"Pride" month is upon us...

[BigRed]

Would they be angry if I answered it for them?




























View attachment 208708

Better than an answer from some putz replying, "I'm not a biologist".

 

[Epicenity]

But in terms of trans-activists, yes. There is an agenda. They've proclaimed it. I've read some of their own literature written from the ivory towers. And that last sentence is full of as much straw bull **** as one could fit into an idea. I think both sides could stand to learn more about the other. You're (I'm assuming from a left wing perspective) no more savvy about them and what they really think than you think they are about you.

I'm certainly not a leftist.

There isn't some national trans bureau of affairs or anything like it to make an agenda. The only agenda I know about is to block religious radicals from making discriminatory laws.

Who am I not savvy about?

edit: Intersex people are about 1.7% of the population.

 

[jamil]

I'm certainly not a leftist.

There isn't some national trans bureau of affairs or anything like it to make an agenda. The only agenda I know about is to block religious radicals from making discriminatory laws.

Who am I not savvy about?

See, this is why I suspect you have a left-of-center worldview. You seem to be very confident in your beliefs that are favorable for the left, while also being very confident in your beliefs that are unfavorable for the right.

Have you read any of the academic literature on queer theory? Forget what I say about it. Forget what people on the right say about it. Forget what the media says about it. Go to the sources.

ETA: I think it is worth posting again that I don't think real trans people have the agenda. It's the activists who have the agenda.

 

[Epicenity]

See, this is why I suspect you have a left-of-center worldview. You seem to be very confident in your beliefs that are favorable for the left, while also being very confident in your beliefs that are unfavorable for the right.

Have you read any of the academic literature on queer theory? Forget what I say about it. Forget what people on the right say about it. Forget what the media says about it. Go to the sources.

You didn't answer my question, I don't know what you think I'm unaware of.

 

[JettaKnight]

See, this is why I suspect you have a left-of-center worldview. You seem to be very confident in your beliefs that are favorable for the left, while also being very confident in your beliefs that are unfavorable for the right.

Have you read any of the academic literature on queer theory? Forget what I say about it. Forget what people on the right say about it. Forget what the media says about it. Go to the sources.

ETA: I think it is worth posting again that I don't think real trans people have the agenda. It's the activists who have the agenda.

...or forget what the 1% in their ivory towers think and actually talk to people living their lives.

 

[jamil]

You didn't answer my question, I don't know what you think I'm unaware of.

I didn't answer your question because I thought it was rhetorical. I thought I made it obvious. But if it will move you to answer my question, I'll make it clearer.

I said, "You're (I'm assuming from a left wing perspective) no more savvy about them and what they really think than you think they are about you."

I think the right doesn't understand the perspective of the left very well. That's manifest in the explanations you hear from the right about the left. Their characterization comes off more as a straw-man representation of the left. The same thing appears to be true about your characterizations about the right. So I don't think you understand the right as much as you think you do. Because you appear to interpret them like people on the left do. You might as well be Jimmy Kimmel as far as that goes.

Okay, so now answer my question. Have you read the academic literature on queer theory, from the authors who contributed to it?

 

[jamil]

...or forget what the 1% in their ivory towers think and actually talk to people living their lives.

The problem with that, the stuff that's going on in the world is right out of their literature. This culture war that's happening isn't because the right moved further right. It's happening because the left got socially radical. For **** sake, Barak Obama once said that marriage is between a man and a woman. Now, it's probably the case that he doesn't really give a **** either way, and he said that because that's where the polls were at the time. Now? People on the right don't like it. They'd probably rather things go back to the idea of traditional marrage. They're conservatives. It's in their temperament. But, they've pretty much accepted it.

Did anyone think 10 years ago that a SCOTUS nominee would be incapable of defining what a woman is? The definition on the right hasn't changed, well, ever. They've gotten no further right. Because that's what conservatives do. They like to conserve. Progressives progress. And when they don't have the right keeping them sane, they progress further than is sane.

Saying that men can get pregnant is not sane. Normally people could push back on that. But they cancel you if you do. So no one gets to point out the insanity of that. People think it. But they dare not say it for fear of cancellation. Where do you think those ideas came from?

It's ideological ******** that came out of those 1% in their ivory towers. They wrote about doing it decades ago.

 

[BigRed]

The problem with that, the stuff that's going on in the world is right out of their literature. This culture war that's happening isn't because the right moved further right. It's happening because the left got socially radical. For **** sake, Barak Obama once said that marriage is between a man and a woman. Now, it's probably the case that he doesn't really give a **** either way, and he said that because that's where the polls were at the time. Now? People on the right don't like it. They'd probably rather things go back to the idea of traditional marrage. They're conservatives. It's in their temperament. But, they've pretty much accepted it.

Did anyone think 10 years ago that a SCOTUS nominee would be incapable of defining what a woman is? The definition on the right hasn't changed, well, ever. They've gotten no further right. Because that's what conservatives do. They like to conserve. Progressives progress. And when they don't have the right keeping them sane, they progress further than is sane.

Saying that men can get pregnant is not sane. Normally people could push back on that. But they cancel you if you do. So no one gets to point out the insanity of that. People think it. But they dare not say it for fear of cancellation. Where do you think those ideas came from?

It's ideological ******** that came out of those 1% in their ivory towers. They wrote about doing it decades ago.

I am reminded of what Dabney observed.

"This [Northern conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always when about to enter a protest very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance: The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy, from having nothing to whip.”

-Robert Lewis Dabney - 1897

 

[Keith_Indy]

I think there should probably be a phobia named for fear of canceling. It's a real thing. A lot of times I just bite my tongue in meetings. Tell myself, just let it go man.

Close... https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/mental-health/phobias/list-of-phobias/

• Enosiophobia – Fear of criticism or committing an unpardonable sin

The Thing We Fear More Than Death

Why predators are responsible for our fear of public speaking.

www.psychologytoday.com

The Social Death Penalty: Why Being Ostracized Hurts Even More Than Bullying

In the wake of Elliot Rodger, questions about social rejection take on new urgency.

truthout.org

This explains a lot of human behavior...

Ostracism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Williams and his colleagues have charted responses to ostracism in some five thousand cases, and found two distinctive patterns of response. The first is increased group-conformity, in a quest for re-admittance; the second is to become more provocative and hostile to the group, seeking attention rather than acceptance.

 

[Keith_Indy]

Yep, there's no trans agenda...

Check out the leaked scene from Disney’s upcoming “Big Hero 6” show that pushes the idea of “men having periods” on kids

I know someone who named his beloved new truck "Baymax."

notthebee.com

 

[BugI02]

edit: Intersex people are about 1.7% of the population.

[citation needed]

 

[Keith_Indy]

[citation needed]

In short, the new statistic encompasses more than just the visible abnormalities, dives into the DNA and other conditions.

How Common is Intersex? An Explanation of the Stats. – Intersex Campaign for Equality

www.intersexequality.com

Counter argument, if you have no visible abnormalities, then you don't meet the definition of intersex.

How common is intersex? a response to Anne Fausto-Sterling - PubMed

Anne Fausto-Sterling s suggestion that the prevalence of intersex might be as high as 1.7% has attracted wide attention in both the scholarly press and the popular media. Many reviewers are not aware that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, such as...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Anne Fausto-Sterling s suggestion that the prevalence of intersex might be as high as 1.7% has attracted wide attention in both the scholarly press and the popular media. Many reviewers are not aware that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia. If the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling s estimate of 1.7%.

 

[Epicenity]

I didn't answer your question because I thought it was rhetorical. I thought I made it obvious. But if it will move you to answer my question, I'll make it clearer.

I said, "You're (I'm assuming from a left wing perspective) no more savvy about them and what they really think than you think they are about you."

I think the right doesn't understand the perspective of the left very well. That's manifest in the explanations you hear from the right about the left. Their characterization comes off more as a straw-man representation of the left. The same thing appears to be true about your characterizations about the right. So I don't think you understand the right as much as you think you do. Because you appear to interpret them like people on the left do. You might as well be Jimmy Kimmel as far as that goes.

Okay, so now answer my question. Have you read the academic literature on queer theory, from the authors who contributed to it?

Ok, first up I will answer your question because I am talking here in good faith. There is no "official academic literature" on queer theory any more than there is "the right wing literature", or the "left wing literature". I do read, watch and listen to all kinds of ideas about "queer" issues. Most of it centers around how to stop discriminatory laws, gain equal protection, prevent blocking of medical care.

The only "agenda" I know about is to gain equal rights, to stop states from blocking access to health care, to stop trans people getting killed, etc.

To make this easier, please don't assume that I consider this a political issue. It is a medical issue that people are trying to politicize for their own gain. The fear mongering about trans people right now IS the same the fear mongering was about gay people 20 years ago. I am (like most rational people) not someone who you can predict what I think about an issue based on who I voted for.

If it seems like I am anti-right, it is because "the right" are the currently trying to pass anti-trans laws, trying to block health care for children, and making documentaries about how "the trans are coming for your kids!!". The "what is a woman" video is the Reeder Madness of our time.

I don't know anything about Jimmy Kimmel. I think I could pick him out of a line-up, but that's about it.

 

[BugI02]

In short, the new statistic encompasses more than just the visible abnormalities, dives into the DNA and other conditions.

How Common is Intersex? An Explanation of the Stats. – Intersex Campaign for Equality

www.intersexequality.com

Counter argument, if you have no visible abnormalities, then you don't meet the definition of intersex.

How common is intersex? a response to Anne Fausto-Sterling - PubMed

Anne Fausto-Sterling s suggestion that the prevalence of intersex might be as high as 1.7% has attracted wide attention in both the scholarly press and the popular media. Many reviewers are not aware that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, such as...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Some groups use an old prevalence statistic that says we make up 1 in 2000, or .05%, percent of the population, but that statistic refers to one specific intersex trait, ambiguous genitalia, which is but one of many variations which, combined (as they are in medical diagnostics and coding), constitute the 1.7% estimate by esteemed Professor of Biology and Gender Studies, Anne Fausto-Sterling, of Brown University*. A similar, slightly higher, statistic was also reported in, “How Sexually Dimorphic Are We?”, by Blackless, et al, in The American Journal of Human Biology.
“The belief that Homo sapiens is absolutely dimorphic with the respect to sex chromosome composition, gonadal structure, hormone levels, and the structure of the internal genital duct systems and external genitalia, derives from the platonic ideal that for each sex there is a single, universally correct developmental pathway and outcome. We surveyed the medical literature from 1955 to the present for studies of the frequency of deviation from the ideal male or female. We conclude that this frequency may be as high as 2% of live births. The frequency of individuals receiving “corrective” genital surgery, however, probably runs between 1 and 2 per 1,000 live births (0.1–0.2%).” Am. J. Hum. Biol. 12:151–166, 2000. © 2000 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...03/04)12:2<151::AID-AJHB1>3.0.CO;2-F/abstract These two findings are the most thorough scientific research which exists on the statistical prevalence of congenital intersex traits in humans.

“Here’s what we do know: If you ask experts at medical centers how often a child is born so noticeably atypical in terms of genitalia that a specialist in sex differentiation is called in, the number comes out to about 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 births. But a lot more people than that are born with subtler forms of sex anatomy variations, some of which won’t show up until later in life.

The first study mentioned is an estimate by a single academic. The second is a meta-study which is not presented, only interpreted (the link to the study ends at a paywall)

I will need some much better statistics in order to believe a number cited by an organization whose stated purpose is to overcome "the erroneous belief that we are an extremely tiny percentage of the population is often used to dismiss our need for legal rights and protections". I think you would agree that it would be to their advantage to claim the largest number possible and they do not list the 'more subtle' claimed intersex characteristics that they assert knowledge of but which were too subtle to appear in the statistics. To get from 0.05% to 1.7% merely says that 1.65% of the claimed numbers have characteristics that were too subtle to be recognizable at birth

Seems like the next trendy aberration to seek victim status, the next 'trans'

 

[Epicenity]

Including non straighwhitecise males is not an agenda.

Yep, there's no trans agenda...

Check out the leaked scene from Disney’s upcoming “Big Hero 6” show that pushes the idea of “men having periods” on kids

I know someone who named his beloved new truck "Baymax."

notthebee.com

 

[Epicenity]

Did anyone think 10 years ago that a SCOTUS nominee would be incapable of defining what a woman is? The definition on the right hasn't changed, well, ever. They've gotten no further right. Because that's what conservatives do. They like to conserve. Progressives progress. And when they don't have the right keeping them sane, they progress further than is sane.

I'm glad we don't stick to the science of the 1400's.

 

[Keith_Indy]

Including non straighwhitecise males is not an agenda.

The fact that you've adopted "CIS males," in your language, lends me to believe you are from the Marxist left.

So, you missed the person with the TRANS FLAG t-shirt...

Disney exec vows more gay characters amid huge inclusivity push

“We no longer say ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls,” inclusion manager Vivian Ware said. “We say dreamers of all ages.”

nypost.com

Burke said she supports featuring “many, many” characters who are LGBTQIA, which stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (or questioning), intersex, and asexual (or allies).

 

[Keith_Indy]

The first study mentioned is an estimate by a single academic. The second is a meta-study which is not presented, only interpreted (the link to the study ends at a paywall)

Well, feel free to troll the internet for acceptable cites. Those are the 2 opposing viewpoints to the 1.7% statistic.

 

[Epicenity]

I didn't miss them. That's not an agenda, that's a shirt. Is it that hard accept that there are people different than you? Is it an agenda if they show African Americans, or women voting?

 

[BugI02]

I'm glad we don't stick to the science of the 1400's.

Well, any discipline using calculus in its underpinnings is relying on science from the 1600s