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

[Emily Lake]

No kid should be allowed to get optional body modification.

But every child is going to generally get to heir body modified automatically by their body.

Puberty is NOT an optional body modification. It's not something that we "allow" a kid to do, nor is it something we "force" them to do. It's the process by which a juvenile becomes an adult.

Your approach makes just as much sense as arguing that a kid should have the "right" to "choose" whether or not their feet change size from when they were a toddler!

 

[Emily Lake]

That's forcible prevention of a process, and in fact prevention of the process of the exercise of free will.

You can't "free will" yourself into growing an extra arm. Nor can you "free will" yourself into changing sex.

There is no more "free will" in the process of developing from a juvenile into an adult of the sex you were conceived as, is there is "free will" in the process of your fontanelle closing, or the process of losing your baby teeth.

 

[Elixir]

In males, the penis lengthens and the testes descend from the inguinal canals.

If that happens during puberty, something is drastically wrong.
But what the hay - might as well throw the kitchen sink in there, just to build a big enough wall-o-BS to keep anyone from picking it apart, right?

 

[Emily Lake]

Jarhyn supports mastectomies for minors.

"They" support letting kids make permanently life changing decisions, provided the decisions are inside "their" ideological bubble.
Tom

"They" support not fucking up a natural process that transitions a juvenile into an adult.

 

[Emily Lake]

Your faith is rotten.

I don't have faith. I don't believe in a magical gendered soul.

 

[Emily Lake]

In males, the penis lengthens and the testes descend from the inguinal canals.

If that happens during puberty, something is drastically wrong.
But what the hay - might as well throw the kitchen sink in there, just to build a big enough wall-o-BS to keep anyone from picking it apart, right?

Oy, yes, that's not right. I mixed up stages in the process. That happens during fetal development, during puberty the scrotum descends from the body.

I had originally written some stuff about fetal development, but took it out and stitched it together. Sorry about that.

 

[bilby]

Additionally, everybody IS male or female. There are only two sexes.

This is simply untrue.

Sure, it's true of the overwhelming majority of people; But there are eight billion plus people alive today, and even a fairly small fraction of such a large number can still be a very large number.

There are large numbers of individuals who are not male or female; People who are neither, or both. Exactly who fits into the two categories you insist upon, and who doesn't, depends on exactly how you define those categories, but there's no definition that generates the dichotomy you insist upon without leaving any exceptions.

And the discussion is about the exceptions.

Saying "Exceptions are difficult, therefore I declare that no exceptions exist" doesn't alter the reality that exceptions do exist.

Saying "Exceptions are biologically impossible, and therefore cannot exist" neither alters the reality that exceptions do exist, nor gives your audience any confidence that you have the slightest clue how complicated the biology you are discussing actually is.

Your fundamental premise is clearly and demonstrably wrong; A single individual out of the entire population would be, and is, a complete refutation of your absolutist claim. And of course there are at the very least thousands, probably millions, of such individuals.

When your argument is founded on a premise that is known to be false, it is very foolish indeed to expect it to lead to conclusions that are true, and even more foolish to expect your audience to be swayed by your claims. And that remains the case even if, by some remarkable luck, your conclusions really are true.

 

[Jayjay]

As for the specific question of hormones, I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea to stop children from growing up. Modern society is more complex than the pre-historic tribal way of living that we evolved to, and it wouldn't hurt to delay puberty by some years to keep kids in school longer. I just don't think it should be up to children to decide that.

I do think it's a bad idea to stop children from growing up. Contrary to the narrative that has been fed on this, puberty blockers are NOT a "pause button" than can just be turned back on again.

Sure. I don't know enough about the medical side to make a judgment; and science tends to progress so even if hormone treatments now are not reversible, maybe in the future we'll have something more subtle and holistic.

I'd like the debate to be framed in terms of "why not do this to everybody" because when one starts thinking about it from the point of view of the 99% instead of the 1%. And if there are side effects for the treatments that make them infeasible for the majority, then surely, those side effects can't be dismissed for the minority that would have some benefit from the treatments either. It becomes a medical issue, not a choice that the children can make for themselves.

 

[Oleg]

There are large numbers of individuals who are not male or female;

The debate isn’t about intersex people. It’s about biologically male or female children; and the adults who lie that they can swap their sex.

 

[Emily Lake]

Additionally, everybody IS male or female. There are only two sexes.

This is simply untrue.

Sure, it's true of the overwhelming majority of people; But there are eight billion plus people alive today, and even a fairly small fraction of such a large number can still be a very large number.

There are large numbers of individuals who are not male or female; People who are neither, or both. Exactly who fits into the two categories you insist upon, and who doesn't, depends on exactly how you define those categories, but there's no definition that generates the dichotomy you insist upon without leaving any exceptions.

And the discussion is about the exceptions.

Saying "Exceptions are difficult, therefore I declare that no exceptions exist" doesn't alter the reality that exceptions do exist.

Saying "Exceptions are biologically impossible, and therefore cannot exist" neither alters the reality that exceptions do exist, nor gives your audience any confidence that you have the slightest clue how complicated the biology you are discussing actually is.

Your fundamental premise is clearly and demonstrably wrong; A single individual out of the entire population would be, and is, a complete refutation of your absolutist claim. And of course there are at the very least thousands, probably millions, of such individuals.

When your argument is founded on a premise that is known to be false, it is very foolish indeed to expect it to lead to conclusions that are true, and even more foolish to expect your audience to be swayed by your claims. And that remains the case even if, by some remarkable luck, your conclusions really are true.

No. Literally there are only two sexes. There are two gametes, there is no third gamete, there is no in-between gamete. There are two and only two sexes among all mammals.

There are disorders of development that result in anomolous configurations. But each one of those people with a disorder is still only one sex or the other. Absolutely nobody is a third sex.

There are two sexes.

Furthermore, this discussion is NOT about people with disorders of sexual development, which is a medical condition. This discussion is not even remotely about "exceptions" to all mammals having only two sexes. Gender identity is not a sex. And people with gender identity disorders are still only male or female. And the overwhelming majority of those people with gender identity disorders isn't even close to being able to hint at having ambiguous reproductive anatomy.

Seriously. Eyeballs are very complex. Which is why we see so many humans with eight of them. You can't possibly say that humans have two eyes, it's too complicated for that. And some humans have trunks instead of noses, some have tails, and when you cut our arms off, some of us grow them back!

The magical thinking involved in this continues to astonish me.

 

[Emily Lake]

As for the specific question of hormones, I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea to stop children from growing up. Modern society is more complex than the pre-historic tribal way of living that we evolved to, and it wouldn't hurt to delay puberty by some years to keep kids in school longer. I just don't think it should be up to children to decide that.

I do think it's a bad idea to stop children from growing up. Contrary to the narrative that has been fed on this, puberty blockers are NOT a "pause button" than can just be turned back on again.

Sure. I don't know enough about the medical side to make a judgment; and science tends to progress so even if hormone treatments now are not reversible, maybe in the future we'll have something more subtle and holistic.

I'd like the debate to be framed in terms of "why not do this to everybody" because when one starts thinking about it from the point of view of the 99% instead of the 1%. And if there are side effects for the treatments that make them infeasible for the majority, then surely, those side effects can't be dismissed for the minority that would have some benefit from the treatments either. It becomes a medical issue, not a choice that the children can make for themselves.

Hmm. That's a very interesting way to approach it. I hadn't thought of it from that argumentative perspective.

 

[Emily Lake]

There are large numbers of individuals who are not male or female;

The debate isn’t about intersex people. It’s about biologically male or female children; and the adults who lie that they can swap their sex.

People with disorders of sexual development are still only male or female. None of them are neither. None of them are a third sex.

 

[bilby]

No. Literally there are only two sexes. There are two gametes, there is no third gamete, there is no in-between gamete. There are two and only two sexes among all mammals.

Some individuals produce both. Many produce neither. Two gametes implies four categories, not two.

There are two ABO antigens on red blood corpuscles; Giving four blood types - A, B, AB, and O*

Two gametes implies four sexes (if we accept the unstated assumption that gamete production is the definitive factor in determination of sex, which is a deeply flawed assumption, but that's a whole other discussion).

To get two sexes, there would need to be only one gamete, which individuals either produce, or don't.





* Originally, Type O was intended to be denoted by the number 0. But the typeface used in the original paper on blood types was unclear in the difference between O and 0, so Type O blood is, in fact a typo.

 

[bilby]

You can't possibly say that humans have two eyes, it's too complicated for that.

You can say it. You won't be right though; Some have one, some have none.

You're making the error of applying a general rule to the specific.

 

[Oleg]

There are large numbers of individuals who are not male or female;

The debate isn’t about intersex people. It’s about biologically male or female children; and the adults who lie that they can swap their sex.

People with disorders of sexual development are still only male or female. None of them are neither. None of them are a third sex.

Well, correct. But the intersex are a whole different category from the rest of us born with no ambiguity.

 

[Oleg]

You can't possibly say that humans have two eyes, it's too complicated for that.

You can say it. You won't be right though; Some have one, some have none.

You're making the error of applying a general rule to the specific.

Some people can't walk. Ergo, humans are not bipedal.

 

[Jarhyn]

Your faith is rotten.

I don't have faith. I don't believe in a magical gendered soul.

I don't believe in a magical gendered soul either. I believe in a brain with a connectivity between it's neurons which corresponds to a  Grammar which fairly statically consists a structure and weight of connection which encode for the holder a "gender" which largely informs them of how to operate their bodies, socially position themselves, and that also within that physical configuration is an image of a personal ideal, someone we each strive to be, and that too has something that satisfies zero or more of "he", and "she".

That is not magic. It is a recognition that the ideas in our heads are driven by the structures which grow in them.

What you believe in is "?". You believe that someone what? Thinks with their genitals?

That someone actually has a brain in their penis?

Biology says behavior arises from neurological associations informed by measurements of the chemical environment of the body delivered by chemically sensitive neurons.

If you are not worried about behavior first and foremost you are prejudiced and you can go to hell.

Biology, which you reference again in bad faith, says that the processes which grow brains can do all sorts of weird junk, and given the node structure similarities (thanks @SigmatheZeta) despite their subtle differences, its not going to take a big chemical push.

As has been discussed on the Biology, so many different biological mechanisms have served as genetic triggers to differentiation that it is unreasonable to make any claim that there will not be innumerable ways for it to get tipped opposed to the direction of tipping of the genital formation chain.

What has been observed is that in those who are distressed by the hormonal situation of their body, testing shows statistical likelihood of having a brain structure more commonly by people whose bodies will produce different hormones to them.

That is the biology of it, and it's not magic. It's the fact that networks of switching units process information differently when they are connected differently, and gender is a discussion of how we are connected in our very real, material brains.

Even claims you "don't have faith" as a response to someone pointing out bad faith is itself bad faith!

 

[Oleg]

What has been observed is that in those who are distressed by the hormonal situation of their body, testing shows statistical likelihood of having a brain structure more commonly by people whose bodies will produce different hormones to them.

Feminist: There's no difference between male and female brains.

Trans: We have woman brains.

 

[Jarhyn]

What has been observed is that in those who are distressed by the hormonal situation of their body, testing shows statistical likelihood of having a brain structure more commonly by people whose bodies will produce different hormones to them.

Feminist: There's no difference between male and female brains.

Trans: We have woman brains.

More, the differences are subtle and can have impacts on priorities. There are parts of the brain that develop in ways that differentiate, but not to an extent that it would impact general intelligence.

It is well established that our kinesthetic senses are the result of particular brain formations, and the shape of the brain absolutely impacts behavior, qualia, and the behavioral outcome of hormones.

Further, we have a large enough population of people throughout history that have sought out becoming eunuchs, that it can be fairly well surmised that regardless of how little we understand about it, there's something adaptive about that on a species level to have such a fraction diverge in this way.

At any rate, it's not even "all one way or all the other". Biology doesn't work like that, but rather by degrees.

Yes, people can have "woman brains" but that doesn't speak anything as to their capability. Rather, it speaks to the reality that there is likely a physiological developmental basis to gender dysphoria.

 

[Bomb#20]

We afford the power and right to grow up with a body formed by primary influences of estrogen through puberty to children.

Therefore we ought afford that right as an option to ALL children.

In the first place, that’s an is-to-ought inference.

In the second place, that’s a Life-of-Brian right you’re asserting — Loretta’s right to bear children even though she has no womb. Giving a male child estrogen at the age of 12 or thereabouts is not going to result in a body formed by primary influences of estrogen through puberty. That child’s body will still have been formed primarily by androgens in utero and in early childhood. A body formed by childhood androgens and adolescent estrogens isn’t what we afford girls the power and right to grow up with through puberty. So even if your we-give-it-to-some-so-we-should-give-it-to-all rule were valid, its premise is false.