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

[Jarhyn]

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.

In some cases we accept that there is a particular bar, a democratically decided class of actions where it's "too likely that the person will consent after the fact to withhold something that they will probably consent to in this way."

It's weird because this same discussion was actually brought up by chatGPT when discussing this principle.

Essentially, we democratized apparent violations of consent around a maximal accepted risk of false positive on consent.

It doesn't make it "not a violation of consent" and there are still risks that someone may do something that hurts people, but generally... We accept that people are allowed to do stuff that doesn't hurt people very much.

I would pose that there are standards that can be imposed here to minimize the instance of events that one both cannot consent to, and later presents their lack of consent for.

I think I detailed some of those standards about surgery on a child upthread, even. If it does not threaten the continued life of the person, or present a threat to the stability of their health, if it is merely cosmetic or "to ease parenting", then it is not to be allowed at all, and we should additionally have a measure of adult individuals who have not been altered in such a way who would opt for reordering.

If some sizable population is not treated in such a way, and no adult examples are available, this indicates a HIGH likelihood that the treatment is relatively ethical even if it is not absolutely ethical.

If, among the folks who have not been treated, there are a minority that would seek treatment at any stage of their life or past or if the majority is simply not high enough, then the treatment is clearly not ethical, relatively or otherwise.

It's similar in some ways to sexual assault: the persons who decides whether they wanted sex are exactly the persons who had the sex.

Same thing applies here.

 

[Toni]

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.

You made a leap that I cannot follow. Our central nervous system does inform our attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, self perceptions, etc. Also involved are data/information gained through our five sense, through reading, experience, etc. as well as temperament, etc.

I do not see how it is reasonable to conclude that recognizing this means that we embrace gender roles of the past when clear evidence and observation tell us differently.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

You made a leap that I cannot follow. Our central nervous system does inform our attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, self perceptions, etc. Also involved are data/information gained through our five sense, through reading, experience, etc. as well as temperament, etc.

I do not see how it is reasonable to conclude that recognizing this means that we embrace gender roles of the past when clear evidence and observation tell us differently.

As I keep saying: recognizing there is something going on specifically in the brain that is only INDIRECTLY tied to genitals SPECIFICALLY from hormones invalidates her position that the barrier cannot be crossed by modifying the genitals or the signals they communicate with in some way, because that would mean acknowledging gender as real and more important than whether or not the genital is "long".

She does not want to acknowledge that someone born with a penis can be a "woman" in all the ways she says "being a woman matters" for being in "spaces for women". That's why she and I bicker so: she refuses to acknowledge that because the brain is the final arbiter of who we are and how we behave, and the mechanisms by which the brain comes to do so with respect to "gendered" behaviors.

Of course, I don't say any particular behavior is right or necessary, either. I just lay out the consequences of people with particular abilities being allowed to exist in particular spaces.

 

[Toni]

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.

You made a leap that I cannot follow. Our central nervous system does inform our attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, self perceptions, etc. Also involved are data/information gained through our five sense, through reading, experience, etc. as well as temperament, etc.

I do not see how it is reasonable to conclude that recognizing this means that we embrace gender roles of the past when clear evidence and observation tell us differently.

As I keep saying: recognizing there is something going on specifically in the brain that is only INDIRECTLY tied to genitals SPECIFICALLY from hormones invalidates her position that the barrier cannot be crossed by modifying the genitals or the signals they communicate with in some way, because that would mean acknowledging gender as real and more important than whether or not the genital is "long".

She does not want to acknowledge that someone born with a penis can be a "woman" in all the ways she says "being a woman matters" for being in "spaces for women". That's why she and I bicker so: she refuses to acknowledge that because the brain is the final arbiter of who we are and how we behave, and the mechanisms by which the brain comes to do so with respect to "gendered" behaviors.

Of course, I don't say any particular behavior is right or necessary, either. I just lay out the consequences of people with particular abilities being allowed to exist in particular spaces.

Sometimes, I think you two talk past each other. It happens between lots of people. I've been guilty myself of assuming a poster I usually vehemently disagree with just posted something egregious--and responding that way and then re-reading and realizing that was maybe not what they meant.

You are fully an adult and you've done a lot of work to come to conclusions about what you want for yourself. Emily Lake's concerns specifically are for her teenage niece who seems to have very suddenly decided that she is trans/he, and none of her family members were aware. I understand the alarm with surgery impending. I also know that sometimes teens keep secrets--there's a secret or two that no one in my family knows except the other person involved. My family possibly/probably wouldn't believe me and possibly/probably there would be some very, very nasty repercussions. This is not something I'm planning on ever revealing as it would change nothing and protect no one. Only mentioning because I wanted to point out that I am very much aware that sometimes family members are unaware of some important parts of a young person's life. OTOH, EmilyLake has stated that there seemed to be a sudden 'awakening' among a cluster of female friends of this family member. I also understand that concern.

I also share some of EmilyLake's concerns about ensuring that the privacy and safety of women (cis and trans!) is protected in women only spaces. I'm probably less concerned than she is but I do have concerns. And---whether this is bigotry on my part or the fact that I well remember when girls were not allowed to participate in sports and to this day in many school districts only get access to practice/playing space and locker rooms when they are not being utilized by the real/boy's teams--so I do have some mixed feelings about transgirls and trans women participating in women's sports. I realize this is not probably much of an issue. I DO take issue with the fact that the word woman is being eliminated from medical practices including gynecology and obstetrics. I note that there is no such corollary in men's medicine to accommodate trans men and boys who might be offended to not be included. It does indeed feel as though women are being erased and certainly that women's needs and concerns (see any of the threads or read any article about rape, sexual assault, equality in the workplace, family leave, maternity leave, birth control, abortion, etc.) are simply not a concern to the people in charge, i.e. men. #NotAllMen of course.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

You made a leap that I cannot follow. Our central nervous system does inform our attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, self perceptions, etc. Also involved are data/information gained through our five sense, through reading, experience, etc. as well as temperament, etc.

I do not see how it is reasonable to conclude that recognizing this means that we embrace gender roles of the past when clear evidence and observation tell us differently.

As I keep saying: recognizing there is something going on specifically in the brain that is only INDIRECTLY tied to genitals SPECIFICALLY from hormones invalidates her position that the barrier cannot be crossed by modifying the genitals or the signals they communicate with in some way, because that would mean acknowledging gender as real and more important than whether or not the genital is "long".

She does not want to acknowledge that someone born with a penis can be a "woman" in all the ways she says "being a woman matters" for being in "spaces for women". That's why she and I bicker so: she refuses to acknowledge that because the brain is the final arbiter of who we are and how we behave, and the mechanisms by which the brain comes to do so with respect to "gendered" behaviors.

Of course, I don't say any particular behavior is right or necessary, either. I just lay out the consequences of people with particular abilities being allowed to exist in particular spaces.

Sometimes, I think you two talk past each other. It happens between lots of people. I've been guilty myself of assuming a poster I usually vehemently disagree with just posted something egregious--and responding that way and then re-reading and realizing that was maybe not what they meant.

You are fully an adult and you've done a lot of work to come to conclusions about what you want for yourself. Emily Lake's concerns specifically are for her teenage niece who seems to have very suddenly decided that she is trans/he, and none of her family members were aware. I understand the alarm with surgery impending. I also know that sometimes teens keep secrets--there's a secret or two that no one in my family knows except the other person involved. My family possibly/probably wouldn't believe me and possibly/probably there would be some very, very nasty repercussions. This is not something I'm planning on ever revealing as it would change nothing and protect no one. Only mentioning because I wanted to point out that I am very much aware that sometimes family members are unaware of some important parts of a young person's life. OTOH, EmilyLake has stated that there seemed to be a sudden 'awakening' among a cluster of female friends of this family member. I also understand that concern.

I also share some of EmilyLake's concerns about ensuring that the privacy and safety of women (cis and trans!) is protected in women only spaces. I'm probably less concerned than she is but I do have concerns. And---whether this is bigotry on my part or the fact that I well remember when girls were not allowed to participate in sports and to this day in many school districts only get access to practice/playing space and locker rooms when they are not being utilized by the real/boy's teams--so I do have some mixed feelings about transgirls and trans women participating in women's sports. I realize this is not probably much of an issue. I DO take issue with the fact that the word woman is being eliminated from medical practices including gynecology and obstetrics. I note that there is no such corollary in men's medicine to accommodate trans men and boys who might be offended to not be included. It does indeed feel as though women are being erased and certainly that women's needs and concerns (see any of the threads or read any article about rape, sexual assault, equality in the workplace, family leave, maternity leave, birth control, abortion, etc.) are simply not a concern to the people in charge, i.e. men. #NotAllMen of course.

Toni, I see absolutely no bigotry in you. Slightly more conservatism on this than I think the situation warrants, but no bigotry

The funny part about the "notallmen" thing though is that I specifically don't use the word "man" either. I'd remove that too from medicine.

I would just call people people, and require any references to differences that tend between people to be specific about the differences they cleave to specifically.

Born with testes is different from testosterone-affected adult is different from...

The point is, if we're talking about medical texts, I think the obligation is actually to not reference "women" or "men" because these don't draw the linkage between "a common anatomical precursor" and "common and known consequences of it with various interdictions".

All sorts of sloppy and unnecessary bullshit, including the fact that differences of anatomy between "normal male" and "normal female" have been entirely ignored by such ideas as "essential binaries"

I have no problem with male and female in medical texts, when they discuss that they are imaginary and every partient is a unique person, and if they discuss systemic differences by example, to make clear that these are not exhaustive of reality.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I have no problem with male and female in medical texts, when they discuss that they are imaginary and every partient is a unique person, and if they discuss systemic differences by example, to make clear that these are not exhaustive of reality.

Every patient is unique, but in general, there are males, there are females and the vast vast vast majority will deal with certain things. IE, it still makes sense for young girls to get the "so you are a girl" sex ed book, and boys get the "so you are a boy" sex ed book. Generally, when things have a very significant categorization, it makes sense to work within such frameworks with a bit of maneuverability, instead of making every word in the English language susceptible to becoming meaningless.

Which made me think of books along racial makeup... for white children ("You are white and you are precocious" book), black children ("Being black and what it means to just having to suck it up because white people have problems too" book), and Hispanic children ("The proud stigmatism of working hard and being accused of being a sponge" book).

 

[Jarhyn]

I have no problem with male and female in medical texts, when they discuss that they are imaginary and every partient is a unique person, and if they discuss systemic differences by example, to make clear that these are not exhaustive of reality.

Every patient is unique, but in general, there are males, there are females and the vast vast vast majority will deal with certain things. IE, it still makes sense for young girls to get the "so you are a girl" sex ed book, and boys get the "so you are a boy" sex ed book. Generally, when things have a very significant categorization, it makes sense to work within such frameworks with a bit of maneuverability, instead of making every word in the English language susceptible to becoming meaningless.

Which made me think of books along racial makeup... for white children ("You are white and you are precocious" book), black children ("Being black and what it means to just having to suck it up because white people have problems too" book), and Hispanic children ("The proud stigmatism of working hard and being accused of being a sponge" book).

Oh, I absolutely agree with giving kids books that explain all the functions.

I just think they should all get both books, or a book that explains it all, for everyone, starting at normals and working to between and around.

They should know about the whole human experience, every one of them.

The only difference I think there should be is the ordering of the chapters, and leaving the social assumptions elsewhere, on the playground, with the rest of the stupid people games, or distributed in a similarly re-ordered three chapters version, only starting always with the same chapter (why all of it is optional, and to each their own), and continuing in the most likely apparent path.

My lack of testosterone is NOT what makes me "not a man". I want to not have it, sure.

The thing that makes me not a man is that I don't fucking care to play those stupid human games anymore. I feel betrayed that people tricked me into caring about it so much when I was too young to exist as myself under that pressure.

I think it should be arranged as "this is what happens when, and if this, probably you."

And every once in a while you hand the kid a book that starts with the third chapter, the kid taking blockers, that states "the rules are made up and the points don't matter. Here's the all the goals that do not generally constitute valid reasons for tinkering with hormones. These cannot be decoupled reliably in any way we know of. Also, here are some warnings. Now here's the manual on tinkering responsibly."

This is different from "so you are a girl", or "so you are a boy".

 

[Toni]

I was once a girl who was ushered into the school gymnasium which only served as cafeteria and occasional performance space as we did not have any such class called gym in those days. Instead we had recess and were expected to and encouraged to run around, play ball, climb on monkey bars, etc.
But I digress:

In my day, girls were ushered into the gymnasium where we were shown a film about menstruation and about how it prepares us to be mothers, which we all wanted to be and would be some day. When we returned to the classroom, the boys were all snickering and joking and pointing fingers.

My mother had a booklet that she had obtained from my father's aunt, who had taught elementary school, which explained the same information we would be given in that gymnasium. My mother insisted each of us, as we reached that time when the film was going to be shown, sit down, quietly and alone in the living room to read the booklet and invited us to come to her with any questions. So I wasn't that surprised at the film strip. I was shocked and embarrassed by the reaction of the boys when we girls came back to class. However, my younger sister, when it was her 'turn' to read the booklet, sitting alone, quietly in the living room, before our father came home, burst out laughing at what was described. And then she loudly insisted that she was not going to do that, not any of it. My mother was stunned and horrified. My sister later indeed did get breasts, menstruate, decided she liked boys, married (unhappily) and had a child (unfortunately, also unhappily). AFAIK, she is a cis, straight woman who is well educated, has a career in a well paying science oriented field but really sucks at people.

Today, kids are given more complete information but at least when my kids were in school, it was still done separately. Parents were informed in advanced, and informed what information would be provided, along with the option to decline to have their child in such classes. I'm pretty certain that my parents received similar notice and similar options to opt out their child.

What has not changed much is the maturity of 10 and 11 year old boys and girls. Some are ready for the information, some are not. A lot are confused, at least a little. With all due respect to Jahryn, it's a lot of information for kids to take in, even if they have been raised in fairly open households, where there is zero mystery about babies growing inside mothers, breast feeding, menstruation, or most bodily functions. While it is absolutely certain that some children will read those booklets, see those film strips, sit in biology classes, observe people around them in various expressions of gender identity and forming various kinds of relationships, it's a LOT of information for kids to be expected to take in, process and figure out how it does and does not pertain to them or whether they have questions about whether or not it pertains to them and how. Offering them a smorgasboard of hormonal opportunities when they don't really understand what hormones are or do (there are many different kinds of hormones that are not sex hormones, btw) is not really helpful.

This is something that I think really needs to be meeting kids where they are. Trying to force too much information on kids when they are not ready for it is simply overwhelming and kids, like other people, tend to shut down/shut out what is overwhelming to them. Some kids absolutely know from an early age that they do not neatly fit into the category they have been assigned or in any particular category at all. They need specialized information and support.

Absolutely, information should be presented that some people are not cis-male or cis-female, and that people come in a variety of sexual orientations and that people have a vast array of ways of being. Along with the absolute that sex is for adults and that adults should not approach kids or engage with children or in front of children for sex or to fulfill sexual or emotional needs of the adults.

This is true of kids with Type 1 diabetes, dyslexia, ADHD and a host of other differences. A child with Type 1 diabetes knows a lot about diabetes and insulin (a hormone, btw) that children without Type 1 diabetes or a close friend or relative with diabetes do not know. They can of course share the information or not, but not every child needs to sit down with a nutritionist and a specialist and a nurse to learn about how to give injections and monitor blood sugar and what can go wrong if you don't follow the guidelines. ALL children do need to know to respect the boundaries of others, including children who may need certain medications, assistance, accommodations, etc.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Every patient is unique, but in general, there are males, there are females and the vast vast vast majority will deal with certain things. IE, it still makes sense for young girls to get the "so you are a girl" sex ed book, and boys get the "so you are a boy" sex ed book. Generally, when things have a very significant categorization, it makes sense to work within such frameworks with a bit of maneuverability, instead of making every word in the English language susceptible to becoming meaningless.book).

But both books should touch on both sides even though they focus on their own. They should know how the other side differs from them. I wouldn't worry about actually providing the sex ed for the other gender, though--anyone living as the opposite gender in childhood has decent parental support and will almost certainly get the missing material.

 

[Jarhyn]

With all due respect to Jahryn, it's a lot of information for kids to take in

For some of us, it's information we need and want access to, and are frustrated about it being withheld at the time. Like, super frustrated. Like, existential angst for the rest of a life time pissed off.

The fact is that it's not a much bigger pamphlet than the one you probably got, just... All three of them instead of just one, and given to everyone instead of "just girls" at each stage.

The issue is the desire to withhold information that is being demanded, about things kids have a right to know at the time of the demand, no matter when they demand it.

I have no problem giving that information to kids who will undoubtedly share it amongst themselves no matter what the shittier parents have to say about their kid not being given a book by the teacher.

 

[Toni]

With all due respect to Jahryn, it's a lot of information for kids to take in

For some of us, it's information we need and want access to, and are frustrated about it being withheld at the time. Like, super frustrated. Like, existential angst for the rest of a life time pissed off.

The fact is that it's not a much bigger pamphlet than the one you probably got, just... All three of them instead of just one, and given to everyone instead of "just girls" at each stage.

The issue is the desire to withhold information that is being demanded, about things kids have a right to know at the time of the demand, no matter when they demand it.

I have no problem giving that information to kids who will undoubtedly share it amongst themselves no matter what the shittier parents have to say about their kid not being given a book by the teacher.

It is almost certain the knowledge and information that you find pertinent for you, personally, was not available on any way de spread basis, certainly not in elementary and middle schools or even high schools during your childhood/adolescence. I’m not saying that you and others like you did not need or deserve that info: I’m saying that if you asked teachers, 99% of them would feel and would be unqualified to give specific information about puberty blockers, etc.

Frankly parents freak out enough about any mention of sex except for reproduction between married via heterosexual couples. Mentioning birth control, including condoms, is a high hurdle.

I don’t like that it is so—but it is so.

 

[Jarhyn]

With all due respect to Jahryn, it's a lot of information for kids to take in

For some of us, it's information we need and want access to, and are frustrated about it being withheld at the time. Like, super frustrated. Like, existential angst for the rest of a life time pissed off.

The fact is that it's not a much bigger pamphlet than the one you probably got, just... All three of them instead of just one, and given to everyone instead of "just girls" at each stage.

The issue is the desire to withhold information that is being demanded, about things kids have a right to know at the time of the demand, no matter when they demand it.

I have no problem giving that information to kids who will undoubtedly share it amongst themselves no matter what the shittier parents have to say about their kid not being given a book by the teacher.

It is almost certain the knowledge and information that you find pertinent for you, personally, was not available on any way de spread basis, certainly not in elementary and middle schools or even high schools during your childhood/adolescence. I’m not saying that you and others like you did not need or deserve that info: I’m saying that if you asked teachers, 99% of them would feel and would be unqualified to give specific information about puberty blockers, etc.

Frankly parents freak out enough about any mention of sex except for reproduction between married via heterosexual couples. Mentioning birth control, including condoms, is a high hurdle.

I don’t like that it is so—but it is so.

Either way, effort should be put together to give that information in a qualified and uniform way.

In some ways this is the answer to "don't say". Namely "did you read the book?"

If parents object to that? Some will object to it loudly. It's just a matter of something we have to stand our ground on. It's a book, not a human being with an agenda.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

I would like to note that you're assuming that the differences in behavior are caused by differences in the brain... and from that assumption you are extrapolating that the differences in behavior must therefore be accommodated in their entirety.

In the very most elementary fashion, sure, "differences in the brain" account for everyone's differences in behavior. But from your premise, we must then conclude that any and all behaviors must be deemed acceptable and be accommodated because they're genuinely caused by differences in the brain.

This leads to the logical conclusion that, for example, we must accommodate the behavior of serial killers, because their behavioral differences are a result of differences in their brain. Similarly, we must accommodate and accept the behavior of racists, because their behavioral differences are a result of differences in their brain.

Is this actually the end result that you're seeking? Or are you special pleading?

 

[Jarhyn]

I would like to note that you're assuming that the differences in behavior are caused by differences in the brain...

We've been over this: the final arbiter of behavior is the brain.

Period.

All differences in behavior, every last one, is caused by a difference in the brain.

Sometimes the difference in the brain is caused by a different hormone balance, but we've been over that too: that's not an uncrossable barrier.

Unless you want to propose the laughable idea that the penis thinks for people.

Do you believe in dick-brains?

 

[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.

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".

Just because you keep repeating your own personal belief and your pet approach does not make it accurate, correct, or even reasonable.

Sex is NOT quaternary in mammals. It IS binary. It's one or the other.

Again, if you wish to prove me wrong, all you need to do is to produce a mammal that has a reproductive anatomy that has clearly evolved to produce a sperg. Or a reproductive anatomy that has clearly evolved to produce no gametes at all (based on your pet framing).

Just be clear: We're not looking for an individual with a developmental disorder that leaves them sterile, but whish still has the reproductive anatomy of one sex or the other. Freemartins are still female, even though they are sterile - the have the same type of reproductive anatomy that other female bovines do. Similarly, we're not looking for an individual with ambiguous reproductive anatomy as a result of a developmental disorder - that results in an anatomy that is mixed between two evolutionary approaches, but it is not evolved to produce a mixed gamete, nor is it evolved to produce both gametes at the same time.

 

[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.

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?!

I wasn't intentionally dicking around with your position. I'm pointing out the logical conclusion to your position.

Suggesting that gender (the social construct of roles and expectations that are built upon sex, and which confine each sex to a limited set of behaviors and presentations) is controlled by our central nervous system, is effectively suggesting that those social constructs are built-in. It suggests that the stereotypes of women that relegate us to caregiver roles, to submissive behaviors, is somehow innate and "the natural role of women". It suggests that the stereotypes of men as leaders and decision makers and providers is innate and "natural". It reinforces the stereotypes that I think are harmful and discriminatory.

It would be analogous to someone arguing that racial stereotyped behaviors are controlled by our central nervous system... thus the negative stereotypes of black people as aggressive is "natural".

If you intended something else, please feel free to correct my misunderstanding and elaborate on what you actually mean.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Apologies, I am pretty sure I misread or misinterpreted something. On re-reading... I can't figure out what my point was supposed to be.

 

[Emily Lake]

It's similar in some ways to sexual assault: the persons who decides whether they wanted sex are exactly the persons who had the sex.

What is this intended to mean?

 

[Emily Lake]

I have no problem with male and female in medical texts, when they discuss that they are imaginary

This is where you completely lose me. As far as I can tell, you fall off the edge of your flat earth here.

Male and female are not imaginary. Male and female is how every single mammalian species continues to exist. YOU as a unique individual, only exist as a direct result of male and female. Your mother - the person who gestated and gave birth to you - is indisputably and 100% female, and there is nothing at all imaginary about that. Your father - the person who contributed sperm which merged with your mother's egg - is indisputably and 100% male, and there is nothing at all imaginary about that.

Every single person in this thread, without question, is the absolute unquestionable result of male and female. Every single human on the planet is 100% the direct result of male and female. Every single mammal and bird, and the overwhelming majority of vertebrates as well as a whole lot of plants are without question, without hesitation the absolute result of male and female. Not a single one of those is the result of something other than male and female.

Male and female are absolutely NOT imaginary.

 

[Emily Lake]

I struggled to give a like/dislike style response to this.

Every patient is unique, but in general, there are males, there are females and the vast vast vast majority will deal with certain things. IE, it still makes sense for young girls to get the "so you are a girl" sex ed book, and boys get the "so you are a boy" sex ed book. Generally, when things have a very significant categorization, it makes sense to work within such frameworks with a bit of maneuverability, instead of making every word in the English language susceptible to becoming meaningless.

This gets

Which made me think of books along racial makeup... for white children ("You are white and you are precocious" book), black children ("Being black and what it means to just having to suck it up because white people have problems too" book), and Hispanic children ("The proud stigmatism of working hard and being accused of being a sponge" book).

This gets

I've never seen books along racial makeup that come anywhere near what you've presented. I can't tell if this is satirical or serious, or something altogether different. I have confusion.