What? No 'This week in trans' thread about Passport X?

[Arctish]

Unless Zzyym produces BOTH functional eggs and functional sperm, they are either male or female, not both. They may very well have ambiguous or mixed sexual characteristics, but sex is still actually binary.

Also, nobody refuses to acknowledge that some people have DSDs. The question, however, is what do people with rare and deleterious medical conditions have to do with transgender ideology?

Zzyym's parents and doctors attempted to 'fix' them via multiple surgeries during childhood. There is no way to tell now what Zzyym's reproductive abilities might have been had they been allowed to develop naturally. They might even have been one of the rare intersex people who could produce both types of gametes.

Also, I think it's important to note that some people are completely unable to produce gametes. If we use gamete production as the standard for sex designations, they would be considered sexless.

 

[ZiprHead]

Wouldn't a gender marker be more descriptive of the person's identity than a sex marker? Identity is the purpose of having the marker on the passport in the first place.

Passports are intended to prove ones identity to other people, not to advertise to other people what one believes about oneself. Otherwise, my passport would list me as six inches taller and 30 pounds lighter, with red hair and no wrinkles. That's what I'd like to have other people think I am. Reality, however, is quite different... and my passport reflects attributes that an unbiased outsider can verify.

No, the reality is that a woman who walks up to the desk and presents a passport that says she's a male is going to raise red flags needlessly.

If a 6' plus person, with broad shoulders and red hair, walked up to the desk presenting an ID document describing a 14y/o black female, is it needlessly "raising red flags"?

Or are the red flags an indication that some fraud might be going on and should be investigated?
Tom

Who said anything about racial characteristcs? Why do you feel the need to add that to the conversation?

What if the person looked like this?

 

[Metaphor]

Unless Zzyym produces BOTH functional eggs and functional sperm, they are either male or female, not both. They may very well have ambiguous or mixed sexual characteristics, but sex is still actually binary.

Also, nobody refuses to acknowledge that some people have DSDs. The question, however, is what do people with rare and deleterious medical conditions have to do with transgender ideology?

Zzyym's parents and doctors attempted to 'fix' them via multiple surgeries during childhood. There is no way to tell now what Zzyym's reproductive abilities might have been had they been allowed to develop naturally. They might even have been one of the rare intersex people who could produce both types of gametes.

Also, I think it's important to note that some people are completely unable to produce gametes. If we use gamete production as the standard for sex designations, they would be considered sexless.

No. Emily has been quite clear about this.

Nah, Dana is either male or female. It just might not be unambiguous from primary or secondary sex characteristics. All mammals are either male or female at the end of the day. There is not third sex. And while it's possible for a person of either sex to be sterile, their bodies are still formed around the production of one gamete or the other.

 

[Metaphor]

Wouldn't a gender marker be more descriptive of the person's identity than a sex marker? Identity is the purpose of having the marker on the passport in the first place.

Passports are intended to prove ones identity to other people, not to advertise to other people what one believes about oneself. Otherwise, my passport would list me as six inches taller and 30 pounds lighter, with red hair and no wrinkles. That's what I'd like to have other people think I am. Reality, however, is quite different... and my passport reflects attributes that an unbiased outsider can verify.

No, the reality is that a woman who walks up to the desk and presents a passport that says she's a male is going to raise red flags needlessly.

If a 6' plus person, with broad shoulders and red hair, walked up to the desk presenting an ID document describing a 14y/o black female, is it needlessly "raising red flags"?

Or are the red flags an indication that some fraud might be going on and should be investigated?
Tom

Who said anything about racial characteristcs? Why do you feel the need to add that to the conversation?

What if the person looked like this?

View attachment 35912

Does this person have genitals that would trigger an anomaly in the sexed scanners at airports if they go through with the 'F' program?

 

[ZiprHead]

Wouldn't a gender marker be more descriptive of the person's identity than a sex marker? Identity is the purpose of having the marker on the passport in the first place.

Passports are intended to prove ones identity to other people, not to advertise to other people what one believes about oneself. Otherwise, my passport would list me as six inches taller and 30 pounds lighter, with red hair and no wrinkles. That's what I'd like to have other people think I am. Reality, however, is quite different... and my passport reflects attributes that an unbiased outsider can verify.

No, the reality is that a woman who walks up to the desk and presents a passport that says she's a male is going to raise red flags needlessly.

If a 6' plus person, with broad shoulders and red hair, walked up to the desk presenting an ID document describing a 14y/o black female, is it needlessly "raising red flags"?

Or are the red flags an indication that some fraud might be going on and should be investigated?
Tom

Who said anything about racial characteristcs? Why do you feel the need to add that to the conversation?

What if the person looked like this?

View attachment 35912

Does this person have genitals that would trigger an anomaly in the sexed scanners at airports if they go through with the 'F' program?

I don't know. Maybe you should ask a TSA agent. My guess is they see that sort of thing fairly often. Their job isn't to look for sexual characteristics, it's to look for weapons and other contrband they don't want on aircraft. The nature of someone's junk isn't a reason to stop someone from getting on a commercial flight.

 

[Metaphor]

Wouldn't a gender marker be more descriptive of the person's identity than a sex marker? Identity is the purpose of having the marker on the passport in the first place.

Passports are intended to prove ones identity to other people, not to advertise to other people what one believes about oneself. Otherwise, my passport would list me as six inches taller and 30 pounds lighter, with red hair and no wrinkles. That's what I'd like to have other people think I am. Reality, however, is quite different... and my passport reflects attributes that an unbiased outsider can verify.

No, the reality is that a woman who walks up to the desk and presents a passport that says she's a male is going to raise red flags needlessly.

If a 6' plus person, with broad shoulders and red hair, walked up to the desk presenting an ID document describing a 14y/o black female, is it needlessly "raising red flags"?

Or are the red flags an indication that some fraud might be going on and should be investigated?
Tom

Who said anything about racial characteristcs? Why do you feel the need to add that to the conversation?

What if the person looked like this?

View attachment 35912

Does this person have genitals that would trigger an anomaly in the sexed scanners at airports if they go through with the 'F' program?

I don't know. Maybe you should ask a TSA agent. My guess is they see that sort of thing fairly often. Their job isn't to look for sexual characteristics, it's to look for weapons and other contrband they don't want on aircraft. The nature of someone's junk isn't a reason to stop someone from getting on a commercial flight.

I did not claim it was.

 

[laughing dog]

My goodness. If using unapproved terminology makes a passport field "incoherent", the apocalypse must be on us.

Where do you get the idea that the problem is "unapproved terminology"?

What makes it incoherent is that the field is called 'sex', but it now may mean either sex or gender identity and there is no way to know which from looking at it.

What makes you think it uses gender identity?

Because the press release in the OP uses only the term 'gender' and does not use the term 'sex' a single time.

No, there's nothing wrong with the press release per se. The problem is the policy that the press release details.

Let's review. The State Department has no problem with its policy. Apparently, neither our President nor our Congress has a problem with that policy. To date, no evidence that other countries have a publicly complained nor has the US populace. What gave you the impression there is a problem?

I consider incoherent use of language on official documents, for any reason but in this case motivated by pressure from trans ideologists, a problem. I'm not speaking about other people's subjective impressions of what they consider to be a problem. If you think it's not a problem, I believe you think that.

Ah, so the problem only is in your mind.

No. The problem is the State Department policy. That some people do not subjectively assess it to be a problem is a sign of their conformity to trans ideology, or their ignorance of it.

Moreover, the problem in your mind is based on your issues with parsing language and your belief on what prompted the State Department.

By 'my issues parsing language' you mean 'my disapproval of incoherent language, servicing ideological ends, on official documents.

In simple terms, the problem is with you.

No. The problem is the State Department policy.

To repeat - The State Department has no problem with its policy. Apparently, neither our President nor our Congress has a problem with that policy. To date, you have offered no evidence that other countries have a publicly complained nor has the US populace.

If I had made any claim that the State Department or the President or the Congress had a problem with the policy, I'd offer evidence of that. But since I never made that claim, I have no idea why you keep bringing it up.

My obvious point is that no one but you thinks there is a problem. Duh.

How special for you to have your finger on the pulse of every person on the planet.

You have presented no evidence outside of your childish rants that there is a problem.

You resort to hyperbolic rhetoric

Hyperbolic rhetoric?

Which word don't you understand?

Your accusation.

I made no accusation. I made an accurate description of your posts. So, your response is, according to your usage, incoherent.

It is indeed conformity to trans ideology that would result in a policy where gender identity replaces sex, in a field marked 'sex', for trans and 'gender non-conforming' people.

I'd ask for evidence of my 'small minded bigotry' but I know none will be forthcoming.

Read your posts.

As I said: none will be forthcoming.

Your posts about the State department's policy are evidence. of small-minded bigotry. So, as usual, your reply is a falsehood,

 

[Metaphor]

My goodness. If using unapproved terminology makes a passport field "incoherent", the apocalypse must be on us.

Where do you get the idea that the problem is "unapproved terminology"?

What makes it incoherent is that the field is called 'sex', but it now may mean either sex or gender identity and there is no way to know which from looking at it.

What makes you think it uses gender identity?

Because the press release in the OP uses only the term 'gender' and does not use the term 'sex' a single time.

No, there's nothing wrong with the press release per se. The problem is the policy that the press release details.

Let's review. The State Department has no problem with its policy. Apparently, neither our President nor our Congress has a problem with that policy. To date, no evidence that other countries have a publicly complained nor has the US populace. What gave you the impression there is a problem?

I consider incoherent use of language on official documents, for any reason but in this case motivated by pressure from trans ideologists, a problem. I'm not speaking about other people's subjective impressions of what they consider to be a problem. If you think it's not a problem, I believe you think that.

Ah, so the problem only is in your mind.

No. The problem is the State Department policy. That some people do not subjectively assess it to be a problem is a sign of their conformity to trans ideology, or their ignorance of it.

Moreover, the problem in your mind is based on your issues with parsing language and your belief on what prompted the State Department.

By 'my issues parsing language' you mean 'my disapproval of incoherent language, servicing ideological ends, on official documents.

In simple terms, the problem is with you.

No. The problem is the State Department policy.

To repeat - The State Department has no problem with its policy. Apparently, neither our President nor our Congress has a problem with that policy. To date, you have offered no evidence that other countries have a publicly complained nor has the US populace.

If I had made any claim that the State Department or the President or the Congress had a problem with the policy, I'd offer evidence of that. But since I never made that claim, I have no idea why you keep bringing it up.

My obvious point is that no one but you thinks there is a problem. Duh.

How special for you to have your finger on the pulse of every person on the planet.

You have presented no evidence outside if yiur chikdish ranting that there is a oroblem.

It is true that if you do not already think the incoherent use of language in response to trans ideology isn't a problem, then pointing out incoherent use of language in response to trans ideology won't make you see it as a problem.

You resort to hyperbolic rhetoric

Hyperbolic rhetoric?

Which word don't you understand?

Your accusation.

I made no accusation. You are being literally incoherent.

Accusing me of using hyperbolic rhetoric is an accusation.

and conformity to small-minded bigotry via your accusations of "conformity to trans ideology" instead of dispassionate discussion.

It is indeed conformity to trans ideology that would result in a policy where gender identity replaces sex, in a field marked 'sex', for trans and 'gender non-conforming' people.

I'd ask for evidence of my 'small minded bigotry' but I know none will be forthcoming.

Read your posts.

As I said: none will be forthcoming.

As usual, you are wrong. Your posts are evidence.

As I said: none will be forthcoming.

 

[ZiprHead]

I did not claim it was.

Then why did you ask the question?

 

[laughing dog]

It is true that if you do not already think the incoherent use of language in response to trans ideology isn't a problem, then pointing out incoherent use of language in response to trans ideology won't make you see it as a problem.

More hyperbolic bullshit.

You re

Accusing me of using hyperbolic rhetoric is an accusation.

I made no accusation. I made an accurate statement of reality.

and conformity to small-minded bigotry via yt

As I said: none will be forthcoming.

I get you think repeating a falsehood makes it true.

 

[Metaphor]

I did not claim it was.

Then why did you ask the question?

You posted a picture of somebody in response to TomC, and I understood you to be challenging why that person shouldn't have an 'F' on their sex marker. Somebody with an 'F' as their sex marker will presumably go through the scanners with the settings set to 'F'.

If you were not talking about appearance/sex mismatch, then I misunderstood your point.

 

[Metaphor]

It is true that if you do not already think the incoherent use of language in response to trans ideology isn't a problem, then pointing out incoherent use of language in response to trans ideology won't make you see it as a problem.

More hyperbolic bullshit.

Oh, I get it. You don't know what 'hyperbole' means.

You re

Accusing me of using hyperbolic rhetoric is an accusation.

I made no accusation. I made an accurate statement of reality.

Sure luv.

and conformity to small-minded bigotry via yt

As I said: none will be forthcoming.

I get you think repeating a falsehood makes it true.

Sure luv.

 

[ZiprHead]

I did not claim it was.

Then why did you ask the question?

You posted a picture of somebody in response to TomC, and I understood you to be challenging why that person shouldn't have an 'F' on their sex marker. Somebody with an 'F' as their sex marker will presumably go through the scanners with the settings set to 'F'.

If you were not talking about appearance/sex mismatch, then I misunderstood your point.

Why would an airport scanner be set to "F" or anything like that? There is no such thing.

 

[Metaphor]

I did not claim it was.

Then why did you ask the question?

You posted a picture of somebody in response to TomC, and I understood you to be challenging why that person shouldn't have an 'F' on their sex marker. Somebody with an 'F' as their sex marker will presumably go through the scanners with the settings set to 'F'.

If you were not talking about appearance/sex mismatch, then I misunderstood your point.

Why would an airport scanner be set to "F" or anything like that? There is no such thing.

If there is no such thing, then there are some trans people who are lying about it for internet fame.

 

[ZiprHead]

I did not claim it was.

Then why did you ask the question?

You posted a picture of somebody in response to TomC, and I understood you to be challenging why that person shouldn't have an 'F' on their sex marker. Somebody with an 'F' as their sex marker will presumably go through the scanners with the settings set to 'F'.

If you were not talking about appearance/sex mismatch, then I misunderstood your point.

Why would an airport scanner be set to "F" or anything like that? There is no such thing.

If there is no such thing, then there are some trans people who are lying about it for internet fame.

Never seen such a report. But I assume since trans people live rent free in your head you would know all about that sort of thing.

Why is that by the way?

 

[Metaphor]

I did not claim it was.

Then why did you ask the question?

You posted a picture of somebody in response to TomC, and I understood you to be challenging why that person shouldn't have an 'F' on their sex marker. Somebody with an 'F' as their sex marker will presumably go through the scanners with the settings set to 'F'.

If you were not talking about appearance/sex mismatch, then I misunderstood your point.

Why would an airport scanner be set to "F" or anything like that? There is no such thing.

If there is no such thing, then there are some trans people who are lying about it for internet fame.

Never seen such a report. But I assume since trans people live rent free in your head you would know all about that sort of thing.

Why is that by the way?

You are simply wrong about the scanners at American airports.

Before a person steps into the full body scanner at an airport, a TSA officer must register the person’s gender, pressing a pink button for a female or a blue button for a male. Generally, the officers make the decision in seconds, based on a person’s appearance.

The body scanner is programmed to look for penises on passengers scanned as male and breasts on passengers scanned as female. If the officer selects the female button and the machine detects something in the passenger’s groin area — like in Olivia’s case — it could interpret a body part as a potential threat, issuing an alarm.

 

[ZiprHead]

I did not claim it was.

Then why did you ask the question?

You posted a picture of somebody in response to TomC, and I understood you to be challenging why that person shouldn't have an 'F' on their sex marker. Somebody with an 'F' as their sex marker will presumably go through the scanners with the settings set to 'F'.

If you were not talking about appearance/sex mismatch, then I misunderstood your point.

Why would an airport scanner be set to "F" or anything like that? There is no such thing.

If there is no such thing, then there are some trans people who are lying about it for internet fame.

Never seen such a report. But I assume since trans people live rent free in your head you would know all about that sort of thing.

Why is that by the way?

You are simply wrong about the scanners at American airports.

Before a person steps into the full body scanner at an airport, a TSA officer must register the person’s gender, pressing a pink button for a female or a blue button for a male. Generally, the officers make the decision in seconds, based on a person’s appearance.

The body scanner is programmed to look for penises on passengers scanned as male and breasts on passengers scanned as female. If the officer selects the female button and the machine detects something in the passenger’s groin area — like in Olivia’s case — it could interpret a body part as a potential threat, issuing an alarm.

Okay, I admit I'm wrong.

So why is it you let trans people live rent free in your head?

 

[Emily Lake]

No, the reality is that a woman who walks up to the desk and presents a passport that says she's a male is going to raise red flags needlessly.

Kind of depends on whether that "woman" has a beard, and looks like a dude, doesn't it?

Pretty sure that if Alex Drummond showed up with a passport that says "male", nobody will bat an eye, regardless of the fact that they would probably wear a dress.

 

[Emily Lake]

Zzyym's parents and doctors attempted to 'fix' them via multiple surgeries during childhood. There is no way to tell now what Zzyym's reproductive abilities might have been had they been allowed to develop naturally. They might even have been one of the rare intersex people who could produce both types of gametes.

Also, I think it's important to note that some people are completely unable to produce gametes. If we use gamete production as the standard for sex designations, they would be considered sexless.

For the bazillionth time...

1) The gamete that a body is arranged to produce is what determines sex, regardless of whether they actually do produce that gamete or not. Sterility does not make a person sexless. If they are a sterile person with testes, they are male. If they are a sterile person with ovaries, they are female.

2) I think there's been one single documented case of a human who produced both eggs and sperm, and that person did NOT have a DSD, that person was a mosaic - literally multiple people in one. People with DSDs cannot produce both functional eggs and functional sperm at the same time. The level of testosterone needed to produce sperm will also destroy eggs; testosterone low enough to allow viable egg release is too low to generate sperm.

 

[Metaphor]

I did not claim it was.

Then why did you ask the question?

You posted a picture of somebody in response to TomC, and I understood you to be challenging why that person shouldn't have an 'F' on their sex marker. Somebody with an 'F' as their sex marker will presumably go through the scanners with the settings set to 'F'.

If you were not talking about appearance/sex mismatch, then I misunderstood your point.

Why would an airport scanner be set to "F" or anything like that? There is no such thing.

If there is no such thing, then there are some trans people who are lying about it for internet fame.

Never seen such a report. But I assume since trans people live rent free in your head you would know all about that sort of thing.

Why is that by the way?

You are simply wrong about the scanners at American airports.

Before a person steps into the full body scanner at an airport, a TSA officer must register the person’s gender, pressing a pink button for a female or a blue button for a male. Generally, the officers make the decision in seconds, based on a person’s appearance.

The body scanner is programmed to look for penises on passengers scanned as male and breasts on passengers scanned as female. If the officer selects the female button and the machine detects something in the passenger’s groin area — like in Olivia’s case — it could interpret a body part as a potential threat, issuing an alarm.

Okay, I admit I'm wrong.

So why is it you let trans people live rent free in your head?

You would have to explain what you mean by 'living rent free in my head'.

I think you mean something like 'why does the existence of trans people bother you relentlessly', and the short answer is, it doesn't. So you're going to have to be more specific in your question if that isn't what you meant.