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

[Jarhyn]

Of course they used established knowledge: humans have two kidneys!

MOST humans have 2 kidneys. You are a human. You don't. The knowledge ~2 is useful here, and dare I say more useful so they know to ask just in case "how many do you have". They are located ~(in the lower back).

My point continues to be that the absolutism is a truncation for brevity, not an actual absolute.

 

[Toni]

Of course they used established knowledge: humans have two kidneys!

MOST humans have 2 kidneys. You are a human. You don't. The knowledge ~2 is useful here, and dare I say more useful so they know to ask just in case "how many do you have". They are located ~(in the lower back).

My point continues to be that the absolutism is a truncation for brevity, not an actual absolute.

We can and do take things as fact, until there is something that disproves the fact, abd sometimes, even when there are exceptions to an established fact.

Good scientists know this and behave accordingly. The speed of light is the speed of light—even though it is different under some extreme conditions.

 

[Jarhyn]

Of course they used established knowledge: humans have two kidneys!

MOST humans have 2 kidneys. You are a human. You don't. The knowledge ~2 is useful here, and dare I say more useful so they know to ask just in case "how many do you have". They are located ~(in the lower back).

My point continues to be that the absolutism is a truncation for brevity, not an actual absolute.

We can and do take things as fact, until there is something that disproves the fact, abd sometimes, even when there are exceptions to an established fact.

Good scientists know this and behave accordingly. The speed of light is the speed of light—even though it is different under some extreme conditions.

No, we don't.

One thing I have learned is that there are error bars in everything we predict of the future or even the present.

The structure of how phenomena happen remains fixed, sure, but the nature of biology is that WYSIWYG and a lot of weird shit happens all the time everywhere.

The speed of light is the speed of light specifically because of "the rules" that create it. As you mention, the rate at which a photon travels is not a number, it's a function of the conditions.

Good scientists know this, behave accordingly, and figure out as a result the "extreme conditions" that cause weird shit to happen.

 

[lpetrich]

Looking at Emily Lake's posts, I detect a rhetorical shell game: dismissing as "abnormal" every case of sexually dimorphic features being "flipped" relative to other such features. Thus winning by dismissing contrary data as irrelevant.

I fully concede that there is an *overall* gender binary. That is a universal consequence of anisogamy, some gametes being larger than some other gametes. But when several features are correlated with gamete size, these features can be incompletely developed or flipped.

I looked for literature on intersex dogs and cats in scholar.google.com and I found:

Disorders of sex development in the dog—Adoption of a new nomenclature and reclassification of reported cases - ScienceDirect -- paywalled

Disorders of sexual development in the cat: Current state of knowledge and diagnostic approach - 1098612x221079711.pdf -- open access

 

[Jarhyn]

I fully concede that there is an *overall* gender binary

I personally don't disagree that statistically, we end up seeing bimodality, and that this is a consequence of the accident of anisogamy.

Clearly, many orderings of flesh do not yield the ability to reproduce in the same way that those "more normally comorbid" do. This in turn leads to a relative uncommonness of such folks.

It comes down to the fact that while there is no obligation to reproduce, not reproducing will generally cause the biological differences and novelties to dead-end.

it's not that it can't or even "shouldn't" end up outside the expectations of others. It is merely that "it won't for very long".

My biggest problem is that when some folks see someone who will live and die and their flesh is both something new and something that will vanish forever, that this is some kind of natural sign or judgment over the transient existence of that person. They conclude that there is some "disorder", not of themselves but someone else.

But there is no "ought" here.

Personally I would call them rather "differences in sexual development" rather than "disorders in sexual development".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There are sexual organs, then there is sexual identity and behavior. Some are completely obsessed over the floppy bits when our gender is seemingly more controlled by our central nervous system.

No doubt there is a baseline. We know with evolution there is no warrantee on things coming out bullseye on the p3ak of the curve. The denial of this is my major problem.

 

[Emily Lake]

Please show me any mammal that has a reproductive anatomy that has clearly evolved to produce both gametes.

This assumes one of the fundamental errors most often made about evolution: that it has goals.

[/QUOTE]
My statement in no way implies that evolution has goals. Evolution does not. That said, we are what we are as a result of evolutionary processes. And in the Class Mammalia, evolution has RESULTED in sexual reproduction involving two differently sized gametes. The reproductive process that uses two different sized gametes has RESULTED in two sexes. The sexes are a direct result of mammals being a sexually reproducing species.

Your claim that there are more than two sexes in humans then must imply that there is a new and different reproductive process at work - one that uses either a third gamete or uses a blended sperg. And in order for that to be true, there must also be a reproductive anatomy that has evolved to produce that third gamete or that sperg.

Every intersex person who produces both gametes "evolved to produce" both gametes.

None have been shown to do so. There has been exactly ONE SINGLE CASE where in a post mortem, there appeared to be evidence that a fertile male with a disorder of sexual development might have released an ova. There has to date been not a single documented case of any person producing both ova and sperm at the same time.

There are two concepts of "disorder": one driven by the same fevered imagination that statistical imaginaries advise towards essentialization of the statistical model, and the other concept instead relying on the actual person's opinion about which order of arrangement people want vs which order order of arrangement people have.

This is incredibly insulting to anyone who actually has a medical disorder.

It's also interesting that you seem to feel that your personal philosophy about how things "ought to work" gives you some basis for essentially overriding the entire medical field.

 

[Emily Lake]

This assumes one of the fundamental errors most often made about evolution: that it has goals.

True. Thing is, WE have goals that we like to impose on evolution, and we tend to reject outcomes that are inconsistent with the goals we impose as “aberrations“.
In a perfect world we would equally honor outcomes that conform to and those that vary from the “standards” we impose (consciously or otherwise) on evolution. But we don’t. Humans are tribalist, xenophobic little creatures that try to make nature yield to our wishes. We even elect presidents that claim “superior genes”, as if such things actually exist. That reality isn’t going to change any time soon.

I take it you support defunding surgeries to fix cleft palates? You oppose orthodontia to fix a misalignment that interferes with a person's ability to chew their food?

 

[Emily Lake]

As far as I know, there are zero cases of human beings who were born with no sex.

Fetuses without reproductive systems miscarry, usually very, very early. A fetus won't develop to a functional life form if it doesn't have a reproductive system - even an incomplete or disordered system must be present.

 

[Emily Lake]

No, you are deliberately misunderstanding me. Mammals have 2 kidneys. Google how many kidneys do mammals have and you will find that mammals have 2 kidneys. The fact that there are excelptiins among individual mammals —not mammal species, but a very tiny number of individuals -does not refute the veracity of the statenent that mammals have 2 kidneys.

Agree. Mammals have EVOLVED a system that has two kidneys. Exception occur, but that in no way alters the template that evolution has produced.

 

[Emily Lake]

You keep stating that certain terms have arbitrary meanings. You are incorrect as far as biology goes. Arbitrary means based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. Taxonomy is highly organized based on a system using specific criteria: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. This is the opposite of arbitrary. Organ systems are defined and named in ways that describe their location, shape, function. Humans have devoted a great deal of time and effort to describe in a methodical and organized way how the human body is organized, how every organism known is organized and how they all function.

Also worth noting that biological taxonomy as a practice has changed over time, with the majority of evolutionary biologists now relying on genetics to define where the various branchings occur, as well as to estimate how far back in our evolutionary history that divergence occurred.

 

[Emily Lake]

Looking at Emily Lake's posts, I detect a rhetorical shell game: dismissing as "abnormal" every case of sexually dimorphic features being "flipped" relative to other such features. Thus winning by dismissing contrary data as irrelevant.

I fully concede that there is an *overall* gender binary. That is a universal consequence of anisogamy, some gametes being larger than some other gametes. But when several features are correlated with gamete size, these features can be incompletely developed or flipped.

I looked for literature on intersex dogs and cats in scholar.google.com and I found:

Disorders of sex development in the dog—Adoption of a new nomenclature and reclassification of reported cases - ScienceDirect -- paywalled

Disorders of sexual development in the cat: Current state of knowledge and diagnostic approach - 1098612x221079711.pdf -- open access

I don't give a crap about how many genders you think there are, lpetrich. You can have as many genders as you can fit onto your keyboard.

There are two sexes. Sex is not gender.

There is no shell game. And I've been extremely careful about my language, and have consistently referenced sex. Not gender. Sex.

 

[Emily Lake]

I fully concede that there is an *overall* gender binary

I personally don't disagree that statistically, we end up seeing bimodality, and that this is a consequence of the accident of anisogamy.

Clearly, many orderings of flesh do not yield the ability to reproduce in the same way that those "more normally comorbid" do. This in turn leads to a relative uncommonness of such folks.

It comes down to the fact that while there is no obligation to reproduce, not reproducing will generally cause the biological differences and novelties to dead-end.

it's not that it can't or even "shouldn't" end up outside the expectations of others. It is merely that "it won't for very long".

My biggest problem is that when some folks see someone who will live and die and their flesh is both something new and something that will vanish forever, that this is some kind of natural sign or judgment over the transient existence of that person. They conclude that there is some "disorder", not of themselves but someone else.

But there is no "ought" here.

Personally I would call them rather "differences in sexual development" rather than "disorders in sexual development".

You are the only person in this thread who is hung up on "ought".

Here's my exception: You ought not to rely on so many oughts.

And they're called disorders because they are medical conditions that cause problems for those individuals. They're generally not benign. They're disorders that need medical treatment in order for the individual who has those conditions to function without deleterious side effects.

 

[Emily Lake]

There are sexual organs, then there is sexual identity and behavior. Some are completely obsessed over the floppy bits when our gender is seemingly more controlled by our central nervous system.

In this thread, Jimmy Higgins suggests that social gender roles and sex-based behavioral expectations are a result of our central nervous system. Jimmy thereby supports the conservative notion that women belong in the kitchen and tending babies, that's their natural role, it's what their central nervous systems make them want. And of course, real men are decision makers and leaders, because that's how their central nervous systems make them behave.

 

[Jarhyn]

You are the only person in this thread who is hung up on "ought".

The ought that hangs me up is the ought foisted on trans people by legislation: the claim that they ought not have access to care or space because of false perceptions arising from the Naturalistic Fallacy.

Your inability to accept that differences in the brain are the actual responsible elements for differences in behavior are noted, by the way, and filed in the circular column.

It is telling that you jump from "their brains are different" to a conclusion that someone is saying "they ought".

You are the one who is applying all these silly oughts. That's my point, and has been my point. You are inventing "oughts", and letting those falsehoods Get around the world while we have to take the time to get our shoes on to stamp them out.

 

[Jarhyn]

Looking at Emily Lake's posts, I detect a rhetorical shell game: dismissing as "abnormal" every case of sexually dimorphic features being "flipped" relative to other such features. Thus winning by dismissing contrary data as irrelevant.

I fully concede that there is an *overall* gender binary. That is a universal consequence of anisogamy, some gametes being larger than some other gametes. But when several features are correlated with gamete size, these features can be incompletely developed or flipped.

I looked for literature on intersex dogs and cats in scholar.google.com and I found:

Disorders of sex development in the dog—Adoption of a new nomenclature and reclassification of reported cases - ScienceDirect -- paywalled

Disorders of sexual development in the cat: Current state of knowledge and diagnostic approach - 1098612x221079711.pdf -- open access

I don't give a crap about how many genders you think there are, lpetrich. You can have as many genders as you can fit onto your keyboard.

There are two sexes. Sex is not gender.

There is no shell game. And I've been extremely careful about my language, and have consistently referenced sex. Not gender. Sex.

Lol, no you haven't. You aren't even careful in your language here, committing to more of the shell game.

There are "two sexes".

They do not, however, create a binary.

"Is male?" is binary.

"Is female?" Is binary.

"Is male/female" creates a multidimensional variable, a quaternary in this case.

Therefore sex is quaternary.

So much for "being careful".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There are sexual organs, then there is sexual identity and behavior. Some are completely obsessed over the floppy bits when our gender is seemingly more controlled by our central nervous system.

In this thread, Jimmy Higgins suggests that social gender roles and sex-based behavioral expectations are a result of our central nervous system. Jimmy thereby supports the conservative notion that women belong in the kitchen and tending babies, that's their natural role, it's what their central nervous systems make them want. And of course, real men are decision makers and leaders, because that's how their central nervous systems make them behave.

Curious, I didn't dick around with your positions and have tried to respond to your statements without misrepresentation.

In kind you apparently wanted to do the exact opposite. WTF?!

 

[Elixir]

I take it you support defunding surgeries to fix cleft palates? You oppose orthodontia to fix a misalignment that interferes with a person's ability to chew their food?

I can’t tell if you’re serious, replying to some other post, being facetious or what.
FWIW I fully support life-altering (for the better) meds/surg interventions of all kinds. I love my bionic eyes (IOLs), repaired hernia and dental implants.

 

[Jarhyn]

I take it you support defunding surgeries to fix cleft palates? You oppose orthodontia to fix a misalignment that interferes with a person's ability to chew their food?

I can’t tell if you’re serious, replying to some other post, being facetious or what.
FWIW I fully support life-altering (for the better) meds/surg interventions of all kinds. I love my bionic eyes (IOLs), repaired hernia and dental implants.

I think she's missing the fact that people can absolutely DECLARE something about themselves a disorder because of the conflict THEY have with it SUBJECTIVELY, while not viewing it as an "objective disorder".

The idea that disorders are disorders "objectively" is absurd. (Except where it is "objectively" true that someone objects to the current order).

It doesn't "interfere with" in an objective sense. It is not a "misalignment" in an objective sense. It becomes that when the person who has this as a part of their body says, "this other alignment is the target alignment for me". It becomes "interference" when there is a way a person wants to chew that they cannot because of which side of some barrier they occupy.

Most differences people seek treatment for begin as disorders because they see the pain as a failure of their current biological ordering, usually. Or they see fuzzy vision and seek an alternative way to order the flesh as pertains to the inside of their eye.

It is because they rebel against this natural order that they are presented with, replacing it and subsuming it with the order they deign fit to enforce.

We are allowed to rebel against such things. The issue that Emily might take with this is that it indicates that sometimes, the disorder is "being born with testicles", on account of my dysphoria with my given ordering of flesh. As the subject, I get to decide which orderings to rebel against.

 

[Elixir]

As the subject, I get to decide which orderings to rebel against.

Sure. But Medicare might not pay for it.
I doubt that anyone has ever been born who didn’t wish something about their corporeal container was more to their liking. Rebellion without action is just complaint, and there is little action available to most people as far as effective non-lethal body mods go. Not to echo the godders, but I suspect that the best course for almost all conditions that “afflict” almost all of us is to leave things as is, cutting hair and nails as desired. Alterations to other systems advised by medical professionals should almost always be subject to the patient’s opinions and whims, once they are of an age to understand what is being offered/recommended and why. Cleft palate would be an example where I would not oppose surgical intervention at an age prior to the subject’s ability to understand their options. The AV fistula of the coronary circulation with which I was born, is an example of something that cried out to doctors to be “fixed”, and that I don’t think they should have messed with. And they would have - if they weren’t afraid their effort would fail and thereby cause them grief (Lawsuit). Had they done so, I’d likely never have seen ten years old. That whole experience colors my take on this stuff pretty heavily.