Or improved so as to avoid these complications. — Banno

In the clinics in the US and the UK, kids 13.5 years old would receive 2 therapy sessions, and then be approved for puberty blockers, gender affirming hormones, and surgery. By the time they were through, all the trans women they had produced were permanently infertile and sexually dysfunctional. This info is coming from whistle blowers who worked in the clinics. It was a disaster.

..the consequences are permanent infertility and sexual dysfunction.
— frank

That's a bit like saying that giving blood causes Myocardial infarction. It happens, but not often. — Banno

No, every male who takes puberty blockers will be permanently infertile and will never have an orgasm.

What we can conclude is that that there are issues, and urge caution. In both directions. — Banno

Puberty blockers will eventually be illegal everywhere.

Isn't there a danger there that someone who is serious about gender reassignment down the road could benefit from puberty blockers at adolescence and we're taking away that option? — RogueAI

They give them in early puberty and the consequences are permanent infertility and sexual dysfunction. That's not a decision an adolescent, still working out who they are, should be making.

white supremacy bullshit. — Christoffer

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. Find out the facts first.

:up:

The homicide rate in S. Africa is 45 per 100,000. The homicide rate for whites specifically is 3.3 per 100,000.

The homicide rate for blacks in the Southeast during the 1950s was 45 per 100,000.

I don't think we could describe what's happening to whites in South Africa as a genocide. There's just a lot of violence, most of which does not affect whites.

It's concerning. It doesn't look very organized, though.

Since 1994, approximately 4,000, or around 130 per year. — BitconnectCarlos

Where did you find this info? I can't find it.

How many were actually killed?

Imagine that we have a university that wants to make sure it's providing opportunities to women. To that end, they select students based on a quota.

Should they prioritize trans-women along with biological women?

..
The way this is related to women's rights has to do with a Scottish law that required a certain number of women on local councils. This law was supposed to protect women's right to a voice. At first any self proclaimed woman could get on the council to meet the requirement. But then they started requiring paperwork, which could be a birth certificate. I'm guessing this improved the situation, but since a biological man can have the sex on his birth certificate changed, the women were still upset.

This started events in motion which had the UK Supreme Court declare that the requirement has to be met by biological women.

Can't a man, living as a woman, represent the voice of women? Why not?

I have no idea. — Malcolm Parry

I guess that makes two of us. :grin:

I actually don't understand how biological absolutism has anything to do with the struggles of blacks and gays. How is it even vaguely related?

A trans woman is not a woman. — Malcolm Parry

:up:

Thanks.

And teach people not to lear. — Banno

:lol:

Why this lavish interest in the contents of other people's underwear? — Banno

Apparently it came up in the UK due to Scottish women not wanting trans-women in their loos. This led to the UK government declaring that "woman" refers to biology. This whole issue goes back to the 1950s when John Money, who had little in the way of mental health, declared that gender and biological sex are not the same thing. The UK just said: yes they are.

Don't you find it unsettling that this issue needed to go to your highest court to be settled?

Might have been simpler if folk just butted out of other people's business, don't you think? — Banno

Definitely simpler.

I remain puzzled as to why other folk should have a say in which loo someone chooses to use at all. — Banno

I guess the "other folk" think they can make whatever laws they like, and up to a point, they can. In the US, the SCOTUS said the right of trans people to use the loo that aligns with their gender is protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Someone might question that in the future, but right now, local governments can't do what the UK did.

Maybe so. You can definitely work on raising awareness of that issue.

We can say anything we like, but what's the justification behind this decision? If it's acceptable for someone who is intersex to identify a woman and use the women's bathroom then why isn't it acceptable for someone who isn't intersex to identify a woman and use the women's bathroom? — Michael

In a democracy, it just comes down to what the community wants. You can argue against the prevailing view, but I would pick something more persuasive than what about intersex people?

What concerns me more is the safety of any LGBTQ person using the men's restroom. And that comes from working in the emergency room and seeing what crazy men do to people like that.

There's a limit to what the police can do to protect people. To some extent everyone needs to be thinking about what they need to do to keep themselves safe. It's just the way it is.

We could say that everybody who has an identified biological sex goes to the restroom that aligns with that. People who don't have a biological sex go wherever they want. It's not a logical problem, not that human life is usually governed by logic.

Please, don't say that. I participate on this forum to be doubted. I participate on this forum to have my arguments criticized - logically - that I might learn and evolve. It seems that a lot of people on this forum are not here for the same reasons. — Harry Hindu

:smile:

This is a point I made 6 years ago. Nice to see you're finally catching up. — Harry Hindu

You're a genius Harry. Sorry we ever doubted you.

Those roles are sexist, gender-based stereotypes. Is that not clear to you? — Harry Hindu

That is something more people are realizing. It's ok to be a butch woman. It's ok to be a feminine guy. What activists were doing in both the US and the UK was putting every child who explored gender onto a path toward transition. Next, a "social contagion" appeared in the form of internet social media. Suddenly thousands of young people, particularly adolescent girls, were saying they might be trans, and the activists basically engineered a disaster. The trans activists fucked up.

The backlash is forming.

How are they not the same thing? What is the relationship between the two? — Harry Hindu

Trans activists wanted to say that gender is about roles people play in society. A biological male can dress and behave in a typically feminine way. Therefore, people can transition if they want to.

Is that not clear to you?

If it's not off-topic then sex and gender are one and the same. — Harry Hindu

I think the point trans activists were making was that gender and biological sex are not necessarily the same the thing. There's no reason we couldn't separate them. I think that's true, but there are no signs that the majority of the population is going to separate them. There's no amount of activism that can force them to do so.

Also, gender affirming care should absolutely not be provided to people below the age of 18. It should be made very clear to everyone that undergoing medical transition causes permanent infertility, and trans-women who undergo that kind of transition will never have another orgasm.

No, I am trying to explain to them that it is not the case that every single human without exception is either (unambiguously) biologically male or (unambiguously) biologically female.

There are real people who really exist who do not fit within such a neat and tidy dichotomy. — Michael

Good. So you admit that biological sex is a very important and meaningful distinction. :up:

Malcolm Parry and AmadeusD are claiming that every single human without exception is either (unambiguously) biologically male or (unambiguously) biologically female.

My question to them (and to which you respond) was an attempt to have them try to understand that human biology is not so black and white. — Michael

I think your question was an attempt to undermine the concept of biological sex. That's a non-starter.

Therefore either a) these people are neither biologically male nor biologically female or b) your attempt at defining what it means to be a biological male and a biological female is wrong. — Michael

I would say a. I'm thinking of it from a healthcare provider's point of view. Biological male = XY, but not XX. Biological female = XX, but not XY.

All other cases would be handled on individual bases. It's not important to categorize those people as male or female. It's just important to know how their genetic makeup impacts the course of their care.

Some people have both XX and XY. Are they male or female?

Some people have XX male syndrome. Are they male or female?

Some people have XYY, some XXY, some XXXY, some XXXXY. Are they male or female? — Michael

I don't know why it's important to work that out. It remains true that a biological male has XY AND no-XX. A biological female has XY AND no-XY. Simple.

A man has XY & lacks XX.

She seems like a really cool person.

Yes, I know Helen (personally, in a very vague way). — AmadeusD

What? For real?

My understanding, and I may well be wrong, is that it is a prime influence on Islam; Absolute Submission. — Banno

Yes, but they generally learn about God's will from religious teachers, not through direct contact with the divine. If we're both Muslims and you tell me God told you to kill your son, I would call the police. See what I mean?

Oh, I think I confused you with someone else. :grimace:

I just got through reading about a person called Dr Helen Joyce, a former mathematician/journalist who is now an anti-trans activist. She says "trans woman" doesn't make any sense, and I can see her point. But if you don't call them that, what do you call them?

So if you don't call them trans-women, what do you call them?

Even so, it remains that the story is understood by many as advising one to maintain one's faith even if one believes that god is asking for an abominable act. — Banno

I don't think many view it that way. Maybe a few crazy Mormons.

I'm not oppressing you Stan. You don't have a womb.