Non sequitur. Those are the two viewpoints in favor of the 1.7%Well, feel free to troll the internet for acceptable cites. Those are the 2 opposing viewpoints to the 1.7% statistic.
Great example. We didn't stop at what knew in the 1600s, we added to it as our body of knowledge increased.Well, any discipline using calculus in its underpinnings is relying on science from the 1600s
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.I'm glad we don't stick to the science of the 1400's.
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?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 It's not outdated, except in the minds of ideologues who want reality to be something else.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.
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?
For over 30 years, GLAAD has been at the forefront of cultural change, accelerating acceptance for the LGBTQ community.
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.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.
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 genotypeYes, 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?
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".
"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.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.
Blocking access to health care? Can you give me a legitimate example of such a law?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.
Well, the Jimmy Kimmel thing was a joke.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.
None of the rest of us have the 'right' to force a baker to bake a cake if he does not wish toI said before any "agenda" is just trying to not be denied rights
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
I suspect he means 'gender affirming care', such as prescribing puberty blockers to minor children against their parents wishesBlocking access to health care? Can you give me a legitimate example of such a law?
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.
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.
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.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.