Idaho governor signs into law anti-transgender legislation

[repoman]

If there is dedicated sex detection hardware in human brains (maybe, maybe not) then a swapped sex brain is more physiological than psychological. Only a tiny part of the brain would need to be swapped.

The other end would be the autistic people turning raw computing power to excessive navel gazing and with social prompting being gaslit into thinking they must be trans.

 

[bilby]

No, we shall not.

What a fucking stupid thing to say - and to quote, apparently in an approving manner.

That you fear such improbable things simply shows us that your life is far too easy, and your brain, starved of the daily existential threats with which it evolved, is inventing things to be scared by; and that your higher bain functions are apparently insufficiently developed to override that primitive impulse.

That's very sad.

Fear? Your reaction to the quote shows fear. The rest of us are not denying reality and are simply pointing out the absurd beliefs of our present mystics. I've yet to see an explanation on how or why it is that for the rest of the animal kingdom, sexual dimorphism is an uncontroversial fact. Yet for humans, the only difference between men an woman is apparently hormones during puberty. FFS, how do people become so dumb?

Get back to me if any of those things happen. I shalln't hold my breath.

Sexual dimorphism is an approximation. It's not a law of nature, and it doesn't apply to any species in the absolute sense that you are very stupidly suggesting. Your fear and ignorance are no substitute for actual observation of reality.

 

[Trausti]

Fear? Your reaction to the quote shows fear. The rest of us are not denying reality and are simply pointing out the absurd beliefs of our present mystics. I've yet to see an explanation on how or why it is that for the rest of the animal kingdom, sexual dimorphism is an uncontroversial fact. Yet for humans, the only difference between men an woman is apparently hormones during puberty. FFS, how do people become so dumb?

Get back to me if any of those things happen. I shalln't hold my breath.

Sexual dimorphism is an approximation. It's not a law of nature, and it doesn't apply to any species in the absolute sense that you are very stupidly suggesting. Your fear and ignorance are no substitute for actual observation of reality.

Have I offended your religious sensibilities? Does it upset you that you are also an animal? You are the one denying nature.

 

[bilby]

No, we shall not.

What a fucking stupid thing to say - and to quote, apparently in an approving manner.

That you fear such improbable things simply shows us that your life is far too easy, and your brain, starved of the daily existential threats with which it evolved, is inventing things to be scared by; and that your higher bain functions are apparently insufficiently developed to override that primitive impulse.

That's very sad.

Fear? Your reaction to the quote shows fear. The rest of us are not denying reality and are simply pointing out the absurd beliefs of our present mystics. I've yet to see an explanation on how or why it is that for the rest of the animal kingdom, sexual dimorphism is an uncontroversial fact. Yet for humans, the only difference between men an woman is apparently hormones during puberty. FFS, how do people become so dumb?

Get back to me if any of those things happen. I shalln't hold my breath.

Sexual dimorphism is an approximation. It's not a law of nature, and it doesn't apply to any species in the absolute sense that you are very stupidly suggesting. Your fear and ignorance are no substitute for actual observation of reality.

Your response is akin to saying that it's anti scientific to say that the Earth isn't spherical. That's incorrect; the Earth isn't spherical. Saying so is NOT equivalent to, nor tantamount to, the claim that the Earth is flat. Just as saying that there are not two (and only two) genders is not comparable to saying that you must not declare grass to be green.

You are treating an approximation as though it were an infallible truth, and it serves only to highlight your ignorance.

 

[bilby]

Fear? Your reaction to the quote shows fear. The rest of us are not denying reality and are simply pointing out the absurd beliefs of our present mystics. I've yet to see an explanation on how or why it is that for the rest of the animal kingdom, sexual dimorphism is an uncontroversial fact. Yet for humans, the only difference between men an woman is apparently hormones during puberty. FFS, how do people become so dumb?

Get back to me if any of those things happen. I shalln't hold my breath.

Sexual dimorphism is an approximation. It's not a law of nature, and it doesn't apply to any species in the absolute sense that you are very stupidly suggesting. Your fear and ignorance are no substitute for actual observation of reality.

Have I offended your religious sensibilities? Does it upset you that you are also an animal? You are the one denying nature.

You are upsetting me by your devout attendance to your religious belief, in the face of the evidence.

Approximations are not facts, natural laws, or immutable truths.

Try looking around yourself, rather than sticking to your certainties.

I accept evolutionary science; I also (unlike you) understand it.

What part of my saying "it doesn't apply to any species" leads you to conclude that I don't accept that I am an animal?

Or are you busy arguing with the points you expect me to make, and not the ones I am actually making?

 

[Trausti]

Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Performed Better Than Mixed Units

A yearlong Marine Corps study trying to understand how gender integration would affect combat readiness has found that all-male units were faster, more lethal and able to evacuate casualties in less time.

For those of us who accept biological science, this is what would be predicted. For the rest, a lot of pearl clutching.*


* Sorry bilby.

 

[Trausti]

Have I offended your religious sensibilities? Does it upset you that you are also an animal? You are the one denying nature.

You are upsetting me by your devout attendance to your religious belief, in the face of the evidence.

Approximations are not facts, natural laws, or immutable truths.

Try looking around yourself, rather than sticking to your certainties.

I accept evolutionary science; I also (unlike you) understand it.

Evidence? You've presented nothing. Nada. Zero. You're just yapping a non-scientific catechism to pass your purity test.

 

[repoman]

 

[bilby]

Have I offended your religious sensibilities? Does it upset you that you are also an animal? You are the one denying nature.

You are upsetting me by your devout attendance to your religious belief, in the face of the evidence.

Approximations are not facts, natural laws, or immutable truths.

Try looking around yourself, rather than sticking to your certainties.

I accept evolutionary science; I also (unlike you) understand it.

Evidence? You've presented nothing. Nada. Zero. You're just yapping a non-scientific catechism to pass your purity test.

You've presented nothing. So we're even there. The difference is that I have bothered to learn and observe reality, rather than treat an approximation as though it were a natural law.

It's a fairly useful approximation, in many cases. But you can't see past it, and that's very sad.

 

[Trausti]

 

[bilby]

I deny none of these things. I guess I am not on a 'side'.

You remain stupidly wrong and insanely dogmatic in your insistence that sexual dimorphism is absolute and universal (in any species).

 

[Jarhyn]

And here we are, four pages in and all the usual suspects getting on with denying vehemently the science behind transgendered individuals.

It's almost as if people here have preconceptions that they will not allow to be challenged.

I keep on pointing out that competitive advantage comes from steroid exposure. As to whatever other sexual dimorphisms exist (and some other brain-based dimorphisms do exist!), Those dimorphic structures are the validation of trans ideation rather than an argument against it: they arise from the processes of the womb.

You know what else arises from the processes of the womb at similar rates to trans ideation? Intersexed sex organs. That's right, whole genital systems either completely or incompletely discordant with chromosomal expression. If this can happen, it is ridiculously foolish to observe it can happen with genital structure but not brain structures as well.

TL;DR: only an absolute fool would acknowledge subcortical dimorphisms and then deny that such subcortical dimorphisms can arise cross-chromosomally by the same or similar processes to cross-chromosomal genital dimorphisms.

 

[Elixir]

I see these arguments and all I can think is that the same people who seem to be threatened by the very concept of fuzzy gender definitions, are the ones who tend to argue that Corporations are people.
To paraphrase, I'll believe that when they are assigned genders.

 

[fromderinside]

Idahoans are escapees from Utah, the hills of Kentucky and Cop shop retirees. I know I lived there.

Nazarenes have a college in Nampa. What do you expect?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So, here are some facts for you:

1: you have absolutely no right to the knowledge of what is in someone else's pants.

Not so. The powerful invisible creatures living in the sky are very interested in all aspects of our sex organs.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Idahoans are escapees from Utah,

Well, SOUTHERN Idaho is essentially North Mormon.
Up in the panhandle, they're like a whole different state. Buncha weirdos up there.

 

[seanie]

Those physiological differences you bang on about are not created in a vacuum. They have causes to the effects. Those causes are the hormones.

I'm not here to argue the cases created by a messy and ultimately human failure to be good to each other early and often. That would be expecting too much. Rather, offering a path forward, a compromise which acknowledges that there may be some lasting impacts of hormone exposure (whether over time that turns out a net benefit or a net loss is to be seen; I merely wish to argue the clear case exclusively). But regardless of that irrelevancy to my point, which you stepped away from in the first sentence: that is a situation that this law runs roughshod over. I provided the counterexample to the ethics of the law, showed how it is anti-trans. That was the bar. It was met.

You are right only insofar as we segregate sports on an imperfect proxy for what amounts to steroid exposure, and some jackasses seem to want to make a really big deal about forcing certain language to describe people in some official capacity when there is no actual need for that particular description in this context. That's what this is about.

Really, there is a tell in your argument that tells me that you just want to disadvantage and reject trans people: instead of offering a solution that helps trans people going forward without harming the integrity of sports, you propose to ban them forever from participation on the basis that it what, the actual correct prescription isn't currently a requirement? So turn the dial up from 0 to 11 instead of where it actually sounds good?

And the thing is, if we segregate by hormone exposure, we are not segregating strictly on the basis of sex OR gender identity.

We don't segregate by hormone exposure, we segregate by sex, which 99.98% of the time is really straightforward.

Your proposal of a "compromise" is problematic in a number of main ways.

Firstly, there is a undeniably a huge performance advantage for males in most (not all) sports that is primarily down to puberty and in large measure the effects of testosterone in that period. A rule than transwomen who haven't undergone the effects of male puberty could participate in biological female sports certainly has some logic to it. I'd caveat that by saying that setting pre-pubescent children on an experimental and irreversible medical pathway might raise some concerns, but I guess that's separate to the whole sports participation thing. Some people seem keener to conduct experimental medical treatments on children than others.

Secondly, you don't address at all the issue of transwomen who have gone through male puberty beyond saying that "arguably" any advantage is rendered meaningless with a bit of medium to long term hormone treatment. There are multiple problems with this. What evidence there is suggests that whilst transwomen on treatments have their athletic performance reduced, that does not eliminate the advantages of an underlying male physiology. HRT does not turn males into females. Now there may be a way of evaluating reductions in performance according to treatments/testosterone levels, which is what the IOC seems to have attempted in an amateurish and evidence free way. But that should be a carefully examined and evidence led approach. In reality female sports are being opened up to male bodied people because "Hey! Inclusion! Be Kind."

Thirdly, according to most estimates, the majority of people identifying as transwomen undertake take no medical "transition" at all. How do we accommodate those people into sports?

Because you suggested puberty blockers or HRT probably negates any performance advantage. But if transwomen are women, because of how they self-identify and their true lived experience, who are you to insist on medicalisation to reduce performance before they can find their expression?

That seems a little transphobic of you.

 

[Half-Life]

Even drug companies test drugs on men and women separately and differently. If Arnold Schwarzenegger identified as a woman, and the FDA decided to test a woman's drug on him, that would be beyond stupid, agree?

you know, last time you prattled this claim i asked you if you knew what a 'woman's drug'was? And could you explain why they would reject Arnold.
Would thry refuse to accept Arnold as a test patient for a breast cancer drug because he has a penis?

You said a grand total of fuck-all.

You cannot, it seems, actually refute any of the science involved in the development of sexual reassignment treatment. You just reject it and pretend your blanket statement is the scientific approach. But it's just bumperstickrr logic, Halfie.

Why do they have men's and women's drugs, Keith?

Remember how it used to be scientific set in stone fact that men can't get pregnant? Everyone agreed with it. Nowadays, people say, "Men can certainly get pregnant!" But then they have to backtrack and say, "Well, I mean trans-men can get pregnant." So, even they don't even believe trans men are "real men" because they have to use the qualifier "trans" in front of "man."

And nobody responded to my point about a person with white skin feeling uncomfortable with it and saying, "I wish I had black skin instead."

Would you say this person is actually black?
Would you say they are trans-black?
Or still white despite their feelings?

I await your 3 responses, Keith.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why do they have men's and women's drugs, Keith?

i already asked you to explain what you mean by 'women's drugs.' I cannot answer this question until i understand what you mean.

Remember how it used to be scientific set in stone fact that men can't get pregnant?

no, actually i don't recall that as 'a scientific fact.' Got a cite?
No?

Everyone agreed with it.

Everyone? Cite?

Coincidentally, i recall a movie where Arnold got preggers.
And a numberr of scifi stories.
And a few serious proposals.

Nowadays, people say, "Men can certainly get pregnant!" But then they have to backtrack and say, "Well, I mean trans-men can get pregnant."

So, you say that no one EVER taught you what quote marks mean. Huh.

So, even they don't even believe trans men are "real men" because they have to use the qualifier "trans" in front of "man."

This is judt bullshit. How does this add anything?

And nobody responded to my point about a person with white skin feeling uncomfortable with it and saying, "I wish I had black skin instead."

One of my sons has said he wishes his skin were darker. People see him with my wife and don't believe they're related.

What's your fucking point?

Would you say this person is actually black?

Florida and Virginia say my kids are black.
Some people looking at them insist 'white.'

Your attempt at an analogy sucks.

Would you say they are trans-black?

oh, you should know better by now, Halfie. If someone wants to be transblack, i have no reason to gainsay their desire. YOU can be any fucking race you wanna be. Why would i care?

Or still white despite their feelings?

ibid.

I await your 3 responses, Keith.

Still ducking the actual questions, though. No durprise, really.

 

[Half-Life]

i already asked you to explain what you mean by 'women's drugs.' I cannot answer this question until i understand what you mean. no, actually i don't recall that as 'a scientific fact.' Got a cite?
No?

Everyone agreed with it.

Everyone? Cite?

Coincidentally, i recall a movie where Arnold got preggers.
And a numberr of scifi stories.
And a few serious proposals.

Nowadays, people say, "Men can certainly get pregnant!" But then they have to backtrack and say, "Well, I mean trans-men can get pregnant."

So, you say that no one EVER taught you what quote marks mean. Huh.

So, even they don't even believe trans men are "real men" because they have to use the qualifier "trans" in front of "man."

This is judt bullshit. How does this add anything?

And nobody responded to my point about a person with white skin feeling uncomfortable with it and saying, "I wish I had black skin instead."

One of my sons has said he wishes his skin were darker. People see him with my wife and don't believe they're related.

What's your fucking point?

Would you say this person is actually black?

Florida and Virginia say my kids are black.
Some people looking at them insist 'white.'

Your attempt at an analogy sucks.

Would you say they are trans-black?

oh, you should know better by now, Halfie. If someone wants to be transblack, i have no reason to gainsay their desire. YOU can be any fucking race you wanna be. Why would i care?

Or still white despite their feelings?

ibid.

I await your 3 responses, Keith.

Still ducking the actual questions, though. No durprise, really.

Keith,

you gave a slippery response. You said, "you can call yourself any race you want." This is not the same thing as you actually agreeing that the person is a different race.

In the same way a kid playing Star Wars may say, "I am Luke Skywalker!" but you know that he is not actually Luke Skywalker. It's just pretend. So saying, "That kid can say he's Luke Skywalker all he wants!" is a slippery way of not saying, "I agree that kid is ACTUALLY Luke Skywalker."

See the difference? So saying, "A man can call himself a woman all he wants" is not the same thing as you actually believing that the man is actually a woman.

It would also be like someone saying, "I am a cheetah" and then they kill someone and the person says, "But, I'm a cheetah. Cheetah's don't get sent to human prisons!" Should the cops say, "good point you're free to go?" or should they say, "funny. But, you're going to jail. You're not a cheetah even though your brain thinks it is."