Because The United Kingdom?

[urbanoid]

No, America already had it better, when 60 years ago they had ~6 times more fuckups in mental institutions, at half of the present population.

And no, mutilating one's body doesn't change one's gender, it just proves one's a very mentally ill individual.

Edited July 16, 2024 by urbanoid

[sunday]

35 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

mutilating one's body doesn't change one's gender, it just proves one's a very mentally ill individual.

Doing that to children under one's responsibility makes one a child abuser, also.

[urbanoid]

There should be a jail time and loss of parental rights for even giving 'tranny hormones' to a child, let alone allowing surgeries like that. Realistically, that is, as personally I would prefer public executions.

[Stuart Galbraith]

So body modification proves a mentally ill individual. So is that your stance on piercings and tattoos then? Liposuction, boob jobs? Penis extension? 6 finger amputation? What about circumcison? Microchip implantation? Cochlear implants? Transplants? Fertility treatment? Punk hair? What makes sexual reassignment 'wrong', but hair transplanation, even face transplantion in extreme circumstances, right? And the answer probably is, because you find it personally offensive. Well ok, find it offensive.  But would you stop it if you could? And if you did, would it drive the demand away? Because I frankly doubt it.

We live in the second industrial revolution, more importantly an information revolution. Whereas the former largely ran out of steam in 115 years, there is no logical reason why this one is going to slow down this time. Its perfectly natural people find it a struggle to keep up with new ways of thinking.  My own values have also taken a beating over the past 40 years too. I daresay the same was true when Guttenberg invented his press, or when Stephenson built the first steam railway. In fact I know it was.

But. I think one has to suggest that if your core values are based on denying others freedom to be what they choose to be, express themselves (if they dont plan to demostrate harm to others) anyway they wish,  they are going to be swiftly outmoded by events. No, Im not even asking you to like it, or even tolerate it. Im suggesting history seems to prove, denying peoples rights, no matter how absurd you believe them to be (Interacial relationships, homosexuality, pansexuality) smacks of exactly the kind of authoritarian crap the right correctly castigages in the left, but never owns up to indulging in fairly regularly themselves. inevitably it will fail. Oh, they florish for a while, pat themselves on turning back the tide. And then in a few decades falls over the permissiveness creeps back.

 

 

11 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

There should be a jail time and loss of parental rights for even giving 'tranny hormones' to a child, let alone allowing surgeries like that. Realistically, that is, as personally I would prefer public executions.

At no point did I even bring up sexual reassignment of children, which similarly gives me the creeps. That to my mind is unacceptable.

OTOH, what do you do with the hermaphrodites? Do you say they must be carrying around duplicate sets of kit until puberty, with all the mental anguish thats going to cause?

Im pretty sure if there was neat and clear answers here, this would have been cleared up decades ago.

Edited July 16, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[old_goat]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Fine, run your country into a ditch following religious dogma, and we can try the secular approach, ok?

Ask Blaire White. She said in an old video something like this "I was born as a man, and will die as a man". And yes, Im willing to use she/her pronouns for Blaire White because she is completely normal. If most of the trans community would be like her, there woluldnt be any problems with them. But sadly she belongs to a very small minority. Rest are completely sick and insane.

[urbanoid]

5 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

So body modification proves a mentally ill individual. So is that your stance on piercings and tattoos then? Liposuction, boob jobs? Penis extension? 6 finger amputation? What about circumcison? Microchip implantation? Cochlear implants? Transplants? Fertility treatment? Punk hair? What makes sexual reassignment 'wrong', but hair transplanation, even face transplantion in extreme circumstances, right? And the answer probably is, because you find it personally offensive. Well ok, find it offensive.  But would you stop it if you could? And if you did, would it drive the demand away? Because I frankly doubt it.

We live in the second industrial revolution, more importantly an information revolution. Whereas the former largely ran out of steam in 115 years, there is no logical reason why this one is going to slow down this time. Its perfectly natural people find it a struggle to keep up with new ways of thinking.  My own values have also taken a beating over the past 40 years too. I daresay the same was true when Guttenberg invented his press, or when Stephenson built the first steam railway. In fact I know it was.

But. I think one has to suggest that if your core values are based on denying others freedom to be what they choose to be, express themselves (if they dont plan to demostrate harm to others) anyway they wish,  they are going to be swiftly outmoded by events. No, Im not even asking you to like it, or even tolerate it. Im suggesting history seems to prove, denying peoples rights, no matter how absurd you believe them to be (Interacial relationships, homosexuality, pansexuality) smacks of exactly the kind of authoritarian crap the right correctly castigages in the left, but never owns up to indulging in fairly regularly themselves. inevitably it will fail. Oh, they florish for a while, pat themselves on turning back the tide. And then in a few decades falls over the permissiveness creeps back.

 

 

At no point did I even bring up sexual reassignment of children, which similarly gives me the creeps. That to my mind is unacceptable.

OTOH, what do you do with the hermaphrodites? Do you say they must be carrying around duplicate sets of kit until puberty, with all the mental anguish thats going to cause?

Im pretty sure if there was neat and clear answers here, this would have been cleared up decades ago.

The adults can absolutely do what they want to their own bodies, we still don't have to validate those choices. So yes, a man with 'neovagina' stinking like poop all the time will still remain a man, a mentally ill one at that. Yes, he still is allowed to claim that he's a actually a woman and I am still allowed to say that he will never be one, that he is delusional, mentally ill and in my opinion should never be allowed to interact with children.

I guess that one should differentiate between procedures that make one normal (or closer to normal, like the surgeries for hermaphrodites that you mentioned) and those that make one a freak. Cutting off your dick and having a stinking hole instead isn't a medical treatment, it's self-mutilation resulting from mental illness, simple as.

 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

4 minutes ago, old_goat said:

Ask Blaire White. She said in an old video something like this "I was born as a man, and will die as a man". And yes, Im willing to use she/her pronouns for Blaire White because she is completely normal. If most of the trans community would be like her, there woluldnt be any problems with them. But sadly she belongs to a very small minority. Rest are completely sick and insane.

Have you ever heard of 'Englishman in New York?' Song by sting. It was about a man called Quentin Crisp, a gay icon, and something of a cause celebre in New York. There was a very good play featuring John Hurt called 'The naked civil servant', which if you can put aside your distaste at men kissing (I dont like it either), is pretty instructive introduction on how minorities are rejected and oppressed, just to peoples personal distaste.Regularly beaten up, even once fitted up by the police as a sexual offender.

The reason why I mention all this, not long before he died, crisp said this.

'At the age of 90 Crisp said in his book The Last Word that he had come to the conclusion that he was transgender.

"Having labelled myself homosexual and having been labelled as such by the wider world, I have effectively lived a 'gay' life for most of my years. Consequently, I can relate to gay men because I have more or less been one for so long in spite of my actual fate being that of a woman trapped in a man's body. I refer to myself as homosexual without thinking because of how I have lived my life. If you are reading this and are gay, think of me as one of your own even though you now know the truth. If it's confusing for you, think how confusing it has been for me these past ninety years."

"The only thing in my life I have wanted and didn't get was to be a woman. It will be my life's biggest regret. If the operation had been available and cheap when I was young, say when I was twenty-five or twenty-six, I would have jumped at the chance. My life would have been much simpler as a result. I would have told nobody. Instead, I would have gone to live in a distant town and run a knitting wool shop and no one would ever have known my secret. I would have joined the real world and it would have been wonderful."^[19]

 

^{I dont know how awful that must feel, to live your entire life, 90 years, rejected by society for being a sexual minority, and feeling yourself to be entirely something else instead. I dont have to understand it. I just naturally if you cant feel empathy for someone because they are different, without understanding necessarily WHY they feel different, then the fault probably isnt with them, but its with the beholder.}

^{I dont know how you bridge the rights of the individual whom has a right to be what the hell they like, with those of JK Rowling, whom feel their rights as a woman to be, and to some extent are, under attack by transgenderism. I dont know how you bridge that divide. To me it looks as if they are fighting for exactly the same thing, sexual identity, without being able to recognise that to accomodate each other, both have to give ground.}

 

If people find that offensive, clearly you have to recognise the world is changing  and you have to move with it. Dylan wrote it a lot more fluidly I think.

 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

13 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

The adults can absolutely do what they want to their own bodies, we still don't have to validate those choices. So yes, a man with 'neovagina' stinking like poop all the time will still remain a man, a mentally ill one at that. Yes, he still is allowed to claim that he's a actually a woman and I am still allowed to say that he will never be one, that he is delusional, mentally ill and in my opinion should never be allowed to interact with children.

I guess that one should differentiate between procedures that make one normal (or closer to normal, like the surgeries for hermaphrodites that you mentioned) and those that make one a freak. Cutting off your dick and having a stinking hole instead isn't a medical treatment, it's self-mutilation resulting from mental illness, simple as.

 

 

As old as I am, I can remember the 1980's, when people wearing this,

were considered freaks. Now its just a style choice.

Was reading 'Fear and Loathing on the Campaign trail' by Hunter S Thompson. He was running for Sherrif of Aspen, and got tired of being called a 'long hair', so shaved it all off as bald as a tibetian monk, just so he could called the sherrif incumbent 'my long hair opponent'. It will be remembered that long hair was a hallmark of the counterculture, and right up there with homosexuality (search stonewall riots) in the way it was condemned.

Me? I grew up in the 1980's, when to be part of the left was to be equated with a communist, to be working class was to be a scrounger and lazy, and to have long hair was enough  to be equated queer. Maybe I got bored with the insistance that everyone must be put in boxes, and if they dont fit, condemned. Margaret Thatchers intolerance taught me tolerance, and for that gift at least, im deeply thankful to her.

There is graffiti on the wall in Pompei, supposedly it reads 'Oh Mores, Oh Temps!' (Oh the morals, oh the times!) You would really think mankind would grow the hell up for once, and stop going off the deep end when the younger generation make choices that to us look at best unique, at worst deeply disturbing. And future generations will look at us as misguided as the individuals who called black men negroes.

Edited July 16, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[Ssnake]

I reject the insistence that sex is nothing but a social construct. There is an element to that, but basing the entire legislation about trans people on that singular premise is dogmatic and as such it will fail miserably whenever it collides with reality.

That as a man you can simply claim to be a woman, and

- immediately be allowed to compete with women in sports

- get access to womens' facilities, even if you're already a convicted sex offender

- "get pregnant", and anyone questioning that is labeled as transphobic

The trend to eliminate women from language, pretending that there is no definition of what and who they are is a direct result of that dogma. Applying "gender-affirming care" (=reproductive organ mutilation) at an age where informed consent is by definition impossible is another direct result of that dogma, and an incredibly harmful one at that. It's the one thing that I will never forgive the trans activists. It simply is an act of evil.

[Ssnake]

A lot of that debate could be defused if we could talk about a "trans-woman" and a "trans-man". But the insistence that there is no difference whatsoever is simply insane, as is the claim that anyone questioning the dogma isn't allowed to participate in the discussion, because "hurt feelings". There can be no right to be not offended.

[Stuart Galbraith]

15 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

I reject the insistence that sex is nothing but a social construct. There is an element to that, but basing the entire legislation about trans people on that singular premise is dogmatic and as such it will fail miserably whenever it collides with reality.

That as a man you can simply claim to be a woman, and

- immediately be allowed to compete with women in sports

- get access to womens' facilities, even if you're already a convicted sex offender

- "get pregnant", and anyone questioning that is labeled as transphobic

The trend to eliminate women from language, pretending that there is no definition of what and who they are is a direct result of that dogma. Applying "gender-affirming care" (=reproductive organ mutilation) at an age where informed consent is by definition impossible is another direct result of that dogma, and an incredibly harmful one at that. It's the one thing that I will never forgive the trans activists. It simply is an act of evil.

I agree with all that too. And that seems to be largely JK Rowlings stance too.

I dont think the trans population will be really happy with the term other than male or female, and that understandable. But at least in legal terms, there has to be a legal definition of at least one other sex, just to avoid absurdities such as you describe.

Of course when we get to the stage of being able to implant in new bodies like Altered Carbon, or at the very least head transplants, then its all going to swiftly decrease in importance. Until then, its going to be imperfect solutions all round.

11 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

A lot of that debate could be defused if we could talk about a "trans-woman" and a "trans-man". But the insistence that there is no difference whatsoever is simply insane, as is the claim that anyone questioning the dogma isn't allowed to participate in the discussion, because "hurt feelings". There can be no right to be not offended.

There very certainly is a difference, and pointing this out, at least as far as team sports is concerned, should really upset nobody except grifters. To me the ideal choice is they be accepted as women in all respects other than legally, for which they would have to substitute trans, in case of sports in which case there would have to be some form of strength measurement, or incarceration, in which case I think there is going to have to be accomodations made. I see no other way that isnt going to end up in unmittigated lunacy otherwise.

There is perhaps an irony that could be appreciated by others, that these complaints are made by a leading feminist, namely JK Rowling. Now growing up at the end of the 1970s and early 80's, Feminists were regarded as much a dirty word as the trans community is today (I can remember seeing posters saying A women needs a man, like a fish needs a Bicycle). One would not believe the furore that broke out over the simple term 'Ms'. They were all automatically assumed to be lesbians by default, which informed some severe prejudices against the Greenham common protesters, whom were to a large extent feminists.

Maybe that would cause some introspection on how arguments are presented on both sides, but seemingly not. Exactly the same mistakes are being made by people talking past each other again.

Edited July 16, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[futon]

There are some in the older generation that encourage any behavior because it encourages the creation of a new nichi and that becomes their market to make a living in selling in. Whether or not it has good long term effects to society is not considered. I think the 1980s stepped too far in consumerism and materialism. Not everything was bad about the 1980s. Lots of good stuff. Just a bit over the top. And onwards to the 90s and later. Poor decisions related to health, financial decisions, drug abuse, various other vices.  Where does it stem from? Not trusting the advice of proper elders. Untrained mind, coach potatoe, lazy. Incapability to play a patient game. Urge for instant gratification. Alter your body, tattoes all over, piercings all over, can't even wait until 20 for sex changes? Still have to be 18 or 21 for alcohol and tabacco. Do away with those limits too? You're different. You're you. You're special. You you you makes for me me me. Ethnic differences is already a lot. Why encourage "freedom" to be more different from everyone? More and more different is more and more alone. Can't find someone that's just right for you? "Plenty of fish in the ocean" is no longer applicable. Locked up inside by ones own social drawbacks in cube rooms that a screen connected to the internet. Suicides go up. It's not "freedom". It's stimulating division. Sure, there will always be a few. Just a few that fit their circumstance around the mainstream. And as a few, it adds more color and perspective even. They are part of the whole. But too much of them, then things start falling apart.

[JWB]

 

[rmgill]

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Fine, run your country into a ditch following religious dogma, and we can try the secular approach, ok?

 

Religious dogma? What is the third sex Stuart? 
What the third gamete they make? 

If your body makes semen you're male. If it makes eggs, you're female. 

This isn't religion, this is science. 

Everything else you argue Stuart is either magical thinking, false analogies (Hair color isn't permanent). 

Feel free to paint yourself SCC No 15 and call yourself a comet. Go around with a rifle while doing it and say it's your 77mm. Let us know how it works out from the funny farm. 

Edited July 16, 2024 by rmgill

[Ssnake]

Science also tells you that there are hermaphrodites/intersex, and a strictly binary legal definition doesn't do those (rare, but non-zero) cases justice.

[sunday]

Quote

DISORDERS OF SEX DEVELOPMENT
Claire Bouvattier, in Pediatric Urology, 2010

Bisexual Gonads: True Hermaphroditism
True hermaphroditism is defined by the presence of both ovarian and testicular tissues, either separately or, more commonly, together as ovotestis. True hermaphroditism is very rare except in Southern Africa, where it is the most common intersex condition.67 The most frequent presenting symptom before puberty is the abnormal appearance of the external genitalia, with labioscrotal folds and variable degrees of genital ambiguity (Fig. 35-11).68 However, individuals with normal female phenotype or with almost normal male appearance with penile hypospadias or small penis have been reported, especially in late-diagnosed cases.69 Undescended gonads and inguinal hernia are frequent. The ovarian tissue is usually normal, contrasting with dysgenetic testicular tissue lacking spermatogonia. The gonadal descent occurs more frequently on the right side. The internal genital differentiation is variable and reflects the gonadal endocrine capabilities. It is often asymmetric. Most, but not all, hermaphrodites have a uterus, which may be fully developed. The nature and location of the gonadal tissue can be bilateral with two ovotestes, lateral with testis on one side and ovary on the other, or unilateral with a normal gonad on one side and an ovotestis on the other side (the most frequent condition).

About 60% of true hermaphrodites have a 46,XX karyotype, and the remainder are characterized by various forms of mosaicism, 46,XX/46,XY.68 In the majority of 46,XX patients, the search for the SRY gene was negative.70-72 For this reason, it is believed that other unknown mutations on the X chromosome or on an autosome may have impaired normal testicular differentiation.73 Genetic counseling is still based on the predominance of sporadic cases, because very few familial cases have been reported.74 The diagnosis of true hermaphroditism should be considered in any patient typically combining ambiguous genitalia, one or no palpable gonad, and 46,XX karyotype. The basal or hCG-stimulated plasma testosterone level is indicative of the presence of Leydig cells. Another important point is the presence of a uterus. Finally, the diagnosis of true hermaphroditism depends on the careful search for ovarian tissue during surgery in an apparently male gonad. The bisexual gonad contains testicular tissue with distinct tubules, and the ovarian tissue has follicles. However, the ovarian tissue must contain oocytes for the diagnosis; the presence of only ovarian stroma is not an adequate criterion. With increasing age, ovarian tissue is often normally developed, and pregnancies have been reported.75 The testicular portion is often immature, and spermatogenesis is rare.68,76

The treatment and sex assignment depend on the age at diagnosis. Many patients are referred in the neonatal period. Male sex assignment is considered if there is a good phallic size, correctable hypospadias, and sufficient testicular tissue that could descend into the scrotum. Preservation of testicular tissue should allow normal virilization at puberty, but infertility is constant. Female sex rearing could be discussed if a uterus is present with a vagina, and especially if sufficient ovarian tissue can be preserved.77 Some patients in whom the ovarian portion of the gonad was preserved have exhibited spontaneous puberty.73 In these female-reared patients, partial gonadectomy limited to the testicular component must be performed in infancy during reconstructive surgery.78 Its complete removal is confirmed by the lack of postoperative testosterone secretion. Pregnancy is possible and normal infants have been delivered.75,79 At adolescence in both cases, the requirement of replacement sex steroid therapy depends on the functional activity of the residual tissue.80

Quote

Sexual Differentiation
Richard E. Jones PhD, Kristin H. Lopez PhD, in Human Reproductive Biology (Fourth Edition), 2014

True Hermaphroditism
Sometimes people are born with ambiguous reproductive systems, a phenomenon generally termed intersexuality. In rare cases in which a combination of gonadal tissue is present, a person is a true hermaphrodite. These individuals often possess an ovotestis on one or both sides, which is a gonad that contains a combination of seminiferous tubules and ovarian follicles. This sometimes happens because of an error in fertilization that results in one-half of the individual’s cells being 46:XX and the other half being 46:XY. Sometimes true hermaphrodites will have an ovary on one side and a testis on the other side; this person is called a gynandromorph. On the side with the ovary, there are müllerian duct derivatives, whereas on the side with the testis, there are wolffian duct derivatives. This is evidence that the effects of the testes on development of the wolffian ducts and regression of the müllerian ducts are local phenomena, with each testis controlling the development of the sex accessory structures on its side only.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/pharmacology-toxicology-and-pharmaceutical-science/true-hermaphroditism

That is a medical condition that could be healed, not a "third sex".

No need to modify laws for that.

Edited July 16, 2024 by sunday

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, sunday said:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/pharmacology-toxicology-and-pharmaceutical-science/true-hermaphroditism

That is a medical condition that could be healed, not a "third sex".

No need to modify laws for that.

Woah, hang on. Didnt I just get told that you cant alter a sex just by surgery? Now you are proposing to assign sex doing just that? How does that work?

Alright, yes, I agree predominantly there are still two sexes. Whilst someone might be born intersex, they generally favour one side or the other. The problem is there is that of women whom are genetically male. They are clearly women, born as women, go through puberty as women, and then find they have male chromosones, so are in fact genetically men, whilst anatomically female.

https://novonordiskfonden.dk/en/news/more-women-than-expected-are-genetically-men/

Anyone wanting to clarify the situaton by  insisting legally there are just men and women are going to ram into speedbumps like this, and it frankly needs a team of lawyers to disentagle it.

Or you could allow self definition, but we have been told, we cant allow that, its too much like freedom!

Edited July 16, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

Science also tells you that there are hermaphrodites/intersex, and a strictly binary legal definition doesn't do those (rare, but non-zero) cases justice.

And hermaphrodites and intersex, do they make both eggs and sperm? Are they fertile? True hermaphrodites do. Humans with these characteristics, do they make both types of gametes? My understanding is that it is a no. Often they are sterile. 

True human hermaphrodites, that it's a trope in Hentai and other lewd or sci-fi media doesn't make it a valid, real thing with real functionality. 

If we had a third Sex then there'd be a gamete they do that makes for that reproductive function. There isn't. They aren't a third sex. They're a mutation or deformity of someone with one or the other sexual characteristics. 

People have 2 arms and 2 legs. That there are people born with reproductive defects doesn't mean that there is a strain of humans who are legless or armless. It doesn't make them another gender or some other example of types of humans. 

The outlier does not make a norm. A defect does not make a norm. 

[rmgill]

5 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Woah, hang on. Didnt I just get told that you cant alter a sex just by surgery?

Sex is defined by the gametes your body makes. That's the biological definition. 

Please, let me know which transgender surgeries have been able to switch a man from making sperm to making eggs. Or the opposite. 

 

5 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

Now you are proposing to assign sex doing just that? How does that work?

You understand that assigning is different than a functional ability right? 

5 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Alright, yes, I agree predominantly there are still two sexes. Whilst someone might be born intersex, they generally favour one side or the other. The problem is there is that of women whom are genetically male. They are clearly women, born as women, go through puberty as women, and then find they have male chromosones, so are in fact genetically men, whilst biologically female.

Yes. They make semen. They don't make eggs. They are male. That is their sex. 

 

5 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

https://novonordiskfonden.dk/en/news/more-women-than-expected-are-genetically-men/

Anyone wanting to clarify the situaton by  insisting legally there are just men and women are going to ram into speedbumps like this, and it frankly needs a team of lawyers to disentagle it.

Were kids born with defects from thalidomide a new species of human because they had different characteristics for arms and legs? 

Better yet, if you cut the balls off a bull, does that bull become a new sex or is it considered a non-functional bull, aka a bullock? Can it be treated as a cow? Will it make milk? 
 

 

Edited July 16, 2024 by rmgill

[rmgill]

Here's the scientific view on this. 

Bret and Heather have a longer episode where they discuss this in greater detail. 

A key point, that folks are Intersex or some form of biological trans doesn't mean they shouldn't be treated with consideration and respect. However making them into some special third gender is silly. Making us all cooperate in the delusion is even more silly. 
 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

13 hours ago, rmgill said:

And hermaphrodites and intersex, do they make both eggs and sperm? Are they fertile? True hermaphrodites do. Humans with these characteristics, do they make both types of gametes? My understanding is that it is a no. Often they are sterile. 

True human hermaphrodites, that it's a trope in Hentai and other lewd or sci-fi media doesn't make it a valid, real thing with real functionality. 

If we had a third Sex then there'd be a gamete they do that makes for that reproductive function. There isn't. They aren't a third sex. They're a mutation or deformity of someone with one or the other sexual characteristics. 

People have 2 arms and 2 legs. That there are people born with reproductive defects doesn't mean that there is a strain of humans who are legless or armless. It doesn't make them another gender or some other example of types of humans. 

The outlier does not make a norm. A defect does not make a norm. 

So what do you do with the 'defects'. Stick them in a big camp so nobody else has to look at them?

In you rigid mentality that there can be only 2 sex's, no negotiation, will have that evident outcome if you stick to it as a mantra, in much the same way that doctrine about sterilizing the weak in 19th century medical textbooks in Britain and America, inevitably led to the death camps in Germany. That you have not thought that far ahead, shows how poorly you have bothered to think all this through. You are either an inclusive society, or exclusive, and if you are exclusive, it usually fares extremely badly on the excluded. Did you guys learn anything from South Africa or Eastern Europe?

13 hours ago, rmgill said:

Sex is defined by the gametes your body makes. That's the biological definition. 

Please, let me know which transgender surgeries have been able to switch a man from making sperm to making eggs. Or the opposite. 

 

You understand that assigning is different than a functional ability right? 

Yes. They make semen. They don't make eggs. They are male. That is their sex. 

 

Were kids born with defects from thalidomide a new species of human because they had different characteristics for arms and legs? 

Better yet, if you cut the balls off a bull, does that bull become a new sex or is it considered a non-functional bull, aka a bullock? Can it be treated as a cow? Will it make milk? 
 

 

 

 

And no, its not that simple. Imagine being a woman, raised as a woman, understanding your place in society as a woman, and then suddenly imagine finding yourself infertile, and that biological tests reveal you are actually biologically male. I was watching a documentary on this, and a young woman whom found this out was absolutely traumatized by this. Had to see councilling, was deeply upset about it, questioned her entire place in society. Its not so easily brushed away you see.

Now, here is the point. Imagine she had been born anatomically a man, but spent her entire life understanding she was a woman. I dont have to implicitly understand what its like. I do understand through empathy that it must be incredibly painful, traumatic, and even soul destroying. And the only thing that could perhaps make it worse, is the heavy hand of state denying the right to choose whom they want to be, even though the methodology is pretty simple.Yes, Its easy to reject people whom think differently as mentally ill. The Soviet Union did this all the time. Any society that goes down road has the problem, not the individual.

 

 

 

Here is the circle you must square. You stand up full square for your freedom to own guns. You are defined by your freedom to own guns. You say removing your guns will remove your right to particular freedoms.Yet in the final analysis, you seem perfectly fine removing anyones right to define themselves as they wish. To use surgery to alter their bodies as they would wish them to be. Yes, Im happy to concede, I too feel uncomfortable with it. I dont fully understand it either. I do know that your inability to be flexible enough to accomodate people whom are not as you understand, or as you will wish, will have grave consequences for your society. As far as women and abortion, it already has.

 

 

 

Now you can pull your personal definitions of what is a sex and what isnt out of your ass all day. it doesnt really matter, because its not YOUR definitions that are on trial, its theirs. Its their freedoms to define as they would wish, not yours.

 

 

Am I uncomfortable with the other field, women defining themselves as non binary? Absolutely. Im thrown by it, I dont understand it, it makes me very uncomfortable. At the same time, Im far more comfortable with them defining themselves as they wish, then the draconian hand of state, which seems to be what you are advocating for, clamping down on them and denying them the freedom to be what the hell they want. It seems you want your personal freedoms, and want to chip away at everyone elses first. That you are undeniably chipping away at the freedoms that will one day collapse on your own head, simply does not seem to occur to you.

 

 

This is NOT about whether you LIKE transexuals, or whether you approve, or even whether you understand. I too have my issues as Ive said. Ive extreme issues with Children being incorporated in this scheme, as you all have. Completely understand that.  At the same time the rest is less sexual issues than freedom issues, and that so many of you are so happy to play carte blanche with other peoples freedoms that have been established for decades, to me I find extremely fucking troubling.

 

All you are being asked to do is tolerate, nothing more. Stop pretending this is a heavy burden on your part. And stop pretending that anyone that doesnt run on precisely the same rails you are is an enemy of freedom, because we saw precisely where that line of thinking led the other day.

 

I could write another dozen pages on this, but ive work to do, and Im extemely sure you will misinterpet it again anyway, so really, whats the damn point?

Edited July 17, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

Incidentally, I notice my posting style for the past week has been a bit aserbic. I apologize for that. Presently I seem to be suffering from either a trapped nerve or sciatic, and my left let only seems to work with extreme encouragement and a considerable degree of pain. Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible. Oh, how im enjoying getting old...

Edited July 17, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[futon]

https://www.google.co.jp/search?sca_esv=6cd9da195cd6c29a&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ADLYWIJd4UB1snpxpCiPj9X15sHwBaTY6w:1721204857453&q=drag+queens+visiting+schools&udm=2&fbs=AEQNm0Arhw5xil6bRXzBEwLafnGF0YLvIzpqZdwCHTSFqgW22KAhu8FebVQYBMSyfybxYLBGeok4bvned1TdoMg0yRvJeckWH_EmxhlEaZvdG1AXGTsqp9G6XXckhcdOH1EJaIcf54oMn8ovgawz6IbsHXk_eZJqsGLTZG_D721suZz-OkKXBAqrEsdtUwVdY6rJYZMphAZNqcD9Q15ItDprjOEASghJuG0e2eVVTsK_boG2Bw0On8U&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjCzPTg062HAxWQdPUHHX56ISQQtKgLegQICxAB&biw=360&bih=464&dpr=3

[Stuart Galbraith]

Ok, so I think the Torygraph was trying to jump on board with faux Republican culture war outrage here.  And Ill tell you why.

For decades in British theatres, we used to go to something called 'Pantomimes'. Which were historically things that touched on well known stories, like Dick Whittington, or Jack and the Beanstalk. So the trend was that it was for children and adults, had ribald jokes that only adults would get, and childish jokes children would get. And centrepiece of thse plays was  invariably a man dressed as a woman, and commonly, a woman dressed as a man.

The man dressed as a woman was usually called a dame. And before anyone questions whether this is a good idea, there is long legs for this kind of thing. In shakespeares time, men commonly dressed up as women to play female parts, because women were exluded from the stage. Many actors in the UK had their start in POW camps playing womens parts, dressed up as good looking women (because women obviously were unavailable for concert parties behind enemy lines). In short, there is a long established instituion in the Uk of gender bending on stage shows.

So why are people suddenly getting outraged at men dressing as women and performing in front of children, when they have been doing it for decades? Pass. In fact look at every performance David Bowie gave. In the 1970's he was doing practically the same thing.

 

[futon]

Not in the schools please.