"Pride" month is upon us...

[bmbutch]

Sitting in mandatory meeting, listening to my employer brag about installing gender neutral bathrooms, having kids at their pride month booths, & laughing about if they should eat Chic Fil A.

 

[BugI02]

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

Non sequitur. Those are the two viewpoints in favor of the 1.7% statistic claim

The only statistical evidence was the incidence of noticeable ... ambiguity, shall we say ... in the gentalia at birth, recorded in the form of intervention in the case by a corrective surgeon, which yielded the 0.05% estimate. That data was then cast aside in favor of more 'subtle' abnormalities that were not reported and thus were subject to unsupported claims

 

[Epicenity]

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

Great example. We didn't stop at what knew in the 1600s, we added to it as our body of knowledge increased.

What did they have to say about quantum computing in the 1600s?

 

[PRasko]

 

[jamil]

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

Is it really "science" that has changed in the last decade that has revealed to us that we can no longer define what a woman is, objectively? Well, social science has asserted this, but they should stay in the social realm and leave biology alone. A women is "a female human." It's as simple as that.

And we can also define female.

"of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes."

That's pretty simple as well.

Transgender women (those with gender dysphoria) including transsexual women (those who have physically transitioned) are not "real" women (adult females). They don't meet the definition of female. It's not outdated, except in the minds of ideologues who want reality to be something else. That's the current science. That's unlikely to change to mean what you seem to think it means.

That doesn't mean I'm unsympathetic to people who have real gender dysphoria. If they want me to use their pronouns--and, I mean the usual ones, not the nonsense ones--I can be polite and use them. But I disagree that affirmation as a treatment is the correct treatment for the clinical problem. And I don't trust that the activists really care as much about helping these people deal with their dysphoria as they care about executing the praxis of queer theory.

 

[Epicenity]

Is it really "science" that has changed in the last decade that has revealed to us that we can no longer define what a woman is, objectively? Well, social science has asserted this, but they should stay in the social realm and leave biology alone. A women is "a female human." It's as simple as that.

And we can also define female.

"of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes."

That's pretty simple as well.

Transgender women (those with gender dysphoria) including transsexual women (those who have physically transitioned) are not "real" women (adult females). They don't meet the definition of female. It's not outdated, except in the minds of ideologues who want reality to be something else. That's the current science. That's unlikely to change to mean what you seem to think it means.

That doesn't mean I'm unsympathetic to people who have real gender dysphoria. If they want me to use their pronouns--and, I mean the usual ones, not the nonsense ones--I can be polite and use them. But I disagree that affirmation as a treatment is the correct treatment for the clinical problem. And I don't trust that the activists really care as much about helping these people deal with their dysphoria as they care about executing the praxis of queer theory.

Yes, science has made new discoveries in that regard. Serious question: Are women mentally identical to men? If not which part of their body makes them that way? Or are men just women with penises?

 

[Keith_Indy]

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?

So, which is it, they just randomly assigned colors to the shirt, or it was placed there in a kids story on purpose. If it was placed there on purpose, then there must be some plan to do so, ergo there's an agenda. That whole scene reads like a diversity checklist, make sure we cover all the bases, sex, gender, race.

And YES, there was a deliberate agenda to be more inclusive of non-white characters in the media. That's not a conspiracy theory, it's the truth. Pointing it out isn't saying that it was good or bad.

However, when the previously under represented are overly represented, then it becomes an exaggeration of reality. Making things seem more normal and commonplace in society than they are.

Hence, we get something like this joke:



Here is an organization pushing for more LGBT inclusion in the media. https://www.glaad.org/

For over 30 years, GLAAD has been at the forefront of cultural change, accelerating acceptance for the LGBTQ community.​

Are you going to seriously sit there and say they don't have an agenda.

 

[Epicenity]

Are you going to seriously sit there and say they don't have an agenda.

I said before any "agenda" is just trying to not be denied rights and I'll add "to not be hidden in the shadows". I remember when they did this with "non-white" people on television. Same thing, same objections. Also, trans people often wear shirts like that or other clothes with some version of that color scheme.

 

[JCSR]

Yes, science has made new discoveries in that regard. Serious question: Are women mentally identical to men? If not which part of their body makes them that way? Or are men just women with penises?

 

[Keith_Indy]

I said before any "agenda" is just trying to not be denied rights and I'll add "to not be hidden in the shadows". I remember when they did this with "non-white" people on television. Same thing, same objections. Also, trans people often wear shirts like that or other clothes with some version of that color scheme.

So, there is an agenda, glad you can admit it.

Now, why does this need to be introduced to pre-pubescent children?

 

[BugI02]

Yes, science has made new discoveries in that regard. Serious question: Are women mentally identical to men? If not which part of their body makes them that way? Or are men just women with penises?

Are any two women even mentally identical to each other. I fail to see your point. Classification as one or the other (there are only two) is inextricably bound up in the genotype

You can be a woman who believes she is a man, but that is a matter for psychiatry not taxonomy

 

[jamil]

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".

So you're not aware of queer studies in colleges? These curricula are written by professors who formulated queer theory. Queer theory is a subset of critical theory, and a sibling to critical race theory, feminist theory, etcetera. This denial may be in good faith, but I've run into it before with people who aren't speaking in good faith because they know better, but for some reason want to be seen as oblivious to it, as if it doesn't exist. Point is, SOMEONE writes the curriculum for these undergraduate critical studies courses. The people who write those are the academics that have developed those critical theories over the last several decades. JettaKnight called "the 1%."

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.

"Queer issues" is nothing but the praxis. It's not the theory. Characterizing it as "discriminatory laws" is not accurate. And this is another reason why I suspect that you have a left worldview. You use their language. Moderate apolitical people actually don't. They don't really use the language of the left or the right.

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.

Blocking access to health care? Can you give me a legitimate example of such a law?

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.

I think there is a little fear induced on the right. And some people are using that to gain political power. But I think you think the problem is all on that side of the issue and none on your side of the issue. I think your worldview is only informed by one side of it. When our conversation started, I thought you had an even view of things. But the thing about outdated science? Nah, if you think "a human female" as a definition of women is scientifically outdated, that's a strong indicator that you're ideologically possessed. It doesn't mean you see things as being political. And when I say you have a left worldview, I'm talking about the way you see the world, and not necessarily that you see yourself as being political.

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.

Well, the Jimmy Kimmel thing was a joke.

I think if you were talking about just strictly legitimate cases of gender dysphoria, and that's were the extent of what's actually going on with the gender fight today, I'd probably agree with some of the things you're saying, like trans is the new gay. You speak as if it's really just about that. It's clearly not. I don't get that from the right side. I get it from the trans-activists themselves. The bat **** crazy ones. The crazy people on tiktok explaining the finer points of all the genders they felt during the last 20 minutes, and the official names of all of them. I mean. C'mon. That's nutty. Don't you think? That's delusion.

 

[JCSR]

This pretty much sums it up. Screen name Epicenty

Epicenity is the lack of gender distinction, often reducing the emphasis on the masculine to allow the feminine. It includes androgyny – having both masculine and feminine characteristics. The adjective gender-neutral may describe epicenity.

 

[BugI02]

I said before any "agenda" is just trying to not be denied rights

None of the rest of us have the 'right' to force a baker to bake a cake if he does not wish to

Equal rights or special rights?

 

[jamil]

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

When I looked up statistics myself I saw several that published anywhere from 1-2% and one that was an order or so magnitude smaller. That was from a peer reviewed study published somewhere. I don't recall now. The ones that claim higher, were from .orgs that seem to have some advocacy. I just don't put a lot of faith in those if I can't verify it from a better source. You listed a pubmed source. So that's better. But it says "up to". And it's combining the whole gambit of stuff. The other study I found did to and their number was like .02% or something like that. Who do I believe?

It doesn't really matter much to this discussion what percentage of people are born intersex. We're not discussing intersex people. Those are people with physical problems. We're talking about a problem that is in peoples head, including the ideological indoctrination that transgender women, are for all purposes, women.

 

[BugI02]

Blocking access to health care? Can you give me a legitimate example of such a law?

I suspect he means 'gender affirming care', such as prescribing puberty blockers to minor children against their parents wishes

 

[Keith_Indy]

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.

Well, for there being no "official academic literature" there's certainly a lot of it out there AND DEGREES IN IT.

LGBTQ Center | Brown University

The Brown University LGBTQ Center offers spaces, programming and opportunities for LGBTQ+ students at Brown to connect socially and academically.

www.brown.edu

LibGuides: Queer Theory: Background

LibGuides: Queer Theory: Background

guides.library.illinois.edu

Queer Theory

Since the late 1980s, theories of Gender and Sexuality have redefined how we think about culture and society. They have raised new questions about the construction of the gendered and sexualized su…

literariness.org

20 Must-Read Queer Theory Texts | Critical-Theory.com

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297363713_A_Critical_Queer_Literacy_Approach_to_Teaching_Children%27s_Literature_about_Same-Sex_Parenting

Degree Requirements

Requirements for the Queer Studies program at Denison University.

denison.edu

Queer & Sexuality Studies Programs

View program information.

gender.indiana.edu

 

[Keith_Indy]

It doesn't really matter much to this discussion what percentage of people are born intersex. We're not discussing intersex people. Those are people with physical problems. We're talking about a problem that is in peoples head, including the ideological indoctrination that transgender women, are for all purposes, women.

I agree, I don't understand people who think providing information is taking a side in the issue.

 

[Epicenity]

So you're not aware of queer studies in colleges? These curricula are written by professors who formulated queer theory. Queer theory is a subset of critical theory, and a sibling to critical race theory, feminist theory, etcetera. This denial may be in good faith, but I've run into it before with people who aren't speaking in good faith because they know better, but for some reason want to be seen as oblivious to it, as if it doesn't exist. Point is, SOMEONE writes the curriculum for these undergraduate critical studies courses. The people who write those are the academics that have developed those critical theories over the last several decades. JettaKnight called "the 1%."


"Queer issues" is nothing but the praxis. It's not the theory. Characterizing it as "discriminatory laws" is not accurate. And this is another reason why I suspect that you have a left worldview. You use their language. Moderate apolitical people actually don't. They don't really use the language of the left or the right.


Blocking access to health care? Can you give me a legitimate example of such a law?



I think there is a little fear induced on the right. And some people are using that to gain political power. But I think you think the problem is all on that side of the issue and none on your side of the issue. I think your worldview is only informed by one side of it. When our conversation started, I thought you had an even view of things. But the thing about outdated science? Nah, if you think "a human female" as a definition of women is scientifically outdated, that's a strong indicator that you're ideologically possessed. It doesn't mean you see things as being political. And when I say you have a left worldview, I'm talking about the way you see the world, and not necessarily that you see yourself as being political.



Well, the Jimmy Kimmel thing was a joke.

I think if you were talking about just strictly legitimate cases of gender dysphoria, and that's were the extent of what's actually going on with the gender fight today, I'd probably agree with some of the things you're saying, like trans is the new gay. You speak as if it's really just about that. It's clearly not. I don't get that from the right side. I get it from the trans-activists themselves. The bat **** crazy ones. The crazy people on tiktok explaining the finer points of all the genders they felt during the last 20 minutes, and the official names of all of them. I mean. C'mon. That's nutty. Don't you think? That's delusion.

Yes, I think the "infinite" genders thing is stupid. Are you saying the right aren't actually passing anti-trans laws? This is about actual trans people. The rest is just a bunch of noise being made by political radicals who have reduced American political discourse to my team vs your team. I call in the footballization of politics.

An example of blocking health care - Alabama leading the way in oppression: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/07/us/alabama-transgender-youth-bill.html

Also, sex and gender are not as clear cut as the radical right want you to believe.

 

[BugI02]

Nailed it