily Lake]

Yes. In other words, individuals who are born with the appearance of being male may indeed not be male except for their external genitalia. Individuals who are born apparently female with female external genitalia are sometimes not female in any way other than genitalia.

Here's the deal - yes, this can happen, but it's vanishingly rare. I mean way more rare than you might think. Having mixed primary sex characteristics is on par with being hit in the head with an asteroid. And the overwhelming majority of DSDs do NOT present with any ambiguities at all. Mixed characteristics generally only happen with chimerism or mosaicism, and then it generally presents as ovotesticular disorder. 5-ard is perhaps the only other condition that presents ambiguity at birth, as MALES with this condition may have a very small penis and scrotal sacs that are visually more like labia, and sometimes present with internal testes. In developed countries, obstetricians know what to look for, and a fairly straightforward blood test will clarify the sex of the infant in short order.

Now... the key question here is: What does this have to do with transgender identity? Exactly why should we consider the medical conditions of 0.002% of people who are NOT transgender as part of policy positions for gender identity concerns?

There are variations on this and on other determining factors that cause people to express or fail to express gender characteristics.

Gender is a social construct, so I believe you meant to say sex characteristics. "Gender characteristics" are sex-based stereotypes.

I get that it is difficult to consider putting children through procedures and regimes that will permanently alter their bodies and minds. Hey, I'm all in favor of not allowing anyone to get tattoos until they are 18!

But I do think that parents need to pay attention to their children and to seek out specialized care for any child who is questioning whether or not they are truly male or truly female or something in between.

There is nothing in between. Sure, seek out care if it's deemed necessary. But let's also be clear that there really is nothing in between male and female, and furthermore that actual disorders of sexual development are NOT feelings or desires or "I'm not like other girls/boys" behaviorally. They are actual deleterious medical conditions.

The thing is, I don't think it is any of my business or yours what is or is not in anyone else's pants. It's just not.

Out on the street, I don't care at all. There are, however some situations where it is pertinent. For example in situations where what's in someone's pants comes out of their pants: showers, changing rooms, spaces where people are routinely naked or unclothed that aren't explicitly noted as mixed-sex, prisons, intimate care, etc. And there are situations where it's the duty of all adults to protect children from harm, especially in situations where adults are taking actions that remove or alter healthy body parts and result in long-term deleterious impacts to those children.

 

[ZiprHead]

Ahh, I see. It's really just a preference, not really a hardwired orientation then?

Where do preferences come from?

 

[Emily Lake]

Ahh, I see. It's really just a preference, not really a hardwired orientation then?

Why are you assuming that both could not be true at the same time? Well, I know why - you're trying to ascribe to humans a mystical ability to detect sex in others without error under the guise of championing my romantic identity for me, just the same way you usually use "women's rights" as an excuse for the same - but you're not giving anyone a good reason to agree with you. I prefer not to be set on fire, also. That's partially an instinctive reaction, but also a geniune preference on my part.

I don't give a shit about your romantic identity. I do, however, know that our ability to detect the sex of other adults is extremely good. It's not the mystery you seem to want people to believe it is.

Like having a preference for strawberry ice cream over chocolate... but you know, if strawberry's not available some other flavor will do just fine?

This doesn't even make sense. Why wouldn't a preson be capable of likeing both strawberry and pistachio ice cream? Also, romantic attraction is absolutely nothing like ice cream.

Seriously, if it's a preference, then it can change over time - or be changed for that matter.

Well, yes. People's romantic attractions aren't necessarily the same throughout their lifetime. I take it you never went through puberty, but most people do.

Never mind that orientation can be observed via MRI, and activity in the part of the brain associated with sexual attraction, arousal, and bonding is activated in response to images.

This doesn't make any sense. Like yes, if someone feels an attraction to someone, it will be "observed via MRI" just like literally all other neural processes. If your brain state isn't observable via MRI, the only possible explanation for this is that you are deceased. Even coma patients show some forms of neural activity.

So you know, we have actual scientific proof that homosexuality is wired into our brains and is immutable. But sure, it's just a preference.

I mean, we definitely do not, but that also has nothing to do with your war against human freedom of expression. Even if I were convinced that homosexuality were "hardwired into the brain", I would still feel that individual's have a right to choose their own gender identity, romantic attraction, consent to relationships, and so forth.

People can choose whatever gender identity they want. I genuinely don't care about anyone's gender identity. That's not an expression of disdain, it's an expression of I truly have no feelings about how a person feels about themselves. I 100% support everyone dressing and presenting however they want, having consensual relationships with whoever they like. I also support everyone being protected from discrimination in housing and employment on the basis of what they look like and how they present.

What I do care about is policy. When how a person feels about themselves interferes with other people's ability to live their lives with reasonable safety, dignity, and liberty then I have a problem. When someone's subjective, unverifiable, and entirely faith-based belief about their inner mystical gender is used as a means to override the boundaries of other people and override sex-based separation of intimate spaces and services I care quite a bit.

 

[Toni]

Yes. In other words, individuals who are born with the appearance of being male may indeed not be male except for their external genitalia. Individuals who are born apparently female with female external genitalia are sometimes not female in any way other than genitalia.

Here's the deal - yes, this can happen, but it's vanishingly rare. I mean way more rare than you might think. Having mixed primary sex characteristics is on par with being hit in the head with an asteroid. And the overwhelming majority of DSDs do NOT present with any ambiguities at all. Mixed characteristics generally only happen with chimerism or mosaicism, and then it generally presents as ovotesticular disorder. 5-ard is perhaps the only other condition that presents ambiguity at birth, as MALES with this condition may have a very small penis and scrotal sacs that are visually more like labia, and sometimes present with internal testes. In developed countries, obstetricians know what to look for, and a fairly straightforward blood test will clarify the sex of the infant in short order.

Now... the key question here is: What does this have to do with transgender identity? Exactly why should we consider the medical conditions of 0.002% of people who are NOT transgender as part of policy positions for gender identity concerns?

There are variations on this and on other determining factors that cause people to express or fail to express gender characteristics.

Gender is a social construct, so I believe you meant to say sex characteristics. "Gender characteristics" are sex-based stereotypes.

I get that it is difficult to consider putting children through procedures and regimes that will permanently alter their bodies and minds. Hey, I'm all in favor of not allowing anyone to get tattoos until they are 18!

But I do think that parents need to pay attention to their children and to seek out specialized care for any child who is questioning whether or not they are truly male or truly female or something in between.

There is nothing in between. Sure, seek out care if it's deemed necessary. But let's also be clear that there really is nothing in between male and female, and furthermore that actual disorders of sexual development are NOT feelings or desires or "I'm not like other girls/boys" behaviorally. They are actual deleterious medical conditions.

The thing is, I don't think it is any of my business or yours what is or is not in anyone else's pants. It's just not.

Out on the street, I don't care at all. There are, however some situations where it is pertinent. For example in situations where what's in someone's pants comes out of their pants: showers, changing rooms, spaces where people are routinely naked or unclothed that aren't explicitly noted as mixed-sex, prisons, intimate care, etc. And there are situations where it's the duty of all adults to protect children from harm, especially in situations where adults are taking actions that remove or alter healthy body parts and result in long-term deleterious impacts to those children.

Actually, I meant gender but also sex.
Actually, I DO understand that we believe the migration of SRY to be rare but I also know we haven’t been looking very long. Lots of things are pretty rare but the truth is most people don’t know if they are walking around with, say, an extra kidney. Or hidden testicles. Or some thousand other things. I don’t know my karotype because I’ve never had any type of genetic analysis performed.

I do agree that children need to be protected from inappropriate exposure to adults’ bodies—and a thousand other things—that everyone has the right to bodily autonomy, that everybody deserves to be respected and listened to and heard.

But I also know that I have not been faced with the possibility of a child who might be not exactly as they appear on medical examination. I sure as hell would not want you to tell me what is best for my child. You are not medically trained. You are not an expert. Like so many other decisions, this decision does not belong in courts, including the court of public opinion

 

[bilby]

Emily didn't tell anyone who they may or may not prefer; she criticized bilby for telling excreationist he couldn't prefer regular females.

Well, yes, but that criticism was of something I didn't actually say. I said:

You don't prefer "regular* females"; You prefer partners to whom you are attracted.

It would be strange indeed if you found every "regular female", regardless of attitude, age, behaviour, body shape, interests, facial features, religious position, and race, exactly equally attractive.

"Don't" <> "Can't" or "Couldn't".

Emily mis-represented what I said, and criticised me for what she claimed I had said (but didn't).

 

[Politesse]

What I do care about is policy. When how a person feels about themselves interferes with other people's ability to live their lives with reasonable safety, dignity, and liberty then I have a problem. When someone's subjective, unverifiable, and entirely faith-based belief about their inner mystical gender

Whereas people's subjective, unverifiable, and entirely faith-based beliefs about other people's sex should be worshipped and used as the justification for oppressive laws and the teaching of pseudoscience. Got it.

 

[excreationist]

Emily didn't tell anyone who they may or may not prefer; she criticized bilby for telling excreationist he couldn't prefer regular females.

Well, yes, but that criticism was of something I didn't actually say. I said:

You don't prefer "regular* females"; You prefer partners to whom you are attracted.

It would be strange indeed if you found every "regular female", regardless of attitude, age, behaviour, body shape, interests, facial features, religious position, and race, exactly equally attractive.

"Don't" <> "Can't" or "Couldn't".

Emily mis-represented what I said, and criticised me for what she claimed I had said (but didn't).

There is a difference between what I say prefer and what I actually prefer e.g. on a dating site I might say I prefer adult non-trans women even if I might have a slight attraction to men or maybe dead babies (theoretically of course), etc. So in that case I am talking about “regular” women. Though of course some women are a lot more attractive than others. Some are very unattractive.

 

[Bomb#20]

Emily didn't tell anyone who they may or may not prefer; she criticized bilby for telling excreationist he couldn't prefer regular females.

Well, yes, but that criticism was of something I didn't actually say. I said:

You don't prefer "regular* females"; You prefer partners to whom you are attracted.

It would be strange indeed if you found every "regular female", regardless of attitude, age, behaviour, body shape, interests, facial features, religious position, and race, exactly equally attractive.

"Don't" <> "Can't" or "Couldn't".

Emily mis-represented what I said, and criticised me for what she claimed I had said (but didn't).

This place really needs an emoji of Spock doing the eyebrow thing...

You are correct that "don't" != "can't"; however, the circumstances under which you know "You don't" about someone else but you don't know "You can't" about him are a bit limited. So when you claim "You don't", what are we to make of your implied knowledge claim? How do you know he doesn't? Did excreationist PM you and tell you the hypothetical version of himself in his scenario actually doesn't? Do you have the lame doomed-to-be-a-sidekick superpower of extrasensory perception that gives you privileged insight into inner thoughts, but only of fictional characters? Do you have precognition? Did you foresee that excreationist would later admit his character might lie about his preferences, and are you now giving us your supernatural revelation that he is going to confirm that his theoretical self does in fact have a slight attraction to men or dead babies?

All the scenarios in which you know he doesn't but you don't know he can't are absurd. Therefore the only reasonable interpretation of 'You don't prefer "regular* females"' is 'You don't prefer "regular* females" and the way I know that is because you can't.'. That's why Emily evidently inferred you meant that, and then postulated a plausible reason you might believe he can't: the whole "sexual orientation is a figment of everyone's imagination" meme popular with a certain ideology.

So if you insist Emily was unreasonable and "Nothing in what I said could be interpreted to mean that", then by all means, please share with us how you know excreationist's theoretical self doesn't prefer regular females. Your listeners await your explanation with bated breath.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What if you were anally raped by your uncle? And in the prison they might not have access to objects to rape you with so they might have to just use their fingers... ?
BTW I also brought up the related topic of people with penises being allowed in women's showers, etc. I guess no one here has a problem with that either.

People have a problem with rape and other violence. They don't assume that every person with a penis is a rapist who wants to attack them.

Some people don't want to share space with others when they're undressed. Some people are okay with sharing if the others are members of their own sex. Some people don't care about their sex or gender, they only care about them being polite.

There are a lot who seem to feel that any penis in a woman's space is a threat, without any indication of harmful intent.

And note that just because some people want something doesn't mean the law should mandate it. Should the KKK be allowed to keep blacks out of positions of power?