What's new
By:

Proposed Rollback of Transgender Protections

The more I think of this the more I think it's a cynical attempt to lure the SJW's of the far left into the forefront to change the narrative during the mid-terms.

Scare the crap out of the god loving mid-western folks when they see the purple-haired masses marching on TV. They'll run to the voting booths.
 
One Brow said:
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/content/two-spirits_map-html/

Multiple genders, being transgender, etc., have had traditions going back centuries. It has little to do with toxins, agricultural run-off etc.
Click to expand...
I know that but the testosterone decline is related to environmental conditions. It seems to me that there is an increase in transgender persons, or maybe it's just a matter of more transparency ??? Do you think there are more transgenders and that it is increasing, or not?
 
I don't understand the outrage. Please help me understand.

First, I want to confirm my understanding that trans-advocates distinguish between sex and gender. I understand that Sex is scientifically determined by whether a person has xx or xy chromosomes (an unambiguous biological designation for the vast majority of humans). Whereas gender is more nuanced and subjective (with number of gender options and expectations/characteristics varying across cultures). I think this could be compared to a person being a voter vs being a republican or democrat: sex would be like whether you voted or not, it is a dichotomous designation, but what party you identify as is based on a lot of factors and the characteristics of the parties are also subject to change (a republican in Texas is not the same as in NY). Is my understanding correct? If not, please correct me.

If my understanding is correct, I don't see why anyone would be upset that a government doesn't want to classify people based on gender. As the definition of gender is disconnected from sex, and traditional designations of man or woman do not represent how people identify, it seems reasonable to stop trying to track/identify people by gender. However, because sex is a permanent attribute, it could efficiently be used by a government when it is necessary for a government to classify citizens (e.g., the draft, prison assignments, etc.).

Is the issue they are trying to force sex and gender to be the same? Edit: Is the issue more that they are focusing on sex over gender?
 
Last edited:
The verbiage I've seen is yes, the idea is to conflate sex and gender.

Even more than it already is, actually. Can't tell you the amount of forms I see asking for gender as an "M/F" choice. That's were legislation would do the most good. Force these forms to list "sex" rather than "gender." And if they DO use gender, use man, woman, and whatever else you think appropriate. That leads into its own problems, however with inclusivity and some entities not wanting to do any other.

That a good post above mine. Good questions.
 
So the government really likes science when it comes to defining gender, but not when it comes to climate change?

Ok.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red
Trump loves to create division, that way he can test the boundaries of his power. What's really impressive is how readily people accept when he backtracks after overstepping the bounds. Like his meeting with Putin. He's a ****ing master at playing people. Meanwhile he gets stronger and stronger. People who support him are a product of a ****ed up upbringing.
 
Last edited:
Saint Cy of JFC said:
So the government really likes science when it comes to defining gender, but not when it comes to climate change?

Ok.
Click to expand...

I think we can assume a fair degree of facetiousness on the part of the author here, where Trump and genetics is concerned, but still, Trump's statenent that "I have a natural instinct for science" may rank quite high on his list of totally absurd claims. It might actually be funny, if the consequences of his ignoramus opinion of himself weren't potentially calamitous for future generations.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/trump-i-have-a-natural-instinct-for-science.html

"But you know who doesn’t have a big political agenda, according to Donald Trump? Donald Trump. The president of the United States styles himself as a man of science, willing to follow the facts wherever they go. In yet another of his current spate of lunatic ramblings he has decided to share with various media, this time the Associated Press, Trump was asked about the report again, and gave an even crazier response.

Trump asserted that, contrary to the scientific conclusion that pumping heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere has caused an upward ratcheting of temperatures, he sees it as random unexplainable variation: “I agree the climate changes, but it goes back and forth, back and forth.” When the interviewer noted that scientists have concluded otherwise, Trump asserted his own scientific credentials.

“My uncle was a great professor at MIT for many years. Dr. John Trump,” he said. “And I didn’t talk to him about this particular subject, but I have a natural instinct for science, and I will say that you have scientists on both sides of the picture.”

So Trump’s claim to scientific competence rests on his belief that science is a matter of instinct, and this instinct is passed on genetically, as evidenced by his uncle. Those lucky few possessed of this gift can look at two competing hypotheses and know which one is correct, without needing to study the evidence, or even having a clear understanding of what “evidence” means. Trump has luckily inherited this instinct, along with some $400 million in untaxed gifts from his father."
 
Eenie-Meenie said:
I know that but the testosterone decline is related to environmental conditions. It seems to me that there is an increase in transgender persons, or maybe it's just a matter of more transparency ??? Do you think there are more transgenders and that it is increasing, or not?
Click to expand...

I think it is more transparency. I doubt there is any link between testosterone levels and gender identity.
 
checkbookdoc said:
First, I want to confirm my understanding that trans-advocates distinguish between sex and gender. I understand that Sex is scientifically determined by whether a person has xx or xy chromosomes (an unambiguous biological designation for the vast majority of humans). Whereas gender is more nuanced and subjective (with number of gender options and expectations/characteristics varying across cultures).
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, even sex is not that simple. People can be XX, but have an SRY region on one of those chromosomes, and so be male in every other way. XY males can have androgen insensitivity, and be born with female appearance in every way. There are variation on the classic XY, such as XXY, X, XYY, etc. The real problem is that there are few simple biological categories, and none about sex.

checkbookdoc said:
I don't see why anyone would be upset that a government doesn't want to classify people based on gender.
Click to expand...

Gender is who you present yourself to be to the world.

Many are interpreting this potential guideline as erasing the notion of transgender from existence. Your gender would be regarded your birth sex under this provision.

checkbookdoc said:
Is the issue they are trying to force sex and gender to be the same? Edit: Is the issue more that they are focusing on sex over gender?
Click to expand...

That is one thing people see as a result, yes.
 
For an intellectual giant like Trump or Einstein, nobody should try to measure genius with popular opinion, much less media speculation. Years ago, when I worked for a much-idolized "Scientist" of Nobel-like stature, I was forced to conclude.... after debunking two fraudulent Ph. D. theses he passed on, that "you don't know anything unless you actually do know it all." The reasoning behind my thesis is that whatever you actually don't know has the potential implication that you're just another fool, no matter how much stature you have.

I had famous disputes with my boss, who when nearing his "end" at age 81, chose his farewell dinner in the midst of his staff to declare "I have been a scoundrel", looking me in the eye. Everyone but me gasped and objected to his self-deprecating remark, and even I was just dumfounded, speechless.

He went on, still looking steadfastly at me, to explain "I've always known my own interest." It took me a while, but I eventually realized he was complimenting me on my prideful art of purposefully disregarding my own.

Here, Eenie-Meenie is on to something. Of course, I found out about chromosomal anomalies from the college textbooks of the 1950s, left abandoned in our closets after my older siblings were done with their classes. XXY folks had pics of their various physiological abnormalities in those books. XYY folks were generally locked up for their mental proclivities for violence and such.

There is without doubt a trainload of effects from our industrial pollutants of the phytoestrogenic trend, and the plasticizers most of our plastics leak into our food and drink containers, from coatings on steel and aluminum cans as well as wrappers and containers of all kinds. The DC swampcritters have long been reported to have compromised sexual features.... ha ha…. perhaps I should say the Potomac frogs and fish and leave it at that, but I'm sure it does affect the Swamp progressives with essentially neutered intellects that drive the whole Resistance to Alpha Male leadership.

The Chinese Emperors were famous for their servile eunuchs, and the globalists are not an inch behind.

Nature has a way of being more than we understand, or perhaps even can understand, but it is no excuse for any political agenda.

Live and let live is as good as we will ever do..... and of course government can never really do that.
 
Last edited:
Trump is desperate to change the narrative from his disastrous foreign policy and capitulation to Putin, Kim, and MBS, endless corruption, and lack of legislative wins to loser identity politics.

Republicans know that they can’t campaign on things like deregulation and tax cuts. Democrats own them on health care.

But republicans do know that by tossing out some red meat exploiting fears about LGBT, South American caravans, and “unknown middle easterners”, they can draw out enough of the racist to can maintain control of congress.

So expect plenty of racist tweets in the upcoming weeks. Lots of ISIS and MS13 stuff. Probably toss in a few anti-NFL tweets. Lots of conspiracy nonsense about the Clintons and Soros and the “deep state.” And plenty of identity politics to change the narrative from real issues to identity. “Us” v “Them.”

I’d say this is a losing strategy but I’ve learned to never underestimate the stupity and short-sightedness of the American electorate
 
candrew said:
The more I think of this the more I think it's a cynical attempt to lure the SJW's of the far left into the forefront to change the narrative during the mid-terms.

Scare the crap out of the god loving mid-western folks when they see the purple-haired masses marching on TV. They'll run to the voting booths.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure Trump has observed similar reactions many times, and pretty sure it does drive his schtick.
 
The Thriller said:
Trump is desperate to change the narrative from his disastrous foreign policy and capitulation to Putin, Kim, and MBS, endless corruption, and lack of legislative wins to loser identity politics.

Republicans know that they can’t campaign on things like deregulation and tax cuts. Democrats own them on health care.

But republicans do know that by tossing out some red meat exploiting fears about LGBT, South American caravans, and “unknown middle easterners”, they can draw out enough of the racist to can maintain control of congress.

So expect plenty of racist tweets in the upcoming weeks. Lots of ISIS and MS13 stuff. Probably toss in a few anti-NFL tweets. Lots of conspiracy nonsense about the Clintons and Soros and the “deep state.” And plenty of identity politics to change the narrative from real issues to identity. “Us” v “Them.”

I’d say this is a losing strategy but I’ve learned to never underestimate the stupity and short-sightedness of the American electorate
Click to expand...

nah. Liberals have their panties all twisted and bunched. Too much bubble-headed rhetoric creates unrealistic narratives like this. Normal folks don't listen to any of this. It's all about just not wanting to be jacked by nonsense.
 
Eenie-Meenie said:
I know that but the testosterone decline is related to environmental conditions.
Click to expand...

Also, my understanding is that we know there has been testosterone decline in various populations (mostly amphibians), but I don't believe we have any evidence for that in mammals, even if it were connected to transgenderism.
 
One Brow said:
Also, my understanding is that we know there has been testosterone decline in various populations (mostly amphibians), but I don't believe we have any evidence for that in mammals, even if it were connected to transgenderism.
Click to expand...
There definitely has been in human males. I've read about it many times and it's mentioned in the article that I linked to in Forbes, which as you know is a very conservative publication.
 
One Brow said:
Unfortunately, even sex is not that simple. People can be XX, but have an SRY region on one of those chromosomes, and so be male in every other way. XY males can have androgen insensitivity, and be born with female appearance in every way. There are variation on the classic XY, such as XXY, X, XYY, etc. The real problem is that there are few simple biological categories, and none about sex.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the response!

I know there are variations from the XX/XY designation, but I believe that these are fairly unusual (like, it applies to more than 99.5% of people). As such, the use of sex seems like a reasonable classification system which allows for a fairly simple sort between male/female. Alternatively, I don't see how such a sorting could apply to gender (since there are infinite possibilities and no agreed upon definitions).

I guess for me the way the government sorts now, based on gender with no scientific definition behind it at all, is worse than moving forward with a definition that can be consistently applied.

Edit: I don't think it is all that unusual/unscientific to consider sex a binary condition http://www.who.int/genomics/gender/en/index1.html
 
Last edited:
checkbookdoc said:
I guess for me the way the government sorts now, based on gender with no scientific definition behind it at all, is worse than moving forward with a definition that can be consistently applied.
Click to expand...

Why do we need a simple classification system, other than "self-classify"?
 
One Brow said:
Why do we need a simple classification system, other than "self-classify"?
Click to expand...
I am resistant to the self-classification system because it does not result in a uniform definition of gender (I don't know what someone means when they say male or female). Also, some people don't feel like they fall in either category so that seems a bit off to me. I also wonder if society would be healthier in general and also more accepting of the LGBT community if we stop connecting people's sex with the rest of their identify.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top