Students Are Pushing Back Against Gender Ideology In Their Schools

[SkepticThinker]

That is nonsense. My definition aligns with that of the NIH. Self serving definitions from the "trans industry" are piffle.

Does it though? I mean, all you did was post the definition of the word "chromosome" from Medline Plus.

 

[Shaul]

Your cherry picked definition excludes all variants. And I very much doubt the authors would support you in your desires and wants to misgender those of a chromosomal variance and intersexed individuals.

NIH doesn't agree with your cherry picking and over simplifying things, and they certainly don't support your Sovietesque use of science to justify being a jerk.

The definition of male as those with a Y chromosome is cogent, unambiguous and comports with the NIH definition and with science. It doesn't impugn anyone nor discriminate against anyone. In contrast others want to abolish any precise definition without putting forth an alternative. The "jerks" are those that prefer chaos to clarity.

 

[Kfox]

What if the gender of one's brain doesn't match the plumbing?

What do you mean by your brain matching our plumbing?

 

[Shaul]

You believe that pronouns are part of an agenda to increase surgeries?

Not entirely but, yes, it is a part of it. You really think it isn't?

 

[Kfox]

Which biology....
Assigned at birth?

Nothing is assigned at birth, your biology is determined at conception, and confirmed at birth or before

During transition to a different sex?
After transition?
Sex that differs from one's gender presentation?

The law is fuzzy when it comes to those details, but even after transitioning, your biology has not. But biological males should go to the boys room, biological females to the girls room.

It looks far more complicated to me
than the singular word, "biology".

No it’s not complicated at all. If you have a y sex chromosome, you go to one room, all x’s the other.

I argue that bathroom access should
be based upon that which causes the
least turmoil for everyone using it.

Then go with biology.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The definition of male as those with a Y chromosome is cogent, unambiguous and comports with the NIH definition and with science.

Except it's almost completely useless, because it has no relation to how we interact, what modes of address we use, and cannot be verified in any circumstance that isn't a literal genetic examination.

And it's not consistent with science. Science has understood that biological sex is more complicated than a simple binary classification for decades. You're just drawing an arbitrary line.

It doesn't impugn anyone nor discriminate against anyone. In contrast others want to abolish any precise definition without putting forth an alternative. The "jerks" are those that prefer chaos to clarity.

We have an alternative, and it's the one we're literally all already using - including you - and it's the one science has understood for decades. We use the SOCIAL CONSTRUCT of gender.

 

[We Never Know]

Except it's almost completely useless, because it has no relation to how we interact, what modes of address we use, and cannot be verified in any circumstance that isn't a literal genetic examination.

And it's not consistent with science. Science has understood that biological sex is more complicated than a simple binary classification for decades. You're just drawing an arbitrary line.


We have an alternative, and it's the one we're literally all already using - including you - and it's the one science has understood for decades. We use the SOCIAL CONSTRUCT of gender.

"We use the SOCIAL CONSTRUCT"

"social construct--
an idea that has been created and accepted by the people in a society"

Would religion be considered social construct?

 

[Shaul]

Except it's almost completely useless, because it has no relation to how we interact, what modes of address we use, and cannot be verified in any circumstance that isn't a literal genetic examination.

And it's not consistent with science. Science has understood that biological sex is more complicated than a simple binary classification for decades. You're just drawing an arbitrary line.


We have an alternative, and it's the one we're literally all already using - including you - and it's the one science has understood for decades. We use the SOCIAL CONSTRUCT of gender.

On the contrary, it is most useful and efficacious. It illuminates laser-like the inanity of the gobbledygook being spouted by preposterous bohemian philistines.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

On the contrary, it is most useful and efficacious. It illuminates laser-like the inanity of the gobbledygook being spouted by preposterous bohemian philistines.

Okay then. I define a man as anyone with green eyes, and a woman as anyone who doesn't have green eyes.

There we go. That is, according to you, useful and efficacious. Except, moreso, because we can actually SEE what colour eyes people have, whereas you cannot possibly - on a day to day basis - examine someone's chromosomes.

So, do you have green eyes?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

"We use the SOCIAL CONSTRUCT"

"social construct--
an idea that has been created and accepted by the people in a society"

Would religion be considered social construct?

I would say yes.

And it's a social construct.

 

[Shaul]

Okay then. I define a man as anyone with green eyes, and a woman as anyone who doesn't have green eyes.

There we go. That is, according to you, useful and efficacious. Except, moreso, because we can actually SEE what colour eyes people have, whereas you cannot possibly - on a day to day basis - examine someone's chromosomes.

So, do you have green eyes?

It was quite useful and efficacious in displaying your silliness. But nothing more.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It was quite useful and efficacious in displaying your silliness. But nothing more.

Oh? What's silly about it? It is every bit as useful and efficacious as yours and more, because we can actually SEE people's eyes and their colour.

Unless you want to argue that people's eye colours are NOT a biological feature? Do you believe they're socially constructed? I would argue such a position would make you a bohemian philistine.

 

[We Never Know]

Oh? What's silly about it? It is every bit as useful and efficacious as yours and more, because we can actually SEE people's eyes and their colour.

Unless you want to argue that people's eye colours are NOT a biological feature? Do you believe they're socially constructed? I would argue such a position would make you a bohemian philistine.

Being all mammals have an XY chromosomal sex determining system but not all have green eyes, it wasnt a good comparison IMO

 

[We Never Know]

I would say yes.

And it's a social construct.

"I would say yes"

And look how its attacked and people are ridiculed

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not entirely but, yes, it is a part of it. You really think it isn't?

Why on earth do you think it is?

 

[SkepticThinker]

On the contrary, it is most useful and efficacious. It illuminates laser-like the inanity of the gobbledygook being spouted by preposterous bohemian philistines.

Just repeating yourself while ignoring the many examples of the messiness of biology isn't serving you as well as you seem to think.

 

[We Never Know]

Nothing new. At least one clinician goes as far to screen for gender dysphoria if ASD is present and vice versa. And psychiatric disorders is hella vague.
And because this is all new info to you so you know if a patient presents with psychotic symptoms and diagnosis then there is a more careful examination and screening of things to rule out if such feelings are a dellusion of that.

"psychiatric disorders is hella vague"

Its a broad topic.....

"psychiatric disorder, aka mental disorder, aka mental illness.
-a wide range of conditions that affect mood, thinking, and behavior.

 

[Revoltingest]

What do you mean by your brain matching our plumbing?

People who think they're one
gender, but their sex is the other.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nothing is assigned at birth, your biology is determined at conception, and confirmed at birth or before

Birth certificates assign sex only after birth.
When it's determined in the womb...above my pay grade.
But I think it's very early on.

The law is fuzzy when it comes to those details, but even after transitioning, your biology has not. But biological males should go to the boys room, biological females to the girls room.

No it’s not complicated at all. If you have a y sex chromosome, you go to one room, all x’s the other.

Then go with biology.

Simple for you, but not for me.
I wouldn't force these "men" to use the mens room.

Neither would I send this "woman" into the ladies room.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Being all mammals have an XY chromosomal sex determining system but not all have green eyes, it wasnt a good comparison IMO

It is. It's taking a distinct, biological characteristic and arbitrarily deciding that this one trait is what defines a distinct category it belongs to.