Students Are Pushing Back Against Gender Ideology In Their Schools

[Quintessence]

Then you'd just be wrong, as anyone who has taken even just a cursory look at biology well knows.

Let's be fair here - this is NOT covered in "just a cursory look at biology." Biology is presented in very black-and-white simplistic terms for the high school level and a nuanced examination of sexual reproduction doesn't happen unless you take college-level biology. Maybe it's different in other countries, granted; in general high school education presents a simplified view of topics, biological or otherwise. Did you to a really, really elite high school?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

A vernacular definition that is contrary to science is a mortally wounded one. Science trumps the "gay lobby".

Science doesn't exclude trans people and doesn't see them as their birthsex.
What you're doing is closer to how the Soviets approached things like evolution and that is what's "mortally wounded." For starters science knows Nature is sloppyamd messy so it lacks your rigid black and white approach.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Let's be fair here - this is NOT covered in "just a cursory look at biology." Biology is presented in very black-and-white simplistic terms for the high school level and a nuanced examination of sexual reproduction doesn't happen unless you take college-level biology. Maybe it's different in other countries, granted; in general high school education presents a simplified view of topics, biological or otherwise. Did you to a really, really elite high school?

I went to a public high school. And then university.
I'm not really just referring to the male/female thing specifically here when I say biology is fuzzy. Just overall, biology is a fuzzy thing. Sometimes you get this thing and sometimes you get that thing and sometimes you get conjoined twins and sometimes you get an extra toe or sometimes you get one blue eye and one brown eye or whatever. And we've known for an awfully long time that peoples' gender doesn't always exactly match their biology because there is much more to sexual and gender identity than just X and Y chromosomes and that's it.
Hope that clarifies a bit.

 

[Quintessence]

I went to a public high school. And then university.
I'm not really just referring to the male/female thing specifically here when I say biology is fuzzy. Just overall, biology is a fuzzy thing. Sometimes you get this thing and sometimes you get that thing and sometimes you get conjoined twins and sometimes you get an extra toe or sometimes you get one blue eye and one brown eye or whatever. And we've known for an awfully long time that peoples' gender doesn't always exactly match their biology because there is much more to sexual and gender identity than just X and Y chromosomes and that's it.
Hope that clarifies a bit.

Yeah, it's interesting how different life experiences shape thoughts on this issue, isn't it? Biology was not presented as fuzzy for me until taking AP - at which point my teenage brain realized adults had been lying to me about an awful lot of science things because science teachers would dumb things down for the lowest common denominator. Today I get the reasons for doing that, but still; kids can handle the complexity of reality more than adults give them credit for. And if as kids they get taught a black-and-white view of a complex reality, as adults they get stuck in nonsense like "there's only male and female" when that's demonstrably not the case. Oh well. Folks can believe what they want about it as far a I'm concerned if they are polite enough to live-and-let-live. Problem is that isn't happening right now, and it ruffles my feathers bad...

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The Confederate states were also led by the Democrat party, which apparently is the still the party of racism. All they have done has been to change the color from black to white. The Conservatives, like the did at the time of Lincoln, to fighting against the divisive Democrat propaganda, which now now not only sells racism but also sexism and now genderism.

U.S. Senate: Confederate General Becomes Secretary of the Senate

August 7, 1893
In the several decades that followed the Civil War, the Democratic Party—long associated with the states of the former Confederacy—struggled to restore its standing as a national political organization. After the 1892 elections, many Democrats believed they had finally succeeded. In those contests, for the first time since the war, they captured the presidency and gained control of both houses of Congress. Symbolizing their return to national power, Senate Democrats replaced the incumbent secretary of the Senate—a former Union army general—with a former Confederate general.

So does that mean I'm still a highly devoted Christian and vehemently anti-LGBT myself? I used to be that way, amd by the logic you presented it mustbe true that I still am.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yeah, it's interesting how different life experiences shape thoughts on this issue, isn't it?

It certainly is.

Biology was not presented as fuzzy for me until taking AP - at which point my teenage brain realized adults had been lying to me about an awful lot of science things because science teachers would dumb things down for the lowest common denominator. Today I get the reasons for doing that, but still; kids can handle the complexity of reality more than adults give them credit for.

Great point and and I agree. Kids can handle way more than we seem to think. I think about that when interacting with my niece and nephew all the time.

We had a chemistry teacher in high school who was very well known (and feared) because he didn't cut us kids any slack whatsoever in class. Know your s*** or flunk out. There was no beating around the bush with him.

And if as kids they get taught a black-and-white view of a complex reality, as adults they get stuck in nonsense like "there's only male and female" when that's demonstrably not the case. Oh well. Folks can believe what they want about it as far a I'm concerned if they are polite enough to live-and-let-live. Problem is that isn't happening right now, and it ruffles my feathers bad...

Oh me too.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I went to a public high school. And then university.
I'm not really just referring to the male/female thing specifically here when I say biology is fuzzy. Just overall, biology is a fuzzy thing. Sometimes you get this thing and sometimes you get that thing and sometimes you get conjoined twins and sometimes you get an extra toe or sometimes you get one blue eye and one brown eye or whatever. And we've known for an awfully long time that peoples' gender doesn't always exactly match their biology because there is much more to sexual and gender identity than just X and Y chromosomes and that's it.
Hope that clarifies a bit.

In all my education, including biology, not once did I see something like a woman with AIS being referred to as a man.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But I'm not wrong. Males are defined as persons having a Y chromosome according to biology. The National Institute of Health agrees with me. According to the National Institute of Health Chromosome: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia.

"Two of the chromosomes (the X and the Y chromosome) determine your sex as male or female when you are born. They are called sex chromosomes:

• Females have 2 X chromosomes.
• Males have 1 X and 1 Y chromosome."

You've been shown how many times that doesn't apply to some people? How much longer do we have to keeo saying some people, because Nature can be messy, fall outside of that?

 

[We Never Know]

Sexuality is more influenced by one's hormones than one's "equipment", thus using "male" and "female" may at times have to be qualified as to which one is talking about.

Sex is biology, gender is a social construct(exclusive to humans)

But good news. In todays world if you don't like.....
-your weight, there are drugs and surgery's that can change it.
-your looks, there are drugs and surgery's that can change it.
-your gender, there are drugs and surgery's that can change it.

In 100 years everyone will be created into who they choose to be.

 

[Kfox]

Now you're just excluding old guys and men with testicular cancer.

I also said humans have 2 eyes; does that mean if someone loses an eye in an industrial accident, that they are no longer human?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I also said humans have 2 eyes; does that mean if someone loses an eye in an industrial accident, that they are no longer human?

If you define a human as having two eyes, yes because humans don't always have two eyes. We typically do, which is a better and more accurate definition as there are many reasons why and examples when someone has one or no eyes.

 

[SomeRandom]

I think using people born intersex to justify transgender is misguided. It's not like we have an influx of intersex people with male and female parts claiming to be transgender, What we have are perfectly normal biological males claiming to be women, and perfectly normal biological females claiming to be men.

Oh I actually agree with you here.
Trans is about transitioning to better fit into their gender identity. No one claims that these individuals are not originally biological male/female. Hence the surgery to begin with

Interestingly bans on medical care that is typically performed on trans individuals often affect intersex medical care, sort of by “default.”
So I can see the community having a vested interest in I guess becoming trans allies, for lack of a better phrase.
Not trying to speak on anyone’s behalf or anything. Just an observation

I don't understand this. How is defining male and female simplifying biology?

Because you have to condense all these varying factors into two distinct categories. When in actuality, science records the various “outliers” and always takes those into consideration. Even if they don’t occur very often.

I guess I kind of just meant it in the sense that folks argue these strict biological lines drawn in the sand. But science doesn’t, not really. It shows that there are always going to be exceptions to these rules and that’s just reality.
If that makes sense?

What makes our usage of science inaccurate?

Perhaps “inaccurate” wasn’t the best term.
Maybe incomplete?

 

[fantome profane]

I also said humans have 2 eyes; does that mean if someone loses an eye in an industrial accident, that they are no longer human?

But no one us using ocular status to determine their human rights. We don't have bathrooms signs indicating you can't pee if you have only one eye.

 

[Copernicus]

I also said humans have 2 eyes; does that mean if someone loses an eye in an industrial accident, that they are no longer human?

The thing about definitions is that they are only intended as succinct heuristic statements that serve as a clue to a pattern of usage in a speech community. They aren't the same as word meanings, and they often tend to focus on distinctive aspects of a concept that are unique to the word sense being identified. Meanings themselves are a vast web of associations that are ultimately grounded in the way our bodies interact with physical reality. That is, they depend on filtering through the senses (touch, sight, smell, taste, hearing). You can't fully define a meaning, since it is a kind of network of associations that are more or less central to the concept. Any definition of a human being is just going to identify a piece of the whole, not the whole meaning itself.

What I'm trying to say here is that there is no perfect definition of any physical object, because the meaning is comprised of many different properties. Generally speaking, birds can fly, but there are a number of flightless bird species. Swans tend to be white, but there are also black swans. Different language systems will tend to parse the same reality in slightly different ways, depending on how speakers tend to interact with their environments. If one never sees a black swan, then whiteness can become a distinctive property for defining swans.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, I mean like making up faux umbrage about nonsensical pronouns based on pseudo-scientific prattle and then denying actual science. You say "women" but you haven't provided an unambiguous science based definition for what a woman even is.

I don't have to. You're the one making poor claims that are easily shot down. You are the one insisting chromosomes is the definition, but that's not always known. You are the one using bad science to justify being rude.

 

[Kfox]

If you define a human as having two eyes, yes because humans don't always have two eyes. We typically do, which is a better and more accurate definition as there are many reasons why and examples when someone has one or no eyes.

The problem with your description is that it gives a false impression.
To say Dogs typically have tails, is an accurate description because there are several breeds of dogs that don’t have tails! There is nothing wrong with them, they just don’t have tails. But to say dogs typically have 4 legs, that would give the impression that there might be a few breeds of dogs that have 5 legs, or 3 legs which would be a false impression. Any dog with anything other than 4 legs is the result of something gone wrong with that dog sometime during his life.
To say humans typically have 2 eyes gives the impression there might be some race of people who are born with anything other than 2 eyes which is not true. This would be giving a false impression because any human with anything less other than 2 eyes means something is very wrong with them

 

[Kfox]

But no one us using ocular status to determine their human rights. We don't have bathrooms signs indicating you can't pee if you have only one eye.

View attachment 79012
View attachment 79013

That's because there are federal laws in place preventing such discrimination.

 

[fantome profane]

That's because there are federal laws in place preventing such discrimination.

There should be laws in place preventing other forms as well

 

[Shaul]

You are being disgustingly dishonest, and for your information I've had a Scientific American subscription since the early 1970's.

I think it is hilarious that you think having a long subscription to Scientific American gives you credibility. It doesn't.

 

[Shaul]

Science doesn't exclude trans people and doesn't see them as their birthsex.
What you're doing is closer to how the Soviets approached things like evolution and that is what's "mortally wounded." For starters science knows Nature is sloppyamd messy so it lacks your rigid black and white approach.

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