The Guardian: Joe Biden's gender discrimination order offers hope for young trans athletes - Discussion Thread

[TD_washingtonredskins]

40 minutes ago, bearrock said:

As to whether human being would recreate gender norms even if given a chance to start again, who knows.  But even if human inclination would lead down a certain path, it doesn't make the end result any less wrong.

 

It depends on what you mean by "wrong" in this context. If you were to wipe the slate clean with humans and the same result kept happening in a simulation, for example, where biological males mostly identified as a male gender and biological females mostly identified as a female gender, then I would say that the opposite would be "deviant" behavior. I'd avoid "wrong" since that would be judgmental, but if most of a population does one thing over and over (especially with resets and without the societal pressure), then the opposite behavior is the outlier and it's not bigoted or horrible to classify it as such. It came with a stigma, but people who weren't heterosexuals used to simply be called sexual deviants. I used to think it was a bad thing...then I actually thought about the word and all it means is something different from the norm. 

 

 

[tshile]

Heterosexuals that have casual sex used to be deviants 

 

now it’s the norm. 

[bearrock]

30 minutes ago, philibusters said:

 

 

I understand sex as whether your reproductive cells are XX or XY (or intersex like XXY).   If your reproductive cells are XX your sex is female.  If your reproductive cells are XY your sex is male. Things like secondary sex characteristics are irrelevant in regards to determining sex.  A woman could grow a mustache and have a hormone balance that looks more like a man and even in some cases have non-reproductive cells that are XY, but if the person has XX reproductive cells, the person is a woman.

I think of gender as behavior norms for each sex.  I think there are strong biological components to gender behavior.  For example men have a lot more testosterone--that a secondary sexual characteristic (secondary sexual characteristics unlike reproductive cells which usually work on a binary of XX or XY work more on a spectrum and therefore are not good for defining sex).  Having more testosterone affects behavior.  It increases risk taking and eases anxiety.  There are lots of other hormones that affect behavior that are secondary sexual characteristics.  So when I say gender is partly biological I am saying if you completely wiped out culture a lot of gender behavior patterns would reemerge in a generation.  These behavior patterns appear in the animal world and mirror or own especially the closer the animal is related to us.

 

That said, there is undoubtedly a cultural element to gender.  There is nothing inherently manly about blue and feminine about pink for example.  But lots of gendered behavior is influenced by culture.   I don't know how to tease them apart or even guess what the ratio of biological to culture is---but there is some type of ratio to it.

That is how I think of sex vs. gender and when I use those terms, how I am thinking of it.

In terms of the field of sociology, its a highly political academic field.  Gender is a relatively new concept (dating back to John Money in the 1950's).  The mainstream understanding of gender has changed consistently and steadily since then.   The understanding that I described of of gender vs. sex is fairly close to the original understanding of the term in the 1950's and less so of the mainstream academic standing in 2022.  I prefer the 1950's understanding because I think modern understandings of the differences are largely influenced by aspirational political goals and not reality.   For example, there is a goal to achieve equality of outcomes between genders and that lead to a confirmation bias that gender for example is all socially constructed and does not have a strong biological foundation (which I think is wrong).  Then when it became inconvenient for gender to be completely socially constructed, they shifted the understanding to include an individual psychology component.  To me, political aspirations are leading the understanding of the terms more than science.

 

The problem emerges in how we deal with individuals who have primary characteristic xx or xy, but their behavior doesn't conform to behavior norms society has come to expect from xx or xy.  Even if the gender behavioral norms are established over time based on broad trends among the sexes based on predominant biological secondary sex characteristics, we clearly have individuals who depart from those norms.  It may be that some secondary sex characteristics are not very predictive of behavior.  It may be that distribution of some secondary sex characteristics are a lot more even along the sexes.  

 

I assume it's some combination of the two.  That being the case, yes, you may be right that humanity may continue to reestablish norms based on some combination of secondary sex characteristics and culture.  Call it gender or whatever other word one could label it with.   

 

But what exactly is the utility of establishing this particular set of norms?  We know that individuals will depart from it all the time.  If someone tells me that person A is gender B, what exactly is that supposed to tell me?  Suppose I form certain assumptions about the individual's personality based on gender norms and that turns out to be completely inaccurate.  Is it that my assumptions were wrong or is the person a deviant?  Was there any utility in my trying to form predictive assumptions based on gender to begin with?  Personally, I don't think such utility exists.  Thus, even if human inclination is to establish a set of gender norms, we should resist the urge to do so.  It is stereotypes and prejudices by another name.

 

 

26 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

It depends on what you mean by "wrong" in this context. If you were to wipe the slate clean with humans and the same result kept happening in a simulation, for example, where biological males mostly identified as a male gender and biological females mostly identified as a female gender, then I would say that the opposite would be "deviant" behavior. I'd avoid "wrong" since that would be judgmental, but if most of a population does one thing over and over (especially with resets and without the societal pressure), then the opposite behavior is the outlier and it's not bigoted or horrible to classify it as such. It came with a stigma, but people who weren't heterosexuals used to simply be called sexual deviants. I used to think it was a bad thing...then I actually thought about the word and all it means is something different from the norm. 

 

 

 

I think I was trying to convey in the accurate/inaccurate sense.  We have a problem of stereotypes based on sex (whether we call it gender or something else, that's what it boils down to: society imposing stereotypes based on a person's sex) being inaccurate in many instances when applied to individuals.  Just because human beings would repeat it over and over again, it doesn't make the accuracy of the stereotypes any better.  My point is that sex should not be used as a predictor of individual characteristics or behavior, whether directly or by proxy through gender norms.

[tshile]

On 8/27/2022 at 10:57 AM, bearrock said:

I think the actual solution to gender dysphoria is to collectively acknowledge that this binary bucket of gender labels as descriptors for individual characteristics is wrong, inaccurate, and useless. 

Ding ding ding. 
 

this is it in a nutshell to me. Everything else is a bandaid

[The Evil Genius]

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[China]

Montana permanently blocks residents from changing gender on birth certificates

 

Montana health officials adopted a rule on Friday that permanently prohibits people from changing the gender on their birth certificates.

 

Before the new rule, transgender people wishing to alter their birth certificate had only been required to provide an affidavit to the state health department.

 

Now, the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services will no longer record the "gender" section on birth certificates and will replace it with a "sex" category that only offers options for male or female. The "sex" listing can only be changed in rare circumstances.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[PokerPacker]

15 hours ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

Sounds like sexual harassment of a minor.  Lock 'em up.

[TheGreatBuzz]

The GOP is now "examining" the genitals of minors but the Left is the party full of groomers?

[bcl05]

 

 

[The Evil Genius]

Wtf wtf wtf wtf. 

 

 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Look, I get it, and that seems extremely odd to track any individual's personal health anything. No argument whatsoever. 

 

Many are complaining about the rushed and hairbrained policies that are being attempted to mitigate and react to the handful of genetic males playing female sports. They are saying that it's ridiculous and going overboard. Dystopian. All those things. Right, wrong, whatever. 

 

I'd contend that whatever you believe about the reaction, we didn't need to change all the rules around to accommodate that handful of genetic males. It's my belief THAT is where we as a society went off the rails. We tried too hard to solve a problem that really wasn't occurring often enough to warrant solving. What was wrong with leagues divided by genetic sex or not divided at all? It worked for a century. Hell, we had a gender confused fella on a Wheaties box. 

[EmirOfShmo]

I didn't know Stewart had a show on Apple+. 

 

 

[bearrock]

On 10/4/2022 at 4:14 PM, TD_washingtonredskins said:

Look, I get it, and that seems extremely odd to track any individual's personal health anything. No argument whatsoever. 

 

Many are complaining about the rushed and hairbrained policies that are being attempted to mitigate and react to the handful of genetic males playing female sports. They are saying that it's ridiculous and going overboard. Dystopian. All those things. Right, wrong, whatever. 

 

I'd contend that whatever you believe about the reaction, we didn't need to change all the rules around to accommodate that handful of genetic males. It's my belief THAT is where we as a society went off the rails. We tried too hard to solve a problem that really wasn't occurring often enough to warrant solving. What was wrong with leagues divided by genetic sex or not divided at all? It worked for a century. Hell, we had a gender confused fella on a Wheaties box. 

 

I mean on one hand you have an extremely small number of born males playing in female leagues after a period of hormone intervention to try to wipe any natural advantages.  On the other hand you have an entire state requiring every single female student athlete to submit their menstrual cycles to the government and a private company.  I'm pretty sure where I come down on "wow, you people have lost your ****ing minds over a really rare occurrence".

[TD_washingtonredskins]

On 10/8/2022 at 5:11 PM, bearrock said:

 

I mean on one hand you have an extremely small number of born males playing in female leagues after a period of hormone intervention to try to wipe any natural advantages.  On the other hand you have an entire state requiring every single female student athlete to submit their menstrual cycles to the government and a private company.  I'm pretty sure where I come down on "wow, you people have lost your ****ing minds over a really rare occurrence".

 

Sure. But which change started the whole boulder moving down the hill. That's my point. For decades, we had born males play male sports and born females play female sports. I remember we had one girl play on my AA baseball team growing up because she was really good and her parents wanted her to. It wasn't all that big a deal other than occasionally the other team would be like "wow, there's a GIRL on that team" but then she would rake a double in her first AB and that would end that. 

 

Anyway, the time when society cooked up brand new rules to appease a very small number of people was when suddenly anyone who identified as something other than how they were born got to choose the league they played in. Yes it was rare, but that's what caused the counterpunch of the menstrual cycle thing (however ridiculous it is). 

 

That's my point...whenever you "code to the exception" you open up the door to continue using duct tape and chicken wire to plug the holes of the problems you create. 

[bearrock]

3 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

Sure. But which change started the whole boulder moving down the hill. That's my point. For decades, we had born males play male sports and born females play female sports. I remember we had one girl play on my AA baseball team growing up because she was really good and her parents wanted her to. It wasn't all that big a deal other than occasionally the other team would be like "wow, there's a GIRL on that team" but then she would rake a double in her first AB and that would end that. 

 

Anyway, the time when society cooked up brand new rules to appease a very small number of people was when suddenly anyone who identified as something other than how they were born got to choose the league they played in. Yes it was rare, but that's what caused the counterpunch of the menstrual cycle thing (however ridiculous it is). 

 

That's my point...whenever you "code to the exception" you open up the door to continue using duct tape and chicken wire to plug the holes of the problems you create. 

 

You could just continue going up the chain.  Women crossing over into male leagues.  Existence of separate leagues for male and female to begin with.  Conflating biology of sex with sociology of gender.  The question is not whether change caused a reaction (it almost always will), it's whether the change or the reaction is correct and justified.  

 

Just because the governor and majority of lawmakers in Florida have apparently lost their collective minds, I'm not laying the blame for that on people pushing for change in how transgender individuals can participate in sports.  If you want to argue the merits of transgender participation in sports, argue the merits of that issue.  Pointing to whacko reactions to say "omg, look what you all made those idiots do" is a ridiculous argument.  

[Jabbyrwock]

6 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

You could just continue going up the chain.  Women crossing over into male leagues.  Existence of separate leagues for male and female to begin with.  Conflating biology of sex with sociology of gender.  The question is not whether change caused a reaction (it almost always will), it's whether the change or the reaction is correct and justified.  

 

Just because the governor and majority of lawmakers in Florida have apparently lost their collective minds, I'm not laying the blame for that on people pushing for change in how transgender individuals can participate in sports.  If you want to argue the merits of transgender participation in sports, argue the merits of that issue.  Pointing to whacko reactions to say "omg, look what you all made those idiots do" is a ridiculous argument.  

 

Government of the people, by the people, for the people, catering to the dumbest people, cause ya know dumb ****s gonna dumb ****.

 

--Abraham Lincoln

[JCB]

[China]

Republican lawmakers introduce bill to put parents who support their trans kids in prison for life

 

A Michigan bill seeks to brand gender-affirming parents and doctors as child abusers and even proposes life in prison as a possible consequence for facilitating gender-affirming care.

 

H.B. 6454 would amend the penal code to state that child abuse includes when someone “knowingly or intentionally consents to, obtains, or assists with a gender transition procedure for a child.”

 

The bill includes any hormones or puberty blockers in its definition of “gender-transition procedure.” Puberty blockers are reversible medications that delay the onset of puberty so that trans youth can have more time to explore their gender identities before the permanent effects of puberty occur and they have been shown to decrease lifelong suicide risk for trans people who want them.

 

State Rep. Beau LaFave (R), one of the lawmakers who introduced the bill, told The Hill that kids shouldn’t transition until they are old enough to have sex.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

And how old is old enough to have sex?  Asking for...

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[The Evil Genius]

💯 

 

NSFW language though.

 

Spoiler

 

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Renegade7]

Initial reaction is to agree with Florida on this one...

 

 

I respect Jon Stewart a lot, but saying Trans Children are dying in his dialog of comparing Arkansas laws to how it deals with Pediatric Cancer...that's not fair.  Being Trangender isn't killing kids, cancer does. 

 

How people deal with Transgender Kids, like bullying that leads to suicide, I'm sorry that's not a case for allowing permanent alterations like these. 

 

It's a case for changing how we deal with Transgender Youth to help limit suicides.  All the drugs in the world won't stop the bullying, especially if the bullies are around during the transition, don't get it twisted. 

Edited October 30, 2022 by Renegade7

[bearrock]

19 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Initial reaction is to agree with Florida on this one...

 

 

I respect Jon Stewart a lot, but saying Trans Children are dying in his dialog of comparing Arkansas laws to how it deals with Pediatric Cancer...that's not fair.  Being Trangender isn't killing kids, cancer does. 

 

How people deal with Transgender Kids, like bullying that leads to suicide, I'm sorry that's not a case for allowing permanent alterations like these. 

 

It's a case for changing how we deal with Transgender Youth to help limit suicides.  All the drugs in the world won't stop the bullying, especially if the bullies are around during the transition, don't get it twisted. 

 

I'll buy in if the state goes all out in stopping the bullying and protecting transgender kids in school.  Somehow I doubt that's on the legislative agenda for Florida.

 

Also, puberty blockers have medical use for non trans children.  Did Florida lawmakers not know or just not care?

 

I find it amusing and just a tad disingenuous that the party that used to espouse freedom from government intrusion at every turn is now screaming at the top of their lungs that lawmakers are better equipped to make decisions regarding children rather than their parents and doctors.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Any time Florida does something I agree with, I reevaluate my position.