JDMS
Academic Workhorse
US law?? Do you think every diagnosis for every condition is written into the US constitution or something?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Transgender questions
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
US law?? Do you think every diagnosis for every condition is written into the US constitution or something?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
It's an individual's sense of unease or discomfort that can result from your biological sex not matching your gender identity.
It's not a legal term, it's a medical term.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
No. "Mother" and "father" are labels that are independent of the biological birth of a baby.
My friend is adopted. The people who raised them did not produce them biologically, but they are still considered their mother and father.
This is not uncommon. It's pretty obvious.
Not really. The transman gave birth. That doesn’t necessarily mean the person in question will be fulfilling the societal role of mothering the children. I can’t comment one way or the other what their specific family dynamic will look like, though.
Remember, when it comes to nature, giving birth isn’t strictly a female activity.
It’s merely a biological phenomenon. Being a mother and a father are strictly social roles that anyone can fulfil for a child. Even if they didn’t give birth to them.
(How do you think adoption works, my guy?)
And you claim to be on the side of biology?
Every doctor I know would facepalm at your analogy. Just saying
On mainstream, broadcast TV? I'm surprised the "N" words weren't bleeped.
American TV is like a roller coaster. What's acceptable to view or talk about varies from year to year, and varies quite widely over the decades.
OK, I'll date myself, now.
In the 1950s, In Baltimore, USA; topless women and near nudity was acceptable as long as they were native 'negroes', Bushman (San), Polynesian or, sometimes, 'oriental'. On UHF channels, I saw topless Caucasian women on at least one 'art' show.
On the other hand, men and women were rarely seen in the same bed, and when they were, the man had to sit with at least one foot touching the floor. Toilets weren't seen. Most bad language was banned. Commercials for cigarettes and beer were OK, but not for anything involving anatomy below the belt.
By the '70s braless women were commonly seen, and shows like Roots and Shaka Zulu featured bare breasted (black) women in prime time. Products involving anything sexual were still not aired.
By the '90s or early 2000s, now in Albuquerque, Nude paintings and sculpture were OK, 'discrete' products were advertised, and cigarette and alcohol ads were no more. I don't recall any topless women on mainstream, broadcast TV, but on Public Broadcasting channels, there were art shows like EGG, that sometimes featured full frontal nudity, as long as the models weren't moving.
Nowadays, explicit illustrated ads are common, but braless scenes from '70s shows are blurred, and I've even seen blurred bikini scenes and blurred torsos of three, four or five year old girls on the beach. What's up with that? Many swear words are still forbidden, but nude paintings and sculpture still seem to be OK.
By American standards, it's a wonder the whole population of Europe isn't running amok!
I deeply respect this approach.
I don't agree with it, I am sorry.
I think that the law relies on pillars, on firm points. Cornerstones based on jusnaturalism.
In my country, the juridical tradition has always relied on DNA, biology.
In fact they accuse us of being eugenicists and fascists.
I think that the person who delivers a child is the mother of a child.
The legal definition of mother is "the person who delivers the child".
And the legal definition of father is "the person who contributed with their own sperms".
I respect the psychological implications of each individual. But the law here won't allow FtMs to be called "fathers". I am sorry.
That's not what transsexuality is. Trannsexuality is being disconnected from the endocrine system assigned at birth by nature.
If you deliver a child, it means you are perfectly aligned with your sexual apparatus and your endocrine system.
Your friend was conceived through a heterosexual intercourse. A woman and a man who had sex.
Also. It's both medical and legal because law relies on medicine.
Law?I deeply respect this approach.
I don't agree with it, I am sorry.
I think that the law relies on pillars, on firm points. Cornerstones based on jusnaturalism.
In my country, the juridical tradition has always relied on DNA, biology.
In fact they accuse us of being eugenicists and fascists.
I think that the person who delivers a child is the mother of a child.
The legal definition of mother is "the person who delivers the child".
And the legal definition of father is "the person who contributed with their own sperms".
I respect the psychological implications of each individual. But the law here won't allow FtMs to be called "fathers". I am sorry.
That's not what transsexuality is. Trannsexuality is being disconnected from the endocrine system assigned at birth by nature.
If you deliver a child, it means you are perfectly aligned with your sexual apparatus and your endocrine system.
I thought you said this was a matter of biology?
Biology doesn’t care about law. That’s a seperate intellectual subject altogether
There must be a universal definition of transsexuality. Law consists of universal definitions.
Last edited:
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
You seem to have missed the point of my post.
They were RAISED by two people who did not have intercourse to produce them, and yet they are referred to as their mother and father. Hence, these labels have nothing to do with how a person was conceived or who conceived them.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
This is like asking for a legal definition of "depression".
It's a medical term. It's diagnosed by doctors. The law may acknowledge it, but if it does so it does it entirely on the basis of MEDICAL recommendation. Law does not determine or define dysphoria - doctors do.
For example, two married gay men adopt a child. They are the adoptive parents.
But that child has a biological father and a biological mother.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
That's different to asking for a legal definition of "gender dysphoria". They are not the same thing.
Not really. Laws differ drastically across nations and in some cases even differs in different states.
Laws are not universal and are extremely malleable.
Biology doesn’t care about law, it doesn’t care about legal definitions and it doesn’t care how humans apply it.
Now medical matters, as it pertains to the application to citizens, may be hindered or restricted or otherwise interfered with due to specific laws, depending on the country and it’s circumstances.
But I suspect most medical professionals find such laws to be unscientific and therefore unworthy of intellectual respect. Even if they begrudgingly follow them until they can be overturned.
See any doctor throughly disgusted by anti abortion laws, for example.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
But that doesn't mean that the gay couple cannot be referred to as their child's fathers.
If you want to talk about BIOLOGICAL mother and father, that's a different subject. A person can be a BIOLOGICAL mother without being referred to as a mother, and the same for fathers.
This isn't complicated, Estro. You knew this.
Surely, in extremely liberal countries it's like that.
My country isn't. It all revolves around the supreme authority called State who decides who is what, when it deals with family law.
Uhh any country that relies exclusively on the state to define literally everything, is usually labelled “authoritarian.”Surely, in extremely liberal countries it's like that.
My country isn't. It all revolves around the supreme authority called State who decides who is what, when it deals with family law.
Like North Korea, for instance.
The State ideally (though this obviously doesn’t happen a whole lot) should be working in tandem with actual scientists, medical and mental health professionals to ensure that their laws, policies etc are ideally suited to what the actual scientific data supports. Which can change due to new research, obviously.
This should also be in conjunction with serving the interests of the citizens who elected them to represent them in the first place.
But like I said, that’s the ideal.
Life is obviously a lot more messy than that (and often quite stupid to boot lol.)
There's an anthropological tendency to focus more on privacy, more, in your country.
Here not. What's privacy? We don't even an Italian word for that. I recall this day, when there was a divorce trial and the doors of the courtroom were astoundingly open.
And from the corridor you could hear the divorcing wife speaking out loud of her sex life in detail, to convince the judge that the husband was not a performing spouse.
I burst out laughing.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Yup. One of those digital channels on antenna.
I also saw Tim Blake Nelson's Leaves of Grass on some indy movie channel. Again, uncensored.
Tosh.0 I've also seen uncensored (albiet late at night).