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

[Toni]

In families with a history of breast or prostate cancer, I'm fairly certain preemptive removals are done on a fairly regular basis.

No, it is not. It's done very, very rarely. Angelina Jolie's voluntary mastectomy was something she could only get because she's famous. It is NOT something that is done regularly, not at all. And seriously, removal of breasts in someone past childbearing age has the LEAST negative side effects. Removal of the prostate has larger consequences than your fantasy-land imagining has envisioned.

You really should try living in the real world once in a while. It's actually kind of nice here.

Huh? I thought it was common for those who have the deadly gene.

It is.

As is preemptive removal of the prostate in families where prostate cancer is extremely common.

And Emily is BACK on cutting now?

Kids who get blockers when they want them almost never actually ask nor need to be cut, at least not unless they want to remove their gonads, which nobody here is saying should happen before someone is AT LEAST 21.

People should be expected to know whether they want breasts before they grow them, and given the information they need to decide that, and if they decide against it, they should not be made to do it.

It's not rocket science. It is the path that yields fewer requests to have breasts removed, mostly on account of their absence.

As far as I know, there isn’t a prophylactic removal of the prostate when there is a strong family history of prostate cancer. Well, basically that would be almost all men. If a post-mortem were carried out on the bodies of all men who died at age 80+, most of them would show signs of prostate cancer. Depending on the age at diagnosis, and the Gleason score, there are many different therapies now offered, including proton beam therapy which kills the cancer and leaves the healthy prostate tissue intact. Obviously only useful if cancer is detected early. Also, again, depending on the Gleason score, age, etc. sometimes active surveillance is an option. If a man is diagnosed with low grade prostate cancer at 87, how much is he benefited by surgery?

*History of prostate cancer in my family so I’m fairly educated on the issue.

 

[Toni]

In families with a history of breast or prostate cancer, I'm fairly certain preemptive removals are done on a fairly regular basis.

No, it is not. It's done very, very rarely. Angelina Jolie's voluntary mastectomy was something she could only get because she's famous. It is NOT something that is done regularly, not at all. And seriously, removal of breasts in someone past childbearing age has the LEAST negative side effects. Removal of the prostate has larger consequences than your fantasy-land imagining has envisioned.

You really should try living in the real world once in a while. It's actually kind of nice here.

Huh? I thought it was common for those who have the deadly gene.

It is.

As is preemptive removal of the prostate in families where prostate cancer is extremely common.

And Emily is BACK on cutting now?

Kids who get blockers when they want them almost never actually ask nor need to be cut, at least not unless they want to remove their gonads, which nobody here is saying should happen before someone is AT LEAST 21.

People should be expected to know whether they want breasts before they grow them, and given the information they need to decide that, and if they decide against it, they should not be made to do it.

It's not rocket science. It is the path that yields fewer requests to have breasts removed, mostly on account of their absence.

You definitely lose me at the idea that people—really you mean children—should know before they get breasts if they want them. A lot of children on the brink of adolescence feel ambivalent or negative about the changes they are told are coming. Trust me: very few 10 year old girls are thrilled with the idea of getting their periods or with developing fatty deposits on their hips or joints. Bras, even the nice soft sports bras that are available today, take some time to get used to fir many girls. The attention from
boys and unfortunately men can be extremely disconcerting.

Which is to say that any one who expresses distress over impending puberty needs and deserves counseling and understanding and education. Farther steps only as necessary.

 

[Jarhyn]

In families with a history of breast or prostate cancer, I'm fairly certain preemptive removals are done on a fairly regular basis.

No, it is not. It's done very, very rarely. Angelina Jolie's voluntary mastectomy was something she could only get because she's famous. It is NOT something that is done regularly, not at all. And seriously, removal of breasts in someone past childbearing age has the LEAST negative side effects. Removal of the prostate has larger consequences than your fantasy-land imagining has envisioned.

You really should try living in the real world once in a while. It's actually kind of nice here.

Huh? I thought it was common for those who have the deadly gene.

It is.

As is preemptive removal of the prostate in families where prostate cancer is extremely common.

And Emily is BACK on cutting now?

Kids who get blockers when they want them almost never actually ask nor need to be cut, at least not unless they want to remove their gonads, which nobody here is saying should happen before someone is AT LEAST 21.

People should be expected to know whether they want breasts before they grow them, and given the information they need to decide that, and if they decide against it, they should not be made to do it.

It's not rocket science. It is the path that yields fewer requests to have breasts removed, mostly on account of their absence.

As far as I know, there isn’t a prophylactic removal of the prostate when there is a strong family history of prostate cancer. Well, basically that would be almost all men. If a post Mortimer were carried out on the bodies of all men who died at age 80+, most of them would show signs of prostate cancer. Depending on the age at diagnosis, and the Gleason score, there are many different therapies now offered, including proton beam therapy which kills the cancer and leaves the healthy prostate tissue intact. Obviously only useful if cancer is detected early. Also, again, depending on the Gleason score, age, etc. sometimes active surveillance is an option. If a man is diagnosed with low grade prostate cancer at 87, how much is he benefited by surgery?

*History of prostate cancer in my family so I’m fairly educated on the issue.

Well, as stated, I don't know my own family history of it, but I can pretty confidently say it won't be "getting" this guy

 

[Toni]

Just be aware, if you are not already: prostatectomy means you have to re-gain urinary continence. Generally not a problem but it takes some time—and will improve over time.

 

[Jarhyn]

In families with a history of breast or prostate cancer, I'm fairly certain preemptive removals are done on a fairly regular basis.

No, it is not. It's done very, very rarely. Angelina Jolie's voluntary mastectomy was something she could only get because she's famous. It is NOT something that is done regularly, not at all. And seriously, removal of breasts in someone past childbearing age has the LEAST negative side effects. Removal of the prostate has larger consequences than your fantasy-land imagining has envisioned.

You really should try living in the real world once in a while. It's actually kind of nice here.

Huh? I thought it was common for those who have the deadly gene.

It is.

As is preemptive removal of the prostate in families where prostate cancer is extremely common.

And Emily is BACK on cutting now?

Kids who get blockers when they want them almost never actually ask nor need to be cut, at least not unless they want to remove their gonads, which nobody here is saying should happen before someone is AT LEAST 21.

People should be expected to know whether they want breasts before they grow them, and given the information they need to decide that, and if they decide against it, they should not be made to do it.

It's not rocket science. It is the path that yields fewer requests to have breasts removed, mostly on account of their absence.

You definitely lose me at the idea that people—really you mean children—should know before they get breasts if they want them. A lot of children on the brink of adolescence feel ambivalent or negative about the changes they are told are coming. Trust me: very few 10 year old girls are thrilled with the idea of getting their periods or with developing fatty deposits on their hips or joints. Bras, even the nice soft sports bras that are available today, take some time to get used to fir many girls. The attention from
boys and unfortunately men can be extremely disconcerting.

Which is to say that any one who expresses distress over impending puberty needs and deserves counseling and understanding and education. Farther steps only as necessary.

Which is again why they should have an opportunity where they are actually allowed to decide whether they want them at all.

Most will ultimately decide they want them, as much from peer inclusion and automatic normalization.

Some will decide the costs are worth the benefits.

The point is that starting on estrogen is a contract to begin breast growth, periods, have certain growth around the buttocks and hips, and some people want that and some do not.

Though while I doubt trans-men have prostate cancer to worry about, breast cancer for trans-women might present its own risk factor.

But... There's no grounds to deny a tras-woman the right to breasts that may become cancerous when Texas and Missouri and others are now FORCING kids to grow breasts that might become cancerous.

It's not hard.

"Mommy, am I going to grow breasts? Why do some people have them and some people don't?"

"You having the parts you do means that you are probably going to grow breasts like mommy."

"I am? Do I have to?"

"No, you don't have to, but choosing not to has consequences."

"What are those?"

"Well, breasts make milk, and milk is what babies eat. People without breasts can't feed their babies without help from people who do have them. So if you ever want to have kids.of your own some day, be pregnant and have a baby, you will probably want them."

"But why doesn't daddy need them?"

"Daddy doesn't have breasts because their body doesn't have the parts that cause them to grow. Most boys don't, but some people do take pills that make them grow breasts even if they wouldn't otherwise. Daddy didn't want them, so they didn't choose to grow them."

"Why would they do that? Do they ever use them to feed babies."

"Because they like having them and the way they look and feel as a part of their body. People with breasts but who can't give birth generally do not produce milk, though it does happen rarely. A lot of people with breasts like at least some of those other things about them, too. Most people with breasts don't have a baby to feed with them all the time, but they still like having them."

"Really though, It's up to you to decide what you want for your body, and neither answer is right or wrong. Still, I would hope that you strive to change only those things about yourself and your future which are absolutely vital for your own happiness. Unless you are dead set against having them, utterly determined in the knowledge you can choose that, you should probably give having breasts a try."

"Anyway... It's going to be a few years before that matters for you, but think about what I said a couple times, and..."

"I get it, you don't need to tell me for the thousandth time...."

"... Still need to hear you say it..."

"...strive to change only those things about yourself and your future which are absolutely vital for your own happiness."

"Good job, now get ready for school."

 

[Bomb#20]

I keep coming back to the sneaking suspicion that the vocally pro-sterilization of kids are just secret homophobes ...

There we go. There's the virulent "everyone must breed" mentality we were all waiting to see come out!

"Pro sterilization". No more than I am "pro abortion". I believe in people's right to choose.

I am pro-choice. You are anti-choice. ...

Aren't you the one who wanted to tax men who hadn't had vasectomies?

 

[Bomb#20]

"The people claiming the defendant isn't a witch are probably witches themselves." - every Witchfinder General ever

When you can pose any motivation at all beyond hollow appeals to emotion that you yourself cannot explain, to cleave to inaccurate and meaningless sex-essentialist models, you can be sure I'll bend an ear.

From the "you yourself" bit, I take it you were including me in your bigoted mccarthyist rant. You have observed zero cases of me making "anti-trans" remarks or "hollow appeals to emotion" or "cleaving to inaccurate and meaningless sex-essentialist models". You made all that up because you don't appreciate having critical thought applied to your screeds.

As for your other targets, it's not my job to research their motivations for you, as though you have no burden of proof for any of your vicious stereotypes. People are all different. There are a hundred reasons somebody might not be on board with your social engineering proposals, from the painfully obvious -- he's a conservative and you're proposing something radically new -- to the emotionally unacceptable to you -- the possibility that your opponent is more liberal than you are, takes his principles more seriously than you take yours, and is simply of the opinion that children are not old enough to give informed consent to the procedure.

As it is, there is a long history of anti-gay lawmakers being discovered doing very gay things.

And that history in no way elevates your trumped-up accusation to anything more than the cliche ad hominem fallacy that it is.

When you can provide a better explanation as to why all these vocally anti-gay politicians <snip>

Sure, go ahead and pretend you were talking only about politicians. The "Emily Lake said:" is right there in your post.

 

[Jarhyn]

You have observed zero cases of me making "anti-trans" remarks or "hollow appeals to emotion" or "cleaving to inaccurate and meaningless sex-essentialist models".

No, we have all observed many instances of you claiming "man" and "woman" have real basis beyond fuzzy, weak cluster concepts. At best they create statistical phantoms through selection bias effects.

That is cleaning to inaccurate and meaningless sex essentialist models.

Real researchers in sex and sexuality don't actually measure how "man" or "woman" people are. They measure testosterone production, genetic structures, brain structures, and accept that each of these things is DIFFERENT, otherwise they accept that they are working that they are working on a weak psychological model.

Biology is concerned with chemicals and structures that have real effects not classifications that do not, which are just arbitrary labels put on things until they can be better understood.

As for your other targets, it's not my job to research their motivations for you, as though you have no burden of proof for any of your vicious stereotypes

There is plenty of proof: the consistent behavior of GOP lawmakers and the parade of gay sex scandals of antigay lawmakers.

Being "anti" something when one side is "agnostic" has been consistently revealed in the past as a sign of involvement, a pattern well observed ever since the very beginning of the witch finding age: King James, witchfinder, was a homosexual trying to distract from their homosexuality by witch finding.

I seem to recall a number of gay conversion camps where councilors were gay child abusers, too?

It's a consistent trope, predictable as hell if you ask me.

It's always the correct thing to ask why those who are virulently against a thing are so against it when it doesn't appear to affect them.

The Maybe you try finding Oleg, anti-trans as they were and accusing people of child abuse and pedophilia, when they have stacks of child porn to link around?

You seriously watched one of them implode exactly like that right here just this last week.

Perfect replication of the patterns which create who we are involve repetition of the sins of their parents upon their children. In any self-preserving structure of behavior, there will be efforts to protect the cycle of abuse to protect the cycle of self-replication.

 

[ZiprHead]

There is plenty of proof: the consistent behavior of GOP lawmakers and the parade of gay sex scandals of antigay lawmakers.

"There's been more Republicans arrested in bathrooms than trans women." - John Fugelsang

 

[Toni]

In families with a history of breast or prostate cancer, I'm fairly certain preemptive removals are done on a fairly regular basis.

No, it is not. It's done very, very rarely. Angelina Jolie's voluntary mastectomy was something she could only get because she's famous. It is NOT something that is done regularly, not at all. And seriously, removal of breasts in someone past childbearing age has the LEAST negative side effects. Removal of the prostate has larger consequences than your fantasy-land imagining has envisioned.

You really should try living in the real world once in a while. It's actually kind of nice here.

Huh? I thought it was common for those who have the deadly gene.

It is.

As is preemptive removal of the prostate in families where prostate cancer is extremely common.

And Emily is BACK on cutting now?

Kids who get blockers when they want them almost never actually ask nor need to be cut, at least not unless they want to remove their gonads, which nobody here is saying should happen before someone is AT LEAST 21.

People should be expected to know whether they want breasts before they grow them, and given the information they need to decide that, and if they decide against it, they should not be made to do it.

It's not rocket science. It is the path that yields fewer requests to have breasts removed, mostly on account of their absence.

You definitely lose me at the idea that people—really you mean children—should know before they get breasts if they want them. A lot of children on the brink of adolescence feel ambivalent or negative about the changes they are told are coming. Trust me: very few 10 year old girls are thrilled with the idea of getting their periods or with developing fatty deposits on their hips or joints. Bras, even the nice soft sports bras that are available today, take some time to get used to fir many girls. The attention from
boys and unfortunately men can be extremely disconcerting.

Which is to say that any one who expresses distress over impending puberty needs and deserves counseling and understanding and education. Farther steps only as necessary.

Which is again why they should have an opportunity where they are actually allowed to decide whether they want them at all.

Most will ultimately decide they want them, as much from peer inclusion and automatic normalization.

Some will decide the costs are worth the benefits.

The point is that starting on estrogen is a contract to begin breast growth, periods, have certain growth around the buttocks and hips, and some people want that and some do not.

Though while I doubt trans-men have prostate cancer to worry about, breast cancer for trans-women might present its own risk factor.

But... There's no grounds to deny a tras-woman the right to breasts that may become cancerous when Texas and Missouri and others are now FORCING kids to grow breasts that might become cancerous.

It's not hard.

"Mommy, am I going to grow breasts? Why do some people have them and some people don't?"

"You having the parts you do means that you are probably going to grow breasts like mommy."

"I am? Do I have to?"

"No, you don't have to, but choosing not to has consequences."

"What are those?"

"Well, breasts make milk, and milk is what babies eat. People without breasts can't feed their babies without help from people who do have them. So if you ever want to have kids.of your own some day, be pregnant and have a baby, you will probably want them."

"But why doesn't daddy need them?"

"Daddy doesn't have breasts because their body doesn't have the parts that cause them to grow. Most boys don't, but some people do take pills that make them grow breasts even if they wouldn't otherwise. Daddy didn't want them, so they didn't choose to grow them."

"Why would they do that? Do they ever use them to feed babies."

"Because they like having them and the way they look and feel as a part of their body. People with breasts but who can't give birth generally do not produce milk, though it does happen rarely. A lot of people with breasts like at least some of those other things about them, too. Most people with breasts don't have a baby to feed with them all the time, but they still like having them."

"Really though, It's up to you to decide what you want for your body, and neither answer is right or wrong. Still, I would hope that you strive to change only those things about yourself and your future which are absolutely vital for your own happiness. Unless you are dead set against having them, utterly determined in the knowledge you can choose that, you should probably give having breasts a try."

"Anyway... It's going to be a few years before that matters for you, but think about what I said a couple times, and..."

"I get it, you don't need to tell me for the thousandth time...."

"... Still need to hear you say it..."

"...strive to change only those things about yourself and your future which are absolutely vital for your own happiness."

"Good job, now get ready for school."

Coming back to edit: What I write about the idea of puberty blockers, etc. doesn't apply to kids who see themselves as a different gender than what their gross anatomy seems to indicate or those who are questioning whether or not they are male or female. The idea of acceptance, love, support, etc. should be universal.


I think that's an awful lot of pressure to put on most kids--choosing whether and when to undergo puberty.

What is better is to create an environment at home, at school, in society at large, that promotes self acceptance, does not place too great of demands on being 'mature' and certainly does not push adult feelings and expectations about maturity and especially sex onto kids.

I was really not at all thrilled when I learned about menstruation. My first thought was something along the lines of "Figures. Girls get the dirty end of the stick again." I hated wearing a bra, which were uncomfortable and stiff back in the days when my mother first decided I needed one. HER mother refused to allow her to have one until she was 16, which was worse because she needed one years earlier. I think that the sense of inevitability was important for me, personally. I would have had a hard time 'changing my mind' because in my family, one stuck by one's choices and did not go back on your word. Of course that wouldn't apply but to my very young mind, a lot was black and white. And my parents were of the variety that felt that learning by mistakes was the best way--even if it was fairly painful. My father learned to swim when his brother threw him in a pond, watched him sink a few times, dragged him out and then repeated the process until my father learned to swim a little. Not a great way to learn but that was the sort of ethos that pervaded my family. Never give up and don't back out and sink or swim. And no crying or temper tantrums. Suck it up and get on with it. All of which has its uses but really was not the best.

What I think is better is something more like radical acceptance of yourself, of others. Encouragement, love, acceptance, self-knowledge. Knowledge. Experience. Starting at home, to foster in self and reflected over and over again in family and home, school, community, society at large. Along with self regulation of behavior, consideration for others, the whole do no harm and do as much kindness and love as possible.

 

[Jarhyn]

I think that's an awful lot of pressure to put on kids

Life is an awful lot of pressure to put on any entity of the universe.

People become capable of making informed decisions by being given information and being asked to make decisions on it. When KIDS are taught to make informed, serious decisions, and they teach their children to do the same, then we will have a stronger culture of people whose kids are in the position of "have and not need" rather than "need and not have", as the parents have plenty of experience in dealing with the pressures of life.

At some point, everyone needs to think about those things and that point is always going to be "the point at which the subject is broached".

We should absolutely place expectations of maturity on kids, so that they get practice and are actually successfully mature by the time they are legal adults.

The caveat, the thing we shouldn't be doing is depriving them of opportunities to learn how to be immature in safe contexts, and how to tell the difference between a context where they can behave immaturely and times where they need to have their shit together.

Kids should laugh. Kids should play. But kids should also be expected to learn how to balance a budget, count change, brush their teeth, and consider their future and what they want out of all this.

 

[Emily Lake]

Repressed memories weren't about young people falling for a fad, they were about incompetent therapists that didn't realize they were creating the false memories, not recovering them. (And, yes, the issue was known. My parents were both psychologists, they were aware of how easy it was to create false memories in the 80s. They knew that when using hypnosis to help someone remember where a lost item was that there was a decent chance the "memory" would be false--if the object turns out not to be there no big deal.)

The large increase in the number of young people, particularly young girls, going to the therapist because they believe they have repressed memories was due to social contagion. Once they were there, the therapists then, of course, found the "repressed memories" that the young people thought they had. Therapists were eager to affirm both the notion of repressed memories as well as the feeling of the child that such repressed memories were present.

So... poor psychological practice based on flawed concepts and lack of safeguards... paired with the susceptibility of young people to social contagion of ideas.

But let's be clear - at least some few people really did have childhood trauma that they had locked away out of mind, right? There were actually some people, although not very many, for whom those recovered memories were genuine.

So, let's give some thinking about this phenomenon and the dynamic... and consider whether it might also be present today.

First, we will be clear: some people really do have deep-seated cognitive disconnects between their sexed body and their perception of themselves. This is a real thing, and we call it gender dysphoria.

But let's look at what's going on in the world. We've got a LOT of media attention, a lot of approbation and lauding of people who are transgender, a lot of social media focused on the topic. And we've got a lot of therapists who are taking an affirmation only approach.

We have therapists who are eager to affirm both the notion of transgender identity as well as the feelings of children that such a transgender identity is present.

Is it any surprise at all that we are seeing a massive increase in the number of young people, particularly young girls, who believe they are transgender due to media influence and who are then affirmed in this identity by overeager therapists? There are no safeguards in place.

And unlike repressed memories of ritual satanic child abuse... the consequences of this negligence in the mental health community are much worse. RSCA ripped apart families and got children taken away - that's definitely bad. But the false memories didn't cause physical damage to those children. It didn't cause them to permanently alter their bodies in ways that cannot be undone. It didn't cause them to risk sterility, or to remove body parts.

 

[Emily Lake]

Kids who get blockers when they want them almost never actually ask nor need to be cut, at least not unless they want to remove their gonads, which nobody here is saying should happen before someone is AT LEAST 21.

You keep looking at this from an exclusively male perspective. You seem to think of "cutting" solely in terms of removal of testicles, maybe you give a tiny bit of consideration to removal of uteruses.

There are a lot of young girls who are getting their breasts surgically removed.

And whether you say "oh it shouldn't happen" is irrelevant - it IS happening. And the fact that it IS happening is fueling many of the laws prohibiting it. I think the laws are an overreach, but at present the medical community is fucking up so badly that I don't have any faith that it will magically fix itself without some kind of government oversight.

 

[Emily Lake]

In families with a history of breast or prostate cancer, I'm fairly certain preemptive removals are done on a fairly regular basis.

No, it is not. It's done very, very rarely. Angelina Jolie's voluntary mastectomy was something she could only get because she's famous. It is NOT something that is done regularly, not at all. And seriously, removal of breasts in someone past childbearing age has the LEAST negative side effects. Removal of the prostate has larger consequences than your fantasy-land imagining has envisioned.

You really should try living in the real world once in a while. It's actually kind of nice here.

Huh? I thought it was common for those who have the deadly gene.

I believe that it’s an option now offered many women. We know about Jolie’s surgery because she’s famous and chose to be open about her choices.

It's an option offered to only a very few women. It is generally only offered to women who have specific genes, and even then not to all of them depending on family history.

It is NOT common, nor is it done on anything that a rational person would consider a "fairly regular basis".

Even when a preemptive double mastectomy is done, it reduces the risk but does not eliminate it - between 5% and 10% of women who meet all of the clinical and genetic criteria go on to develop breast cancer anyway.

 

[Jarhyn]

Kids who get blockers when they want them almost never actually ask nor need to be cut, at least not unless they want to remove their gonads, which nobody here is saying should happen before someone is AT LEAST 21.

You keep looking at this from an exclusively male perspective. You seem to think of "cutting" solely in terms of removal of testicles, maybe you give a tiny bit of consideration to removal of uteruses.

There are a lot of young girls who are getting their breasts surgically removed.

And whether you say "oh it shouldn't happen" is irrelevant - it IS happening. And the fact that it IS happening is fueling many of the laws prohibiting it. I think the laws are an overreach, but at present the medical community is fucking up so badly that I don't have any faith that it will magically fix itself without some kind of government oversight.

It is happening because of your demands that they not have access to blockers or hormones, and those who make similar demands alongside you. It is happening because they get no information or choice or consideration of their needs until the point of no return is behind them.

You need to STOP with the rhetoric against transition and blockers, and START voting, donating, and objecting vocally to these laws.

Maybe you should accept that you know less about medical ethics then the medical community, and that when you are told that the medical community is backing moves which sound ethically suspect, to first question whether the things you are being told about the ethics of the medical community are accurate in the first place, and to actually investigate the medical community's actual stance on it.

If you don't want it to happen, you need to be willing to let children learn about the ways they can keep it from being their only option against having breasts.

You pretend that there are no valid reasons for wanting to get rid of a uterus, of breasts, of testicles. There is no valid reason for demanding to have them either in that case!

It's all just Absurdism ala Camus then!

I say it shouldn't happen, and I say "it shouldn't happen so let's stop doing the things that make it happen".

You can't get in front of it by demanding people not want it. You can only get in front of it by demanding people can choose to never need it.

 

[Emily Lake]

Real researchers in sex and sexuality don't actually measure how "man" or "woman" people are. They measure testosterone production, genetic structures, brain structures, and accept that each of these things is DIFFERENT, otherwise they accept that they are working that they are working on a weak psychological model.

Real researchers and actual fucking scientists in biology and evolution DO observe male and female, and they observe it consistently throughout ALL sexually reproductive species - that is the overwhelming majority of vertebrates, including ALL mammals and birds. Even for those vertebrate species who can change sex, they are still only one or the other. Clownfish can change from male to female in the right conditions, but there is not third sex they can change into - there are still only two sexes.

The distinction between male and female is incredibly well defined, well observed, and well documented by REAL scientists.

All of your blather about brain structures and other such nonsense are the result or pseudoscientists trying to find evidence for the soul.

 

[Jarhyn]

Real researchers and actual fucking scientists in biology and evolution DO observe male and female, and they observe it consistently throughout ALL sexually reproductive species

The way they observe it is not the way you observe it. It is the way I observe it, either by allowing self-subscription to the categories, or delineating that their scene is using the terms as shorthand for something specific, or accepting that their language breaks down.

By the time someone is a biologist generally they understand that sex is just a shorthand for something much more complicated than whether the protoclit or whatever it's called grows large and closes around the urinary tract, or whether it stays small.

Really, the question most biological researchers around sex are focused on is "it's more complicated than male/female, but how, and why?"

You're using exactly the staring point for understanding and saying that because understanding comes from starting at some point, that the starting point IS the final understanding.

It's not. It's. The. Starting. Point.

 

[Toni]

In families with a history of breast or prostate cancer, I'm fairly certain preemptive removals are done on a fairly regular basis.

No, it is not. It's done very, very rarely. Angelina Jolie's voluntary mastectomy was something she could only get because she's famous. It is NOT something that is done regularly, not at all. And seriously, removal of breasts in someone past childbearing age has the LEAST negative side effects. Removal of the prostate has larger consequences than your fantasy-land imagining has envisioned.

You really should try living in the real world once in a while. It's actually kind of nice here.

Huh? I thought it was common for those who have the deadly gene.

It is.

As is preemptive removal of the prostate in families where prostate cancer is extremely common.

And Emily is BACK on cutting now?

Kids who get blockers when they want them almost never actually ask nor need to be cut, at least not unless they want to remove their gonads, which nobody here is saying should happen before someone is AT LEAST 21.

People should be expected to know whether they want breasts before they grow them, and given the information they need to decide that, and if they decide against it, they should not be made to do it.

It's not rocket science. It is the path that yields fewer requests to have breasts removed, mostly on account of their absence.

You definitely lose me at the idea that people—really you mean children—should know before they get breasts if they want them. A lot of children on the brink of adolescence feel ambivalent or negative about the changes they are told are coming. Trust me: very few 10 year old girls are thrilled with the idea of getting their periods or with developing fatty deposits on their hips or joints. Bras, even the nice soft sports bras that are available today, take some time to get used to fir many girls. The attention from
boys and unfortunately men can be extremely disconcerting.

Which is to say that any one who expresses distress over impending puberty needs and deserves counseling and understanding and education. Farther steps only as necessary.

Which is again why they should have an opportunity where they are actually allowed to decide whether they want them at all.

Most will ultimately decide they want them, as much from peer inclusion and automatic normalization.

Some will decide the costs are worth the benefits.

The point is that starting on estrogen is a contract to begin breast growth, periods, have certain growth around the buttocks and hips, and some people want that and some do not.

Though while I doubt trans-men have prostate cancer to worry about, breast cancer for trans-women might present its own risk factor.

But... There's no grounds to deny a tras-woman the right to breasts that may become cancerous when Texas and Missouri and others are now FORCING kids to grow breasts that might become cancerous.

It's not hard.

"Mommy, am I going to grow breasts? Why do some people have them and some people don't?"

"You having the parts you do means that you are probably going to grow breasts like mommy."

"I am? Do I have to?"

"No, you don't have to, but choosing not to has consequences."

"What are those?"

"Well, breasts make milk, and milk is what babies eat. People without breasts can't feed their babies without help from people who do have them. So if you ever want to have kids.of your own some day, be pregnant and have a baby, you will probably want them."

"But why doesn't daddy need them?"

"Daddy doesn't have breasts because their body doesn't have the parts that cause them to grow. Most boys don't, but some people do take pills that make them grow breasts even if they wouldn't otherwise. Daddy didn't want them, so they didn't choose to grow them."

"Why would they do that? Do they ever use them to feed babies."

"Because they like having them and the way they look and feel as a part of their body. People with breasts but who can't give birth generally do not produce milk, though it does happen rarely. A lot of people with breasts like at least some of those other things about them, too. Most people with breasts don't have a baby to feed with them all the time, but they still like having them."

"Really though, It's up to you to decide what you want for your body, and neither answer is right or wrong. Still, I would hope that you strive to change only those things about yourself and your future which are absolutely vital for your own happiness. Unless you are dead set against having them, utterly determined in the knowledge you can choose that, you should probably give having breasts a try."

"Anyway... It's going to be a few years before that matters for you, but think about what I said a couple times, and..."

"I get it, you don't need to tell me for the thousandth time...."

"... Still need to hear you say it..."

"...strive to change only those things about yourself and your future which are absolutely vital for your own happiness."

"Good job, now get ready for school."

I’m approaching this as someone who remembers not wanting to go through certain changes and also as a parent who raised sed several children.

My mother’s mother refused to allow her to wear a bra until she was 16 although she very obviously needed one years earlier. Mom decided to be very different from her mother and …perhaps overcorrected.

I didn’t want to wear a bra because I didn’t want to change. But life is all about changing. It is inevitable. But I also did not want to wear a bra because they were uncomfortable. That has changed, thankfully. Sports bras are a very decent way to become accustomed to a new garment. But more than that, boys at school snickered about girls’ bodies and snapped bra straps. I did not want to endure thst or that kind of notice. It was also something I was unable to articulate to my mother. That should never have been a concern for any girl. It is something that I think has changed somewhat but not enough. Other and more serious pressures are put on gurus at far too young an age. Boys as well. That absolutely must change.

Toddlers are often overwhelmed by choices—what clothes do you want to wear? What do you want for lunch? They do better with: do you want to wear your green shirt or your blue shirt abd carrots or celery with your sandwich. A year or two and they do much better at self regulation and choice. But as they approach adolescence, there’s a resurgence of indecision: picking which out fit can be overwhelming and can bring melt downs that rival their toddler years.

Paralysis over which clubs to join, which schools to apply to and choosing a major, learning to drive a car —and making changes when those choices don’t turn out to be good ones—extremely overwhelming for many older adolescents/young adults. That doesn’t even touch social/dating/sexual choices that bombard kids in their teen years. I cannot imagine routinely throwing in the option to manipulate the hormonal balances in their bodies—unless necessary for the health and well-being of the child.

Sometimes kids must undergo treatment for chronic conditions, such as diabetes or even serious overbites or overcrowding of their teeth. It is not unusual for kids to decide they do not want to continue to take medications/wear braces essential to their well-being. Sometimes, parents have to insist and at the same time convince their child that the treatment is necessary. Sometimes for their life.

Unless a child is expressing gender dysmorphia, I don’t think that medical treatment to interfere with the onset of adolescence is appropriate and I don’t think that the choice should be routinely offered the child Counseling is a good first step to determine what the child needs. Medical intervention where necessary for the well being of the child. 11 year olds do not always know how to express their needs and wants, or how to evaluate the consequences of their actions and decisions.

 

[Jarhyn]

Real researchers and actual fucking scientists in biology and evolution DO observe male and female, and they observe it consistently throughout ALL sexually reproductive species

The way they observe it is not the way you observe it. It is the way I observe it, either by allowing self-subscription to the categories, or delineating that their scene is using the terms as shorthand for something specific, or accepting that their language breaks down.

By the time someone is a biologist generally they understand that sex is just a shorthand for something much more complicated than whether the protoclit or whatever it's called grows large and closes around the urinary tract, or whether it stays small.

Really, the question most biological researchers around sex are focused on is "it's more complicated than male/female, but how, and why?"

You're using exactly the staring point for understanding and saying that because understanding comes from starting at some point, that the starting point IS the final understanding.

It's not. It's. The. Starting. Point.

See, now you're just making shit up. This is absurd, ridiculous, and 100% fantasy.

Your handwaves and vapid responses are "making shit up".

The reality is that sex is only a starting point, a vague idea off of which to ask real questions in biology.

A developmental cellular biologist is going to acknowledge that when they study X and Y, they actually pay more attention to the actual methylation of DNA that acts for many as a trigger for an early element of chemistry that could otherwise differentiate either way. The mechanisms that this is, in most critters you would call human, triggered by an aspect of the 23'd chromosome. Assuming they even have 23 chromosome pairs...

We in fact have numerous publications in this thread and others courtesy of @lpetrich discussing the actual chemical realities of biology which are commonly reduced for brevity's sake to "male" and "female".

 

[Bomb#20]

You have observed zero cases of me making "anti-trans" remarks or "hollow appeals to emotion" or "cleaving to inaccurate and meaningless sex-essentialist models".

No, we have all observed many instances of you claiming "man" and "woman" have real basis beyond fuzzy, weak cluster concepts. At best they create statistical phantoms through selection bias effects.

That is cleaning to inaccurate and meaningless sex essentialist models.

No, all I am "cleaving to" is common usage -- I am refusing to participate in your pretense that your private language is the determiner of what words mean. We all have observed many instances of you expressing the Humpty Dumpty theory of word meaning. You do not get to be master of English. Words mean what a speech community uses them to mean. And the mere circumstance that I know how to tell the difference between an ostensive definition and a cluster concept, and you don't, does not magically make common usage "sex essentialist". Common usage's acceptance of the existence of people of intermediate sex is documented going back hundreds of years.

(But you probably aren't even talking about my corrections to your linguistics errors; you're probably just referring to somebody else's posts who you've mixed me up with.)

Real researchers in sex and sexuality don't actually measure how "man" or "woman" people are. They measure testosterone production, genetic structures, brain structures, and accept that each of these things is DIFFERENT, otherwise they accept that they are working that they are working on a weak psychological model.

Biology is concerned with chemicals and structures that have real effects not classifications that do not, which are just arbitrary labels put on things until they can be better understood.

All of which has jack squat to do with your inability to make a word mean what you choose it to mean. Real researchers in sex and sexuality are no more English's master than you are.

As for your other targets, it's not my job to research their motivations for you, as though you have no burden of proof for any of your vicious stereotypes

There is plenty of proof: the consistent behavior of GOP lawmakers and the parade of gay sex scandals of antigay lawmakers.

This, from somebody who keeps lecturing others about drawing conclusions about individuals from group stereotypes.

The Maybe you try finding Oleg, anti-trans as they were and accusing people of child abuse and pedophilia, when they have stacks of child porn to link around?

You seriously watched one of them implode exactly like that right here just this last week.

I watched nothing of the sort. I paid attention to the real world for a day, and when I returned, Oleg was erased, all evidence against him was erased, and all possibility of "finding" him to hear his side of the story was erased. And your descriptions of other members' actions here have never been reliable, witness your many libels against me.