Students Are Pushing Back Against Gender Ideology In Their Schools

[Copernicus]

Is it your view that intersex is a biological distinction like male and female? If so that is 3. Do you agree with the dozens many in the trans community claim? Or just the 3.

What I have said is that there is a continuum in both biology and gender identity. The issue here is not how we categorize and name different categories of sexuality or gender identity, but what our social policies should be in accommodating the needs of people who don't fit neatly into the traditional roles at the ends of the scale.

That’s different! If I wanted to have my leg amputated because I identify as an amputee, my health care would not cover that either! Again; transgender individuals have the same health care I and others have.

That is an utterly absurd comparison. People do not generally want to have limbs amputated or operations to change their sex. Medical professionals diagnose treatments when they are warranted. You don't have the same care as transgender individuals, because you simply don't have the same medical condition. These new Republican initiatives are specifically to deny them health care that addresses their medical needs, not yours.

https://www.hrc.org/resources/attacks-on-gender-affirming-care-by-state-map

That’s different! It appears YOU are the only one changing the goal posts here. At first you said of transgender people

, and they all have the same need to use public restrooms that the rest of us do.

Those were your exact words. Now you’re changing it to using public restrooms according to their gender identity! I can’t use public restrooms according to their identity if I wanted to either! It’s the same. Obviously restrooms usage is not based on how you subjectively identify yourself, it’s based on your biology. My point stands.

No it does not, and there are plenty of state laws that legally entitle people to use the restroom that suits gender identity. And the term "transgender" refers to people whose gender identity does not correspond to the gender on their birth certificate, i.e. their "biology" in your terms. You seem genuinely confused about the difference, even though it has been explained to you repeatedly.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That’s why I asked do you view intersex as a biological sex category like male and female; because though some may, not everybody does.

Right, because biological classification is very complex. Hence why saying it is a simple binary is incredibly inaccurate.

Some see intersex males and intersex females; the difference being intersex males have the y chromosome, intersex females don’t.

Is that the difference? Because there are intersex people with Y chromosomes who may still be considered female. Chromosomes have never been the singular, defining trait for biological classification.

However for the sake of conversation if you see 3 categories I’m okay with that; male, female, and intersex. However as I said before, intersex has little to do with the transgender issue, people claiming transgender are rarely intersex, and 3 categories is a far cry from the dozens proclaimed by the trans community.

That's because they're talking about GENDER, not sex.

Again, YOU KNOW THIS. I have explained it to you, MULTIPLE TIMES. You know that sex and gender are different things.

Why are you still pretending not to know these things that I and other posters have taken so much time to explain to you?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Right, because biological classification is very complex. Hence why saying it is a simple binary is incredibly inaccurate.


Is that the difference? Because there are intersex females with Y chromosomes. Chromosomes have never been the singular, defining trait for biological classification.


That's because they're talking about GENDER, not sex.

Again, YOU KNOW THIS. I have explained it to you, MULTIPLE TIMES. You know that sex and gender are different things.

Why are you still pretending not to know these things that I and other posters have taken so much time to explain to you?

@Kfox
As far as I can tell the trick is as follows:
There are biological facts and social norms. I choose to use biological facts in how I treat other humans, but that is different because that I choose that is not really a norm as it is based on biological facts and then doesn't real count as that I have a social norm or how I subjective choose to treat other humans.

 

[metis]

Some see intersex males and intersex females; the difference being intersex males have the y chromosome, intersex females don’t.

Are you going to check what's in their pants before they go in?

 

[Kfox]

What I have said is that there is a continuum in both biology and gender identity.

Nobody disagrees with this.

The issue here is not how we categorize and name different categories of sexuality or gender identity, but what our social policies should be in accommodating the needs of people who don't fit neatly into the traditional roles at the ends of the scale.

Actually what we call people who don’t fit in these traditional roles is a huge part of this discussion as well

That is an utterly absurd comparison. People do not generally want to have limbs amputated or operations to change their sex.

But for those who do, their health care is the same as mine. That’s my only point here.

Medical professionals diagnose treatments when they are warranted. You don't have the same care as transgender individuals, because you simply don't have the same medical condition. These new Republican initiatives are specifically to deny them health care that addresses their medical needs, not yours.

I think part of the problem is you keep making your point in a way that gives a false impression. When you say Trans are not allowed medical coverage, this gives the impression they are not allowed ANY medical coverage (heart disease, diabetes, dental, etc) If you are trying to make the point that there are states that will not allow giving medical castration drugs to healthy children who are too young to consent, SAY SO! Say what you mean.

No it does not, and there are plenty of state laws that legally entitle people to use the restroom that suits gender identity.

At first you said NOTHING about gender identity. Ya see; you’re doing it again! You keep saying one thing but meaning another, and I’m supposed to guess what you actually meant.
Your original statement should have included not being allowed to use restroom facilities that correlate with their gender identity; that way I would have known what you were talking about instead of having to guess.

 

[Kfox]

Is that the difference? Because there are intersex people with Y chromosomes who may still be considered female. Chromosomes have never been the singular, defining trait for biological classification.

It is my understanding if a person has the sex Chromosome “Y” they are male regardless of whatever plumbing they might have.

That's because they're talking about GENDER, not sex.

No; this discussion is about biological sex; not gender as currently described.

Again, YOU KNOW THIS. I have explained it to you, MULTIPLE TIMES. You know that sex and gender are different things.

Why are you still pretending not to know these things that I and other posters have taken so much time to explain to you?

I’ve been very clear, I am talking about biological sex, yet you keep trying to make it about gender as defined today, then act as if I pretend not to know the difference. Why do you do this?

 

[Kfox]

@Kfox
As far as I can tell the trick is as follows:
There are biological facts and social norms. I choose to use biological facts in how I treat other humans, but that is different because that I choose that is not really a norm as it is based on biological facts and then doesn't real count as that I have a social norm or how I subjective choose to treat other humans.

What do you think of the idea of dispelling these social norms; getting rid of them? For example; if a biological male prefers pink to blue, prefers knitting to sports, prefers dresses to pants, that’s okay because it is considered perfectly normal for a biological male to prefer these things; rather than teaching our kids a boy can be a girl and a girl can be a boy just because they think they are? IOW what’s the worse that can happen if we just got rid of these sexist gender stereotypes, and described humans in according to their biological sex?

 

[Kfox]

Are you going to check what's in their pants before they go in?

Why would I do something like that?

 

[metis]

Why would I do something like that?

That's the point.

 

[Kfox]

That's the point.

No; make your point. I'm tired of trying to guess.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It is my understanding if a person has the sex Chromosome “Y” they are male regardless of whatever plumbing they might have.

Then your understanding is insufficient.

No; this discussion is about biological sex; not gender as currently described.

When people bring up that there are dozens of GENDERS, they are talking about GENDER, not SEX. You were the one who brought them up.

I’ve been very clear, I am talking about biological sex, yet you keep trying to make it about gender as defined today, then act as if I pretend not to know the difference.

No, YOU brought up people who say there are multiple GENDERS as if they are saying that there are dozens of SEXES. You did that.

Why do you do this?

Why do you have to be dishonest?

Here is what it said in the post by me that you responded to:

"You acknowledge the existence of intersex people, then literally ask what other categories of sex exist except male and female. Your arguments are self-defeating."

Notice that there is NO MENTION OF GENDER OR OF TRANSGENDER INDIVIDUALS in the above post.

Here is what you said again in your response to the above (emphasis mine):

"However as I said before, intersex has little to do with the transgender issue, people claiming transgender are rarely intersex, and 3 categories is a far cry from the dozens proclaimed by the trans community."

YOU brought up the GENDER identities and equated them to the BIOLOGICAL SEXES that I was talking about, and now that I have explained that YOU got the distinction wrong, suddenly I'M the one who is bringing gender into a discussion about sex?

No, YOU did that because of the mistake in understanding you made.

Why can't you just admit that you made a mistake?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What do you think of the idea of dispelling these social norms; getting rid of them? For example; if a biological male prefers pink to blue, prefers knitting to sports, prefers dresses to pants, that’s okay because it is considered perfectly normal for a biological male to prefer these things; rather than teaching our kids a boy can be a girl and a girl can be a boy just because they think they are? IOW what’s the worse that can happen if we just got rid of these sexist gender stereotypes, and described humans in according to their biological sex?

Because you'd still be creating social categories and tying them to biological classifications. You're saying we need to do away with gender as a concept, but still define ourselves and others within rigid, biological archetypes. That's exactly what lead to the problems with gender association in the first place; you're just replicating the exact same social system.

See, what you're talking about is called gender abolition, and it's a position I actually hold myself. The only difference is that I don't think people should be defined, socially, by aspects of themselves that they did not freely choose. Whether you accept it or not, your imaginary scenario of eradicating the concept of gender and replacing individual associations with biological classifications can only really result in the exact same rigid system replicating itself. I want a system where people can define and determine for themselves what they associate with and can be identified as. You won't create greater freedom from the chains of gender stereotypes by insisting the way we refer to ourselves and each other needs to be shackled by our biological makeup. It's a fantasy if you believe this won't just end up working out the exact same way.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What do you think of the idea of dispelling these social norms; getting rid of them? For example; if a biological male prefers pink to blue, prefers knitting to sports, prefers dresses to pants, that’s okay because it is considered perfectly normal for a biological male to prefer these things; rather than teaching our kids a boy can be a girl and a girl can be a boy just because they think they are? IOW what’s the worse that can happen if we just got rid of these sexist gender stereotypes, and described humans in according to their biological sex?

So treating them according to their biology is still a norm. That is what you don't understand.

 

[wellwisher]

"Sex is a multidimensional biological construct based on anatomy, physiology, genetics, and hormones. (These components are sometimes referred to together as “sex traits.”)[2] All animals (including humans) have a sex. As is common across health research communities, NIH usually categorizes sex as male or female, although variations do occur. These variations are called differences in sex development (DSD) or intersex conditions.[3]"

"Gender can be broadly defined as a multidimensional construct that encompasses gender identity and expression, as well as social and cultural expectations about status, characteristics, and behavior as they are associated with certain sex traits.[2] Understandings of gender vary throughout historical and cultural contexts."

Sex & Gender

What are Sex & Gender? And why do they matter in health research? Understanding sex and gender is critical to understanding human health and disease.

orwh.od.nih.gov

Sex is based on biological factors, while gender is more of a social construct. Sex is innate based on an entire chromosome instead of a few genes. There are two such entire chromosomes, that need to team up to procreate. We call these male and female.

Gender is based more on education, cultural norms, will and choice. Biology does not pick gender, but sets a natural platform for its optimization, connected to sex, pregnancy, birth, babies and children. Social constructs for gender, can have an affect on biology, connected to will and choices, beyond natural instinct into the unnatural.

For example, women in the Middle East cover up their bodies, hair and faces, while women in the West are more revealing, thereby increasing the sexual libido baseline in Western men. This keeping the motor idling can cause divorce. In terms of culture and objectivity, the best genders, connected to natural sexuality, should not need a lot of propping up, since that wastes too much resources to be natural.

Force feeding student this new gender construct, while punishing those who do not go along, all while sneaking behind parent's backs, tells me that this new construct is using brainwash style conditioning, that if blocked by parents would not allow the construct to take its full affect. If this was natural it would not be done like a Communist re-education camp, run by the State, and the shady Democrats Party Leadership.

Body art grew naturally and organically. It did not need regimented conditioning and oppression techniques to force a construct. It evolved with minimal push or pull; relaxed. Too much push or pull is a tell, for an extreme form of non organic conditioning. If you follow the money who gains by this brain washing. The Medical and Pharm Industries and the Democrat Party Officials who take their donations.

I am not against those suckered into the gender fad, but this is not going to end well, so be aware. Because it is not organic and relaxed but rather forced, will cause the unconscious mind to make a correction.

 

[fantome profane]

No; make your point. I'm tired of trying to guess.

The point is, that if you were to station yourself outside of a set of public washrooms, and sort people according to which you think they should go into, you would do so according to their appearance based on the cultural norms you have assimilated. In other words you would do so based on GENDER. Not sex.

 

[fantome profane]

Force feeding student this new gender construct, while punishing those who do not go along,

Interesting that you talk about force. I can assume you would be opposed to using the power of the state to impose cultural gender norms. I assume you don't want the police going into private homes or private businesses and arresting people if they are not following culturally approved norms.

 

[metis]

No; make your point. I'm tired of trying to guess.

No; make your point. I'm tired of trying to guess.

@mikkel_the_dane certainly understood it, so why can't you? Either way, your position makes no sense in reality, so there's no where else for me to go with this.

 

[Copernicus]

The issue here is not how we categorize and name different categories of sexuality or gender identity, but what our social policies should be in accommodating the needs of people who don't fit neatly into the traditional roles at the ends of the scale.​

​

Actually what we call people who don’t fit in these traditional roles is a huge part of this discussion as well

Why? You've already admitted that there is a continuum between the sexes. How we classify those in between the ends of the spectrum is irrelevant to the discussion of how we ought to treat them as equal citizens in the eyes of the law. Let scientists and medical experts deal with the details of their health care needs. That's why most states guarantee the right of transgender individuals to medical care that suits their needs.

That is an utterly absurd comparison. People do not generally want to have limbs amputated or operations to change their sex.​

But for those who do, their health care is the same as mine. That’s my only point here.

Who do what? Want to have their limbs amputated? That's absurd. Nobody has a frivolous medical reason to want to amputate a limb. They have a compelling medical need to do so. Want to change their biological classification? That's absurd only if they have no compelling need to do so. It's not absurd, if they have a good medical reason to want that. You need to recognize the difference.

I think part of the problem is you keep making your point in a way that gives a false impression. When you say Trans are not allowed medical coverage, this gives the impression they are not allowed ANY medical coverage (heart disease, diabetes, dental, etc) If you are trying to make the point that there are states that will not allow giving medical castration drugs to healthy children who are too young to consent, SAY SO! Say what you mean.

First of all, it is disingenuous to say that they have the same medical coverage when their medical coverage specifically rules out treatment of the medical needs. As for giving consent, all children are too young to give informed consent. That's why their adult caretakers are the ones who give it in consultation with those trained to assess their medical needs. And neither you nor I are one of those experts, nor do we have the same compelling interest in the well-being of the young patients. We have no standing to interfere on that subject, nor should the government unless there is a compelling social purpose to justify that interference. Furthermore, discriminatory rules against healthcare for transgender individuals also affect adults who are very definitely of age to give their consent.

No it does not, and there are plenty of state laws that legally entitle people to use the restroom that suits gender identity.​

​

At first you said NOTHING about gender identity. Ya see; you’re doing it again! You keep saying one thing but meaning another, and I’m supposed to guess what you actually meant.
Your original statement should have included not being allowed to use restroom facilities that correlate with their gender identity; that way I would have known what you were talking about instead of having to guess.

Nonsense. I have been talking about gender identity from the beginning, just like everyone else. The use of bathrooms in schools is entirely relevant to the thread topic, so you wouldn't need to guess that if you had been paying attention. I'm not the cause of your confusion.

 

[Kfox]

Then your understanding is insufficient.

Can you be a little more specific?

When people bring up that there are dozens of GENDERS, they are talking about GENDER, not SEX. You were the one who brought them up.


No, YOU brought up people who say there are multiple GENDERS as if they are saying that there are dozens of SEXES. You did that.

This all started when I stated when I refer to a biological male as he, I am referring to his biology rather than gender; so I will not be misgendering him. The person I was responding to during that time tried to make the case he/she only refers to gender, not biology which I disagreed and provided evidence that it an be applied to both. I did point to the dozens of genders as one of many reasons to use biology, and the person I was discussing with did not seem to want to accept the idea that there are dozens of genders so I asked him how many are there and he did not give an answer. That is the context of me mentioning gender during the points I made.

Why do you have to be dishonest?

Here is what it said in the post by me that you responded to:

"You acknowledge the existence of intersex people, then literally ask what other categories of sex exist except male and female. Your arguments are self-defeating."

Notice that there is NO MENTION OF GENDER OR OF TRANSGENDER INDIVIDUALS in the above post.

Here is what you said again in your response to the above (emphasis mine):

"However as I said before, intersex has little to do with the transgender issue, people claiming transgender are rarely intersex, and 3 categories is a far cry from the dozens proclaimed by the trans community."

YOU brought up the GENDER identities and equated them to the BIOLOGICAL SEXES that I was talking about, and now that I have explained that YOU got the distinction wrong, suddenly I'M the one who is bringing gender into a discussion about sex?

No, YOU did that because of the mistake in understanding you made.

Why can't you just admit that you made a mistake?

On post #835 I had made the point that biology consisted of 2 categories, not dozens like gender. You said there were more than 2 pointing to intersex. Though I don’t agree it is a biological distinction but more of a deformity/abnormality, but for the sake of conversation I was willing to say 3 which is much better than dozens of genders.

 

[Kfox]

Because you'd still be creating social categories and tying them to biological classifications. You're saying we need to do away with gender as a concept, but still define ourselves and others within rigid, biological archetypes.

No. The whole idea of going with biology is to NOT define ourselves and others with rigid biological archetypes. As I said; getting rid of sexist stereotypes. Yeah we can recognize on average men behave this way and women behave that way, but that behavior should not in any way define man vs woman.
Again; what’s the worse that can happen if we did this?