Mississippi Passes "More Dead Kids Please" bill. Texas responds w/ "hold my beer"

[Emily Lake]

Not at all. Kids in high school ( and younger) do not need additional pressure to engage in more sexual acts, including ones which are unlikely to give pleasure to at least half of the students.

You are really presuming far more ability for teens to navigate their own sexuality much less deal with the interest of others in pursuing their own pleasure irrespective of the feelings and needs ( physical, emotional, sexual) of others. Even more than sex, there is an enormous amount of social pressure, and other power dynamics at that age, without the experience and emotional maturity to navigate this new and ever changing miasma of feeling, expectations, responsibilities, needs. Frankly, the pressure for girls to perform unreciprocated oral sex is more than enough pressure.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with letting some information be discovered after high school.

This really isn't surprising though. Jarhyn is approaching this entire topic from the perspective of a horny teenage boy, with no consideration at all given to teenage girls. Some teenage boys might want to stick things in their butts, so let's teach everyone how to do it safely... all while ignoring that this places additional pressure on teenage girls to provide yet another avenue for sexual satiation to teenage boys, with no reciprocity.

I mean, I suppose I can be a bit more generous and assume that part of Jarhyn's intent is to reduce the damage that young girls face while they're being used by boys.

 

[Jarhyn]

If you are going to put something in your butt: get everything really clean. Inside and out. Go ahead and go, hope in the shower, and then you're gonna be all over it anyway so, don't be afraid to scrub with your fingers. Soap can hurt, don't put soap directly on any hole that goes to the inside of you.

Put down a towel or two. Be practical, this can get messy, it's your ass after all.

Use lube. No, more lube than that. Now use a bit more. Yes, I know, its getting on the towel a bit that's why you have the towel. Worry about saving money on lube later, worry about injuring yourself, first.

Use an "appropriately shaped objects of appropriate materials": nothing with an acute or parallel base edge profile, absolutely nothing that will break, melt, splinter, or abrade.

Go slow. If things start to hurt or tense up, STOP, wait, and go slower. Rather than force past tension, relax. And by relax, 'relax as if you are about to take a shit'.

That's about it.

Given the fact that most people will put something in their ass at some point, even if they promptly discover they do not really have the organs to enjoy the feeling of it in those places, I think it's a valuable piece of education to have.

Oh, and don't use silicone lube with silicone penetrators.

The idea of a fully grown man using this sort of an approach to teach children how to pleasure themselves through their anuses is very, very cringey to me.

Fully grown adults should NOT be trying to TEACH KIDS how to get sexual pleasure. Fully grown adults should not be incorporating CHILDREN into adult sexual activity.

That is 100% an "ought" statement, and I will stick to it.

The problem is twofold: one, you don't get to prescribe "ought" from assertion alone. You have to find the actual reason.

This, as Loren has pointed out, can be in a book in the library that they order by some significant percentage of the student body, and they just replace the book however often. Probably on a daily basis.

Kids need to learn it, and they need to have access to the materials to learn it from, and be told where to find them.

Ideally those materials should be located in a plausibly deniable location of the library that people need to research often, that has nothing to do with embarrassing sex stuff.

"Children" will engage in sexual activity, sooner if it is never discussed, and so sooner in households and school districts where it is not discussed.

The goal is to delay that. The school internet COULD be set up to have access to electronic titles, too, but surprise, surprise, Moms for Morons or whatever objected and got the electronic library taken away, rather than told that children have a right to information about their own body at their own request.

 

[Emily Lake]

Jebus... you make it sound like it is a brand of sneakers or jeans that children just have to have to be cool. I don't think anyone on the planet WANTS to be transgendered.

I think perhaps you don't actually understand what social contagion is.

I mean, nobody WANTS to be anorexic, or have dissociative personality disorder, or have repressed memories of ritual satanic child abuse, or to cut themselves... and yet these things have been observed to manifest in clusters, at aberrant levels of prevalence when they've been heavily discussed and reported on among teens. Especially so among teenage girls.

 

[Emily Lake]

Producing gametes is not enough. They have to be released into the outside world, or else taken care of, as appropriate. Thus, primary sexual characteristics: genital organs. To further assist in reproducing, many organisms have secondary sexual characteristics.

Beyond XX and XY: The Extraordinary Complexity of Sex Determination - Scientific American

Bird of the Month: Gynandromorphic Birds — Audubon Society of Northern Virginia

This past February, a very unusual Northern Cardinal was spotted in Erie, Pennsylvania. Its right side is brilliantly red, while its left side is a modest brown, with both sides perfectly split down the middle. The reason for the color split is remarkable; the left side is biologically female, while the right side is biologically male. Genetically, the two halves are as closely related as brother and sister.

Then discussing this odd feature and how it originates.

So our sexual features develop in a cascade:

• Genes (chromosomal gender)
• Gonads
• Genitalia, secondary sexual characteristics (somatic gender)
• Psychological gender identity

Most of the time, all three genders are in agreement. But sometimes there are mismatches, like a Y chromosome's SRY gene being broken or absent, a SRY gene stuck onto an X chromosome, etc., making chromosomal-somatic mismatches. Transgenderism is a mismatch between somatic and psychological genders.

Sex isn't a psychological state. An atypical development during sex DETERMINATION doesn't change sex DEFINITION.

There are two sexes in humans, as you have comprehensively covered. Humans (and all other mammals) have a male sex and a female sex. Those are the only two sexes - they are the result of evolution along the path of sexual reproduction.

The means by which that sex is expressed is sex determination. Sex is defined based on the type of gametes that one's reproductive system develops to produce - regardless of whether it produces those gametes, and regardless of whether the system develops perfectly or not.

The first three things you list above - chromosomes, gonads, and genitals - are the elements of sex determination. They are the means by which our bodies develop and support one or the other gamete. Chromosomes are instructions, which can sometimes contain errors. Gonads are the organs that produce gametes, genitals are the organs that deliver (in males) or support (in females) gametes for the process of reproduction.

Of all the elements of our bodies, our brains are the LEAST sexually dimorphic. Psychological gender identity is nothing more than one's affinity for culturally defined sex-based stereotypes.

Dysphoria is a symptom. In some cases it's a symptom of a fetishistic sexual disorder. In some cases, it's a symptom of childhood trauma and sexual abuse. In some cases it's a symptom of a neurological condition causing an error in one's perception of one's own body.

 

[Emily Lake]

History of intersex surgery - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Been around for some time.

ETA: Some scientists have said there are 5 sexes.

None of those scientists are biologists then.

There are only two sexes among humans. Indeed, there are only two sexes among ALL mammals, and ALL birds.

 

[laughing dog]

Do you have a relevant point or are you just taking a piss?

I see a very relevant point.

If you already know the answer you want, one that supports your agenda, an excellent way to get it is to carefully select your survey participants.
Tom

Do you have any evidence to support that conjecture about this poll or are you simply taking a piss?

What conjecture?
I didn't make any conjecture about this report.

I made a broad assertion about such reports. It's easy to get results that match your agenda if that's what you want.
It might not even be a conscious choice. But it happens a lot.
Tom

I get it - you are taking a piss.

 

[Emily Lake]

When did one choose to be boy or a girl?

Whether one is a boy or a girl is determined by which of one's father's sperm was the first to breach one's mother's egg wall.

 

[Emily Lake]

What changed was we realized that the thing being identified was more like being a "furry" than "being a 6' human".

Read less fantasy.

Being male or female is way, way, way more like "being a 6' human" than "being a furry".

 

[Jarhyn]

What changed was we realized that the thing being identified was more like being a "furry" than "being a 6' human".

Read less fantasy.

Being male or female is way, way, way more like "being a 6' human" than "being a furry".

Being "male" or "female" is like a packet of information being considered "true" or "false". That's not the way the fundamental biology works. Being a "man" or "woman" is a lot MORE complicated.

But what is being asked for in this discussion happens completely agnostic to any of those terms. It observes only actual mechanical and structural realities: people deserve a right to decide on their hormones when "old enough", and to opt out of hormones when the effect of doing such is widely observed, and to decide on whether or not their body contains active gonads once they are old.enough as well.

To each the cup they seek, be it one or the other, neither, or somehow both.

 

[bilby]

Those are called "organisms". Every population of self replicators "feels obligated" to reproduce, or there would be no population. Certain pressures can create overriding obligations that include individuals not reproducing, but there is no getting rid of the almost universal feeling of obligation to reproduce.

Indeed. Even if our higher brain function doesn't want kids, our core existence has evolved to want them. In humans, this manifests as a desire to have sex. Sexual arousal is the manifestation of our body's feeling of obligation to reproduce.

Evolution doesn't know or care that non-reproductive sex is a thing; But humans do.

Sexual arousal is the manifestation of our body's feeling of obligation to have orgasms; Any claims about feeling obliged to reproduce (or even to fuck humans with whom reproduction is a plausible result) are just the employment of the very popular, but very stupid, appeal to nature fallacy.

Evolution doesn't have goals, nor does it care about efficiency. And even if it did, individuals wouldn't be under any obligation to pursue the objectives of evolution.

 

[Jarhyn]

Those are called "organisms". Every population of self replicators "feels obligated" to reproduce, or there would be no population. Certain pressures can create overriding obligations that include individuals not reproducing, but there is no getting rid of the almost universal feeling of obligation to reproduce.

Indeed. Even if our higher brain function doesn't want kids, our core existence has evolved to want them. In humans, this manifests as a desire to have sex. Sexual arousal is the manifestation of our body's feeling of obligation to reproduce.

Evolution doesn't know or care that non-reproductive sex is a thing; But humans do.

Sexual arousal is the manifestation of our body's feeling of obligation to have orgasms; Any claims about feeling obliged to reproduce (or even to fuck humans with whom reproduction is a plausible result) are just the employment of the very popular, but very stupid, appeal to nature fallacy.

Evolution doesn't have goals, nor does it care about efficiency. And even if it did, individuals wouldn't be under any obligation to pursue the objectives of evolution.

Exactly.

Orgasms feel good. Orgasms do not require sex. Sex in fact is almost universally bad when someone does not understand how, why, and when they orgasm. And that's the least of it.

Some people do fetishize impregnation. It is the idea of getting pregnant that gets them off, and some such people were born with penises.

Spoiler: risky search term

MPREG

Still, these are things that they feel obligated to pursue for whatever reason, whether selection pressure created this curiosity or not is anyone's guess. It is something they pursue because of who they are as individuals in their chase of the orgasm, their actual goal.

The drive is to do "whatever does it" until "the thing" happens, sometimes that's a process which fertilizes eggs, sometimes it's thinking about how the process can fertilize eggs and fantasizing it happening to you, and sometimes it's about getting _____ed on while someone insults your _____'s appearance, or _____ing them until they say ______.... which often has very little to do with impregnation at all.

I think we should be responsible about population growth, accept all as equal regardless of reproductive choices within the bounds of responsibility, and to allow all children access to information about all choices they seek to make, so they can learn how to make informed choices.

 

[Toni]

Those are called "organisms". Every population of self replicators "feels obligated" to reproduce, or there would be no population. Certain pressures can create overriding obligations that include individuals not reproducing, but there is no getting rid of the almost universal feeling of obligation to reproduce.

Indeed. Even if our higher brain function doesn't want kids, our core existence has evolved to want them. In humans, this manifests as a desire to have sex. Sexual arousal is the manifestation of our body's feeling of obligation to reproduce.

Evolution doesn't know or care that non-reproductive sex is a thing; But humans do.

Sexual arousal is the manifestation of our body's feeling of obligation to have orgasms; Any claims about feeling obliged to reproduce (or even to fuck humans with whom reproduction is a plausible result) are just the employment of the very popular, but very stupid, appeal to nature fallacy.

Evolution doesn't have goals, nor does it care about efficiency. And even if it did, individuals wouldn't be under any obligation to pursue the objectives of evolution.

Evolution does care (insomuch as a process can be ascribed feelings) about non-reproductive sex in human species. Humans do not conceive every or even most of the time there is penetrative male/female sex with ejaculation inside a vagina. Nor does every union of egg and sperm result in pregnancy nor does every pregnancy result in a live birth nor does every live birth result in a viable being. Humans have a relatively long gestation period and a relatively prolonged period of time before offspring reach reproductive maturity. Humans can have reproductive type sex for decades without ever producing a single offspring.

Increasing the incidences of sex that can result in reproductive sex is a benefit as far as continuing the species goes--which is the goal of evolution. So is the fact that, done correctly, males and females (in general) enjoy penis/vagina sex, which increases the chances that a male and a female will engage in penis/vagina sex. Additionally, sex--reproductive and non-reproductive sex resulting in orgasm or even just shared pleasure and affection helps form and cement bonds between individuals. This is true whether or not it is reproductive type sex. In humans, strong bonds between individuals in a mating pair also help to ensure the survival of the species. It helps ensure that each will contribute to the physical wellbeing of their partner, and helps ensure that the mother is sufficiently nourished and protected during pregnancy and childbirth and while nursing and indeed, helps ensure that offspring will reach reproductive maturity.

The goal of evolution is survival of the species, even if it means adapting through successive generations until different species evolves, more suited to the prevailing conditions.

 

[Emily Lake]

No, the ADF and the politicians of the GOP forwarding this agenda against trans people very much support it. They carved out a legal exemption in the law to permit genital mutilation of intersexed kids.

STOP USING DISORDERS OF SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT AS A PAWN FOR YOUR POLITICAL AGENDA.

The majority of surgeries performed on children with DSDs are done so that the body can FUNCTION. It's to allow a misplaced urethral opening to connect in a way that allows the kid to actually void their bladder, it's to remove blockages and allow functionality. Very few doctors perform surgeries on infants with DSDs just for looks, they're done because they're medically necessary for a properly functioning body.

FFS, would you make the same argument that we shouldn't "mutilate" kids with cleft palates all because someone wrote a law that said doctor's aren't allowed to do cosmetic facial surgery on minors?

 

[Emily Lake]

Nobody is promising them that they can "change their sex".

They can change their hormones, and that's why they are taking the drug: they want their hormones to be different.

Bullshit. That's not what is wanted. That might be what YOU want, personally, but that's not what is being told to kids, and it's for sure not what kids think they're getting.

 

[Emily Lake]

If you mean how can a child be trusted to choose their own body, well, how can they not?

Nobody chooses their own body. We aren't Mr. Potato Head!

This is absolute spare parts, bud.

observable measure which does not stunt in any way the advancement of problem solving ability or social intelligence

Except that it DOES stunt cognitive development. Pubertal hormone washes are correlated with significant cognitive development, including the formation of romantic bonds, deep emotional connections, and adult awareness of social dynamics.

 

[Emily Lake]

You keep assuming that these children are making unilateral decisions which are automatically accepted and acted upon by health care professionals. Why is that?

Because that’s the affirmation model.

And you assume the "affirmation model" includes children making unilateral decisions which are automatically accepted upon by health care professionals because....?

What do you think the affirmation model is? What do you think is involved in the affirmation model? I feel like maybe what you think it ought to be and what it actually is might have some considerable divergence.

 

[Emily Lake]

I sometimes get really angry with my spouse--for good reasons, for bad reasons, and occasionally for no real reason. But insulting him? I don't understand people who do that. It's not about avoiding being offensive. It's about basic respect.

Not everyone does what they do for the reasons you would do it if you did.
Tom

True. I just never embraced the whole insult as endearment trope.

Nor I. For all the arguments we've had over the years of marriage... name calling in anger has always been off the table.

I cannot imagine why anyone would think my use of the term "breeder" in that context was an endearment. It wasn't.
Tom

I don't think any of us interpreted it as endearment - it reads as an intentional insult designed to hurt your partner's feelings.

That kind of intentionally hurtful name calling has never been acceptable in my marriage.

 

[bilby]

a benefit as far as continuing the species goes--which is the goal of evolution

The goal of evolution is survival of the species, even if it means adapting through successive generations until different species evolves, more suited to the prevailing conditions.

Evolution doesn't have any goal(s). Period.

Extinction is always possible, and ultimately certain, for any species.

Gravity doesn't want you to fall down; Falling when unsupported doesn't benefit gravity, and gravity doesn't care if we invent balloons, helicopters, rockets or aeroplanes in defiance of its observed desire that we should fall down.

Humans evolved to enjoy sex, because that was a successful reproductive strategy a few hundred thousand years ago. Our environment has changed dramatically since then; We have societies, agriculture, religion, technology, industry, cities, transportation, etc. etc. What is adaptive for survival in our current environment maps to what was adaptive for survival in our recent evolutionary history only by coincidence. It cannot in any way advise what our best strategies are for continued survival, and evolution wouldn't give two hoots if that continued survival simply didn't happen.

Evolution doesn't have goals. Individuals have goals, and we can (and should) seek to achieve those goals in any way we choose, without seeking guidance from evolutionary events that are, necessarily, at least tens of thousands of years out of date. It's been less than a dozen generations since the start of the industrial revolution. Evolution can't possibly have anything useful to tell us about effective survival strategies in a post-industrial city in the developed world; It's still tuned towards survival in pre-agricultural environments.

Look around you; Humans aren't very well suited at all to life in an environment with abundant calorie-rich food constantly available. Evolution can't help us to understand how best to eat, and it can't help us to understand how best to fuck, either.

 

[Emily Lake]

What changed was we realized that the thing being identified was more like being a "furry" than "being a 6' human".

Read less fantasy.

Being male or female is way, way, way more like "being a 6' human" than "being a furry".

Being "male" or "female" is like a packet of information being considered "true" or "false". That's not the way the fundamental biology works. Being a "man" or "woman" is a lot MORE complicated.

But what is being asked for in this discussion happens completely agnostic to any of those terms. It observes only actual mechanical and structural realities: people deserve a right to decide on their hormones when "old enough", and to opt out of hormones when the effect of doing such is widely observed, and to decide on whether or not their body contains active gonads once they are old.enough as well.

To each the cup they seek, be it one or the other, neither, or somehow both.

Why don't you just go ahead and push that all the way? Shouldn't kids get the "right" to decide when their adrenal gland fires off, and how much growth hormone they get? Shouldn't kids have the "right" to decide how much seratonin their bodies produce? Shouldn't kids have the "right" to decide how much insulin their pancreas should push out?

Why stop there? Shouldn't kids have the "right" to decide how many fingers and toes they grow? Shouldn't they have the "right" to decide that they don't want thigh bones?

Isn't the entirety of "being human" just some conspiracy pushed on kids by sicko adults? Those kids should totally have the "right" to grow fur and antlers if they want to. It's their "right"

Seriously. Spare Parts.

 

[Toni]

a benefit as far as continuing the species goes--which is the goal of evolution

The goal of evolution is survival of the species, even if it means adapting through successive generations until different species evolves, more suited to the prevailing conditions.

Evolution doesn't have any goal(s). Period.

Extinction is always possible, and ultimately certain, for any species.

Gravity doesn't want you to fall down; Falling when unsupported doesn't benefit gravity, and gravity doesn't care if we invent balloons, helicopters, rockets or aeroplanes in defiance of its observed desire that we should fall down.

Humans evolved to enjoy sex, because that was a successful reproductive strategy a few hundred thousand years ago. Our environment has changed dramatically since then; We have societies, agriculture, religion, technology, industry, cities, transportation, etc. etc. What is adaptive for survival in our current environment maps to what was adaptive for survival in our recent evolutionary history only by coincidence. It cannot in any way advise what our best strategies are for continued survival, and evolution wouldn't give two hoots if that continued survival simply didn't happen.

Evolution doesn't have goals. Individuals have goals, and we can (and should) seek to achieve those goals in any way we choose, without seeking guidance from evolutionary events that are, necessarily, at least tens of thousands of years out of date. It's been less than a dozen generations since the start of the industrial revolution. Evolution can't possibly have anything useful to tell us about effective survival strategies in a post-industrial city in the developed world; It's still tuned towards survival in pre-agricultural environments.

Look around you; Humans aren't very well suited at all to life in an environment with abundant calorie-rich food constantly available. Evolution can't help us to understand how best to eat, and it can't help us to understand how best to fuck, either.

I dunno. Human average lifespan has increased dramatically along with the abundant availability of calorie rich food. Evolution seems to be working pretty well at selection in favor of those who limit their caloric intake and maintain regular physical activity. Evolution does favor the survival of the genetic lines of those who fuck in particular manners and who form bonds with others to better ensure the survival of offspring. There is a school of thought that the presence of non-reproducing members of a family/social group, including non- heterosexuals increases the chance for survival of the young in a group.

Evolution also favors those who limit their sex to a smaller member of individuals who are more likely to avoid STIs.