Forum: Author Hangout

Mothers and fathers still exist.

No longer in Hawaii state law.

Exactly.

What difference does the law make between birthing and non birthing parent?

It's not a change to any law. It's simply wording. "Mother" is now "birthing parent" and "father" is now "non-birthing parent."

I don't know what they call a person who adopts. I guess "adoption parent." But what do I know? I'm proud to be one of the backward people.

Scientists has only ever proven the existence of two biologically genders in humans, and they have the chromosome pair XX or XY.

There are anomalies, including XXY (Klinefelter syndrome), XXYY (XXYY syndrome), XXX (Trisomy X), and so on. They are rare, but identified. And in some of these, biological gender is unclear.

These are edge cases, though, and should not control standard classifaiction of XX or XY for the vast majority of human beings.

Thank you for acknowledging those edge cases, but doing so only to dismiss them makes me weep.

Seriously, any good schema for sex identity and gender identity has to account for edge cases or it is useless.

(I have two, that I know, friends with Klinefilter. Hearing them dismissed as irrelevant does not make me happy. The idea that my various female identifying and presenting friends with AIS are "really" male because they are XY makes me fume with rage.)

No, not completely useless, but not complete. Which makes using it as the basis of definitive pronouncements logically shaky at best.

Thank you for acknowledging those edge cases, but doing so only to dismiss them makes me weep.

Who dismisses them? I certainly didn't. You know full well it is NOT those edge cases which are being discussed, but XX or XY. I raised the edge cases for completeness (and to refute the 'only' idea of XX/XY).

Fair point. I misdirected some of my ire.

Circling back to the XX/XY absolutism, the edge case of androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) is very much an issue — and is much more common than multiple chromosome conditions. What is the sex of an XY-23 person with an entirely female external appearance, no uterus, and gonads that produce testosterone that no cell receptor engages with?

Allegedly the number of perverts greatly outnumbers the number of trans people, so if a person has a penis which is functional enough to penetrate, women and children must have safe spaces that person is not allowed to enter.

AJ

What the fuck does that have to do with my comment.

Actually you mentioned external genitalia. If the external genitalia are at all functional, precautions should be taken.

AJ

So absolutely irrelevant to my original comment.

Agreed. You mentioned external genitalia and the penis is an internal organ ;-)

AJ

My understanding is that the external genitalia may be ambiguous, but if they are functional at all in terms of reproduction, it is as a female.

Nope — there are several intersex conditions with ambiguous genitalia where spermatozoa are produced.

This is just ideological policies, promoted by the thought, that every idea the break the mold of society is good.
The individuals and groups that support this idea, has generally become extremely intolerant, hateful and violent, against anyone that question or don't agree with them.

Well said.

I believe in science, in genetics, evolution, etc. Not the Bible. It has nothing to do with religion.

People can love and marry whomever they desire. Nothing wrong with that. That's a different subject. So if a man is effeminate, that's fine. But don't cut off his dick, implant breasts, and call him "her". And do not let "them" compete in women's sports. That's simply unfair and dangerous.

There was a head of the NCAAP somewhere who was found out to be white. When caught, she said she identified as being black. She got blasted. Where was the inclusion for her? Just because she wasn't born black didn't make her black if that's what she identified at. Right?

You really do not see the difference there?

Sorry, I don't. At the time I wondered what if it was a black person pretending to be white. There wouldn't have been the backlash. I'm sorry, but the current thinking is biased and fits the agenda of a certain group of people.

Hell, look at the antisemitism today by that same ignorant group of young people who get their news from social media. There was a large sign on Harvard that said "Harvard hates Jews." Nothing was done. Imagine if it had said "Harvard hates Blacks" or using the "N-word" instead of blacks. Yeah right, that would have gone over well. But the DEI crowd considers Jews colonizers and oppressors even though they have been the most discriminated upon group for thousands of years.

The DEI crowd at Disney got rid of the dwarfs in Snow White because they wanted to be socially correct. I saw an interview with a "little" person who was an actor. He said it did the opposite. It took jobs away from little people. And then he brought up that Hugh Grant plays a little person in Wonka.

But DEI aside, I strongly disagree with the pronoun and other related changes. And I'm not a far right person. But I'm an old guy, not a Gen-Z, so maybe that's why. Look at the LGB community. It's up to LGBTQIA2S. How many more letters are going to be added to that. Lesbian, Gay, Bi made perfect sense to me. That was their sexual orientation. Whether one believes they're born with that or learn it doesn't matter. It's a fact of life that only the religious right doesn't agree with.

But a person who is short because of their genes and wants to be tall is still short no matter how they think of themselves. And a person born a male is a biological male no matter how they think of themselves. Coming up with all these terms and the like is catering to something false. No wonder there is so much mental illness nowadays.

I'm not sure about other countries, but the LGBT+ crowd in the country that is London, is currently self combusting and it's fascinating to watch.

The 'L' part is threatening to break away because the 'T' part is actively a danger to them. So much so, that recently they (The 'L's) were stating that they no longer wished to take part or be represented in Pride marches and were considering leaving and doing their 'own thing'.

Indeed, the fighting over which minority is the actual minority, is so bitter and toxic, that all parties are engaging in practices they are supposedly against...

In the small English shire of Scotland, women (straight and otherwise) are now actively campaigning against inclusivity and the right of male transgender to access women only spaces and clinics.

Recently, a male Trans prisoner was returned to a male prison, after preying (sexually) on the women in a female prison.

Years ago, a lot of 'normal' individuals were public in their scepticism about the eutopia envisioned by the alphabet people, and were publicly derided in turn by the alphabet people for their alphabet phobiasm. But as they say, 'time will tell' and it is. It is very telling.

The current state of wokeism is not helping, and I would agree with the statement that wokeism is actively making the situation worse. I would also agree that recent woke behaviour has set the alphabet peoples desires for equal recognition back decades. But that's what happens when the tail wags the dog.

I know several individuals before and after they had gender reassignment surgery, and before, they thought the surgery would cure all their ills. Yet afterwards, that's not been the case. If anything, their mental health has been worse. You have to dig very hard for suicide rates pre op in comparison against post op, and post op is a lot worse. Makes you wonder why it's so hard to get the data and why gender reassignment clinics tend to evade the question with GDPR statements and 'patient confidentiality'. That alone makes me seriously consider the allegations that gender dysphoria is a mental condition, rather than a physiological one.

I know several individuals before and after they had gender reassignment surgery, and before, they thought the surgery would cure all their ills.

Studies (and there are precious few of them because trans activists discourage science) show that of all the children who try social transitioning, 90% finally end up living according to their birth gender.

Trans activists also loathe the trans-curious getting independent counselling, claiming that it amounts to conversion therapy.

AJ

What do you mean by "independent counseling"?

We live in very different countries. In the UK, most counselling seems to be done by trans-activist charities and clinics, and Mermaids, for example, has a 50% rate of introducing its referrals, even minors, to irreversible bodily changes (breast binding, puberty blockers etc).

AJ

Any acts of anti-jewish hatred would be roundly condemned by the vast majority of those protesting.

If you believe that, you have no idea what you're talking about.

If you believe that, you have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm not sure whether it's true or a figment of the right wing media, but in the UK there's reportedly a significant overlap in membership between trans activists, pro Palestinian activists (from the river to the sea etc) and eco-warriors.

AJ

or a figment of the right wing media

or social media, tik tok and others.

There was a football game between the Chiefs and Raiders. It was in Kansas City (Chiefs home game). A Raiders player intercepted a pass and ran it back for a touchdown. It wasn't his home field, but he saw an 11 yo boy so he tried to hand him the ball as a souvenir. But before the boy took it, he snatched it away.

Social media went crazy, calling the player every bad name in the book. However, the mother of the boy later came out in the defense of the player. If you watch the whole video, you'll see a man leaning over the mother to grab the ball. That's when the player snatched it away. But social media preferred the version where the player looked bad. They didn't want the truth. They wanted to tell a false story just to make a stink and get likes.

Social media doesn't tell the truth. The problem today is the majority of young people get their news from social media.

The "established" media isn't much better. They are biased and tell the story they want to tell. On Fox News (far right) they call the crisis at our southern border an "illegal immigration crisis." MSNBC (far left) calls it a "humanitarian crisis." They tell the stories they want their viewers to hear and bias it to their beliefs. But as bad as they are, they don't compare to social media.

It's funny because if they actually went to the areas controlled by Palestinians they would be killed just for being LGBQT+.

It's all about supporting the identified 'oppressed minority'. Nothing else matters.

I am aware of that, but it doesn't make the fact that they are supporting people who would kill them just for being who they are any less amusing.

I don't disagree it's amusing, and I've pointed that out myself. I simply meant to say that they consider that irrelevant in this context because the ONLY thing that matters is intersectionality.

Try to talking to some of the protestors.

I was ordained in the Antiochian Orthodox Church. It is chock full of Palestinians who have explained their grievances to me at length. The bishop who ordained me is originally from Ramallah, so trust me, I have heard plenty.

But men like him are not who I was referring to. It's the SJL (Social Justice Left) to which I was referring — individuals who are not Palestinian but who have identified Palestinians as an 'oppressed minority' and ignore the history of oppression of Jews.

See, for example:

New Survey Showing Public Ignorance About the Holocaust Among Young Americans

I have never met anyone that meets that description.

I honestly find that difficult to believe. A collection of sources from the center and left…

The Atlantic: The Progressives Who Flunked the Hamas Test

The New York Times:The Left Is Dooming Any Hope for a Palestinian State

The United Nations: Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian territory, tantamount to 'settler-colonialism': UN expert

The Washington Post: Why race and colonialism matter in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Speak Out Socialists: Against Crimes and Colonial Oppression: Solidarity with the Palestinian People!

The Los Angeles Times:Pro-Palestinian activists are building a broad progressive coalition in the U.S.

You are completely off-base. It was trying to emulate black performers. Watch "The Jazz Singer" and tell me Jolson wasn't.

The UK had a popular TV series, 'The Black and White Minstrel Show'. Nobody thought it was insulting to blacks until the wokerrati started rewriting history.

A Lancashire-based Morris dancing troupe used to use blackface, supposedly to in homage to coal miners celebrating the end of their shift. Naturally the uneducated wokerrati had to put a stop to that.

Actually there has been an instance of blackface that really was a caricature of blacks. Until recently it was impossible to find in the UK a black doll with anatomically correct facial structure - they were all 'white' dolls made out of brown plastic.

AJ

You mean no one you knew.

Even blacks enjoyed watching it. Unlike the wokerrati, they knew no harm was intended.

AJ

I'll take issue with you on general linguistic principles; Michael Loucks has covered the roughly 0.5% of the population who are neither XX or XY.

There are (mostly) two biological sexes in humans. 'Sex' is the biological term.

There is no such thing as a 'biological gender' as the word is generally defined today, especially in this context. Gender is a social construct. 'Biological gender' makes as much sense as 'Biological Catholic'.

That's why we have two distinct words - they mean different things. Conflating them is sometimes an attempt to confuse the issue, or sometimes just means that the person conflating them is themselves confused.

Of course, English is not a prescriptively defined language. One is welcome to claim the words mean the same thing. However, when doing so, it's important to be extremely clear that one is using 'gender' in a way that doesn't match how 'gender' is used by many other people, and not try to use competing definitions as a way to twist the argument around. If not 'gender,' there should be a word that coveys the concept of 'the social construct which is related to how one perceives their identity in ways that have been traditionally labeled "male" and "female" (and "androgynous" and many other words).' Conflating the entirely human-created language of 'gender' (which is critical to the discussion) with biology is extremely seldom, if ever, helpful.

That doesn't mean that there's not a lot of interesting ground to be covered in 'gender', nor whether 'sex' matters. For instance, in the dispute over athletic competitions, part of why the two sides are unable to find common ground is that one is arguing about sex-linked performance differences and the other is arguing about gender-based equity, each doing their best to pretend that the other side isn't making a valid point.

No matter what changes a trans person makes, their biological sex isn't going to change given current technology. Perhaps we'll get to gene-replacement therapies that will change that; there are already experimental therapies in development for various non-XX/XY conditions (ones that are dangerous/life-threatening/etc). But we're not there now. Arguing that one cannot change their sex is perfectly reasonable. Following from that, it's reasonable to say that, in many cases, competition between people with those stark biological differences cannot be 'fair'.

No matter how much one argues that an XY person is an XY person is an XY person, if that XY person has taken on a classically 'female' gender identity, presents as female-gendered, and is not engaged in activities for which biological sex makes a difference, there is very little point other than sheer rudeness to treat them as anything other than female-gendered. The same, of course, is true in reverse. Arguments over what 'hardware' someone has under their clothes, or what their chromosomes contain, is irrelevant to a discussion of their gender.

The problem we're having right now is that far too many people feel the need to be on one end of the political spectrum or the other about this. The ends of the political spectrum are usually the most wrong about something, it seems like to me. There are many valid places to meet in the middle, and we're not going to get anywhere on that if the language that's used attempts to force one to 'pick a side'.

there is very little point other than sheer rudeness to treat them as anything other than female-gendered.

Apart from healthcare. It makes no sense to invite trans women for smear tests or send prostate advice to trans men but that sometimes happens in the UK.

As an aside, I have some difficulty understanding what exactly 'trans' means. Some people change social gender on a daily basis. If they're a biological male but present as a trans female one day, then they present as a male the next day, does that count as a trans male?

AJ

Heathcare concerns are not the same as how you treat someone. You can say, "Mr. Smith, I wanted to remind you that you need a smear test next week."

Mind you, that only applies if they're non-surgical.

If the health care provider is legitimately confused by the biological sex and plumbing of the person in question, that's a different matter and should be solved by better communication.

Someone who's genderfluid to that extent would generally not identify as either male or female. Identifying as male or female is (at least in my view, not being genderfluid myself) a commitment to one or the other, excluding the 'opposite' (opposite in quotes because there are a plethora of gender identities).

As a weak analogy, consider it somewhat like being agnostic as opposed to a member of a religion. If said agnostic likes the ritual of church services, but attends one church one weekend and another the next, that doesn't mean they're Catholic, then Lutheran, then Methodist. It just means they're agnostic.

Note also that rudeness works both ways. It's rude to treat someone whose gender identity is female (particularly if it's a stable, long-established identity) and use male pronouns or honorifics or use a name they no longer use. It's also rude for someone to berate people immediately after a sudden shift in gender, or for someone who has a very unusual gender identity to be snippy that no one automatically knows that their pronoun is X and their honorific is Y.

Most of this would honestly be common sense, but it feels like most people are far too busy either writing off everything related to trans people as 'insanity' or 'a violation of biology' or 'mental illness' or whatever, or alternatively defending every last square inch of trans inclusion and taking offense at honest mistakes or attempts at compromise.

Just treating people how they want to be treated, and respecting biology when biology matters, fixes about 90% of the 'problem'. The remaining 10% is hard (e.g. sports, where there's a huge problem with unequal competition based on biology, but there's also a huge problem if the answer is simply 'Sorry, you're trans, you can't participate at all'). But that remaining 10% shouldn't dominate the discussion and excuse all sorts of bad behavior on both sides.

There was a case reported in the UK media not long ago. A woman was raped on a hospital ward. The woke nurses in charge insisted it was impossible because all the occupants of the ward she was on were women.

The victim refused to give it up and eventually discovered that one of the other patients was 'transgender', and hospital authorities and police were forced to take her seriously. I don't know the outcome. I suspect the case is going through the system. It can take up to six years for a rape case to get to court in the UK.

AJ

Who gets to decide "when biology matters?" Does it matter to a girl who is placed with biological men in a locker room? Does it matter to a school girl who is raped in the girls bathroom by a "gender fluid" male student? does it matter to women prisoners who are housed with biological men and raped by them? Or is it only the persons who want to change their appearance whose right not to be offended matters? For that matter, what committment does have person have to make to a "gender identity" to be considered a trans woman or man? Is just putting on a dress sufficient?

For some of those, I'll stick with 'I'm not sure'. The claims of rape in particular are rather exaggerated. Yes, it does happen (see awnlee jawking's post below), but straight non-trans people are far more likely to rape someone (per capita) than trans people. Rape is a problem no matter who does it, and many of the proposed anti-trans laws (e.g. the 'gender assigned at birth' bathroom legislation) make rape more likely, not less.

Remember that the alternative here is to allow someone dressed, presenting, and acting like a stereotypical male free access to women's restrooms as long as they claim to have been assigned female at birth. That, or strip searches before one can use the bathroom at all.

As to sports - nobody is saying they can't participate - they have the full freedom to partipate on teams in line with their sex. How is that any more restrictive than to them than the situation where girls and women are forced to compete against males?

Neither of those are likely to be viable options. The first is equivalent to those who said, years ago, that there was no discrimination against gays getting married. Gay men were just as entitled to marry women as straight men were, and lesbians were just as entitled to marry men as straight women were. Thus, there was no discrimination. Yeah, right.

Yet, in terms of competition, of course there are issues with parity based on physical attributes. The notion that a biological male, no matter how genuine their transition is, should be competing with biological females in high-level competition creates enormous problems.

Those can't be the only options. What high school football team is going to accept someone who's biologically male but who identifies with and dresses as stereotypically female? For that matter, what high school basketball team (of either sex) is going to accept someone who's biologically their sex but isn't the same gender? If you want to talk about locker room assaults, the number of trans people who are assaulted because they're trans is enormously higher than the number of non-trans people who are assaulted by non-trans people.

The answer is likely going to be to allow trans people to participate in sports at a participatory level, without including them in the top-level competitive categories. That's not ideal, but it's better than either of the other two alternatives. Denying people the right to participate at all is highly unfair. Giving them the right to participate, but only in a way that's completely ridiculous, is just insulting them by offering them an 'option' that isn't in any way a real option. And giving them the right to participate, but in a way that disadvantages large numbers of people, is also unfair.

but straight non-trans people are far more likely to rape someone (per capita) than trans people

That depends on how you look at the numbers. Yes, more 'straight' men are rapists than MtF trans. But, if you look at it from the percentage of the demographic, ie, the amount of (straight) male rapists against the total (straight) male population and compare the amount of MtF rapists against the tans population, then the percentage per head changes drastically.

A newspaper claimed there are more perverts than trans people. I know newspapers like to slant the truth to their own agendas, but a bald fact like that must surely be defensible.

AJ

As I said, even per capita trans people are far less likely to commit sexual assault per the statistics I've read. Yes, the percentage changes, but any given MtF trans person is about 10% as likely as any given biologically male non-trans person to commit sexual assault. In fact, based on the statistics I've seen, the average biologically female person is more likely to commit sexual assault than the average biologically male trans person.

Mind you, that number is very small overall. Yes, most sexual assaults are committed by men/biologically male people, but the vast majority of men/biologically male people aren't rapists. And only about 10-15% of sexual assaults are committed by biologically female people.

Yes, that's based on reported assaults.

It's a terribly under-studied thing. Despite there being clear evidence of females committing sexual assault, there's only been serious work done on studying it fairly recently, and the conclusion so far is that it's been vastly underestimated.

That said, biological females are still far less likely, per capita, to commit sexual assault than biological males are, within the entire population.

But trans people are less likely per capita to commit sexual assault than biological females are.

It's certainly contrary to known correlations between testosterone levels and muscle mass, and aggression and it's also not borne out by the increase in sexual assaults in UK women's prisons when trans women are admitted.

AJ

The law changes to accommodate trans have removed the guardrails. It allows perverts to claim to be trans to get access.

That, or strip searches before one can use the bathroom at all.

There seems to be a growing move towards the primacy of biological sex on passports. People have been refused entry to some countries because their passport carries their social gender rather than their biological sex. Allegedly biological sex is easily verifiable but social gender is easy to fabricate.

The UK currently has a loophole that allows people to change their passports to state their social gender with only superficial checks, and parliament is working on legislation to close it.

AJ

That's a problem either way. The proper thing to do is to probably list both 'sex' and 'gender' on passports.

'Alleged biological sex' isn't that easy to verify without DNA testing equipment. Are border officers supposed to inspect people's plumbing for surgical scars?

And in what store/restaurant/arena/rest stop/etc does one need to show a passport before using the restroom?

My point is that the 'restroom must match biological sex' crowd are increasing, not decreasing, the risk of sexual assault. In the 'use the restroom that matches your appearance', yes, a nefarious male person (or a nefarious female person - roughly 10% of sexual assaults are committed by women acting alone) - can enter a restroom cross-dressed and do awful things, but they still can if the law bars that. After all, the law bars the assault itself.

However, if the law requires one to use the restroom that matches birth, all a male-appearing person need say is 'I'm trans and biologically female' and into the ladies' room they go. In the long run, this normalizes male-appearing-people walking into ladies' rooms, which surely is not what was intended.

I think there should need to be some long-term commitment before sports are involved. The point of the fight over sports is to not restrict access to sports based on one's gender. That gender should be relatively established. Certainly it shouldn't be a 'today I'm a girl' thing. Having to dress, live, etc on a sustained basis seems like a reasonable compromise, and compromise should be the name of the game.

Males who are 'untrained' compete in participatory sports with females by the hundreds of thousands in college intramurals. I've never seen any indication that it's causing any danger. Why should this case be any different?

There aren't any easy answers

Actually, there is. Biological men should only be classed as a 'woman' if they have their testicles and penis physically removed. Anything else is just cross-dressing.

At one bar I used to frequent, the female employees all walked out until the management agreed to stop it.

How is management to stop it if the law requires that biological females use the women's bathroom regardless of their appearance? Should they try to take action (even on a 'our business, our rules' basis), that's a discrimination lawsuit waiting to happen. One they would lose, too.

If someone closes the toilet door behind them no one sees anyone else and it's not really an issue - but the presence of male genitalia is quite obvious in the girl's shower.

As I noted above, the statistics that I've seen say that trans people (that's anyone who claims to be trans) are about 10% as likely as non-trans people to commit sexual assault.

Things like 'bathroom bills' have the unintended consequence of making it far easier for sexual predators to get access to 'women only spaces,' too. If the law requires 'women's rooms' to admit people who are, to all visible appearance, male, how does that help?

I agree: there are no easy answers. There are, however, places where reasonable compromises can be made.

As I noted above, the statistics that I've seen say that trans people (that's anyone who claims to be trans) are about 10% as likely as non-trans people to commit sexual assault.

I'm having difficulty understanding your statistics.

In women's prisons that allow entry to those who claim claim to be trans women, the number of sexual assaults increases. But if biological women commit more sexual assaults than trans women, the number of sexual assaults in women's prisons should decrease if they admit trans women.

AJ

It's unclear if the number of sexual assaults on female non-trans prisoners increases. The number of reported sexual assaults increases, but that may be because inmates are more willing to report a sexual assault if committed by a trans person.

More importantly, you're missing a major variable. Trans people are more likely (significantly more) to be victims of sexual assault in prison than non-trans people are. The number of sexual assaults may be going up because you're adding a disproportionately victimized population to the prison.

but that may be because inmates are more willing to report a sexual assault if committed by a trans person.

I think a sexual assault by a trans woman on a biological woman is likely to be significantly more serious than biological woman on biological woman. The trans woman will have extra power and strength from going through male puberty, and there's the issue of the victim being infected by a life-threatening parasite for nine months. Or contracting an STD - I wouldn't imagine women's prisons have condoms readily available.

AJ

As an aside, I read a snippet in the women's pages of a magazine (no cite, and I have no idea how rigorous the study was) that claimed researchers have found womens' natural instinct when fighting is to go to ground and indulge in a wrestling contest, whereas mens' natural instinct is to stay on their feet and land blows, the consequence being that women's fights tend to be physically less damaging.

I wonder how trans competitors would affect those equations.

AJ

More importantly, you're missing a major variable.

No I'm not, because the safeguarding of trans women is not relevant to the safeguarding of women and children, who shouldn't have to suffer reduced protection because of inadequacies elsewhere in the system.

AJ

Sigh. I didn't say that, and I think you know it.

What I said was, the number of assaults may go up, but the vast majority of the new assaults may be on trans people. There may be fewer assaults on non-trans-people.

Please don't try to twist that into my minimizing assaults on non-trans-people. They're bad. Trans people (whether 'pretending' or 'real') assaulting non-trans-people is bad.

No one in prison should be assaulted, but simply saying there are more assaults does not imply that 'women and children' are suffering 'reduced protection'.

What 'children' are in prison, anyway?

but simply saying there are more assaults does not imply that 'women and children' are suffering 'reduced protection'.

Okay, kids have their own penal system and it's only women that suffer reduced protection by allowing trans women into general population with them. Pre-trans admission - no penile rape, impregnation and possible STD transmission. After trans-admission, all those things occur. Therefore less protection. It's not rocket science.

AJ

You're right. I assumed it would be vanishingly rare :-(

AJ

I see your logic there, but it's not a response to what I said.

Your logic is correct in an 'all people with penises are potential rapists' formulation. Add penises, add risks.

My comment was that 'sexual assaults increased in prison after trans people were added' doesn't prove that non-trans people suffered any more assaults than they did before. Indeed, they may have suffered fewer.

Trans people are considerably more likely to suffer sexual assaults than non-trans people in prisons, statistically speaking. The increase in assaults may be entirely due to trans people being assaulted. The total number of assaults on non-trans people may well be fewer, no matter that there is certainly evidence of awful things happening.

No, that doesn't excuse anything. Sexual assault is bad no matter who is doing it. The real point here is: why do we tolerate there being so many sexual assaults in prison at all? If there is any environment where we should be able to lower the risk, it's prison.

So you have a point (add penis, add risk). But that risk does not necessarily mean they have 'reduced protection' or increased assaults.

But that risk does not necessarily mean they have 'reduced protection' or increased assaults.

What little evidence there is is largely anecdotal but strongly suggests that self-identifying trans women in women's prisons commit rather than suffer more sexual assaults.

AJ

Trans people are considerably more likely to suffer sexual assaults than non-trans people in prisons, statistically speaking.

You keep saying this, without providing any proof.

That which is asserted without proof should be dismissed without proof.

We have proof that rapists pretending to be women to escape the harsher male prison environment have increased assault in women's prisons when they were moved there. We also have proof (Loudon County case) where boys pretending to be girls assaulting girls in school girls' bathrooms when they were allowed there.

What we don't have proof of, is what you're asserting about trans people suffering sexual assault at higher rate than non-trans people. Self declared 'I was sexually assaulted' by trans people is highly suspect. These people are either mentally disturbed or clearly manipulative by simply calling themselves Trans. So their word isn't trustworthy at all.

The trans agenda is just another part of the Woke/Communist agenda to destroy the west and then take it over. Your record on this forum here shows that you clearly push whatever part of the woke agenda we happen to be discussing.

What we don't have proof of, is what you're asserting about trans people suffering sexual assault at higher rate than non-trans people

I would imagine it might be true of trans men in a men's prison, but I have no data to support or refute it.

I assumed most transitions were from male to trans because that's been true of all the trans people I know. But I read a snippet somewhere that a schools study found slightly more girl to boy social transitioning than vice versa. But then 90% of school social transitioning seems to be trans-curious and not persistent.

AJ

Historically, transitions are about 45/55 male-to-female / female-to-male (or so I remember - that may be slightly old data).

We have very little data about 'school social transitioning', as the phenomenon is very new. Anecdotally, none of the 15ish teenage people I know who have transitioned have subsequently detransitioned.

Links to two propaganda pieces and a study with flawed methodology.

Typical leftist crap.

When you can't refute the facts, attack the messenger.

Typical craziness from someone who puts their personal beliefs ahead of facts.

When you can't refute the facts, attack the messenger.

FACTS!! 😂

Good one.

Indeed, facts are good.

And they don't agree with you.

Which is bad for you.

Sorry that reality does not conform to your biases.

https://www.hudson.org.au/news/written-in-dna-study-reveals-potential-biological-basis-for-transgender/

Am I reading that right? They studied biological males who had transitioned to female using surgery and hormones, and found hormonal differences?

AJ

No, they found differences in genes which code for hormone processing, which is a very different thing.

Unless you're alleging that hormone therapy or surgery can alter people at the genetic level, of course. But that seems exceptionally unlikely, doesn't it?

But that seems exceptionally unlikely, doesn't it?

Not really. I believe more and more genes are being revealed as pliable, and genes which are responsible for hormonal pathways are likely candidates considering the enormity of the hormonal changes over a person's life.

AJ

I believe (but could be wrong) that you're thinking of epigenetic changes, in which biological factors can regulate genetic expression. That's very different from the genes themselves being rewritten. To the best of my knowledge (and I am definitely no geneticist) there is no way to rewrite genes themselves without using something like CRISPR or other genetic therapies.

I'd be interested in any evidence that genes themselves are 'pliable', as opposed to genetic expression.

I find the language of genetics very confusing, and those who discuss them seem to make no clear distinction between a gene and how it is set. So I'll leave any further discussion on this subject to those who know what they're talking about.

AJ

They don't prove anything, no, but there is increasing evidence that being trans is biological, not mental, at least for some people.

It's been widely accepted that much of 'gayness' is biological for quite a long time. Yes, there are people who are in the middle on the Kinsey scale (while Kinsey's work is questionable, the scale is still useful) and therefore can 'choose' one or the other, but people who are solidly homosexual seem to very likely be that way for reasons of biology, not choice.

Of course, that was largely thought to be the case way back in the 1970s. Reagan rather famously acknowledged that at that time.

It's virtually impossible that there will ever be 'proof,' but proof isn't required. If there's a reasonable likelihood that someone was just 'born this way,' that's a very different discussion than 'this person is crazy' or 'this person has made a choice we don't like.'

There is clearly not zero evidence, given that I've actually shown some. There's a considerable volume of evidence that 'gayness' is genetic and/or related to changes in the in utero environment.

You may not like the evidence, and it may not convince you. However much you dislike it, though, that does not make it not exist.

Can you explain how come there were never ever any mention of trans, or men thinking they're actual women or women thinking they're actual men living in the wrong body before the 90s?

Renée Richards (born Richard Raskind) would beg to differ about the timing. They transitioned in 1975. And in an odd link to the current day, were 'outed' by Tucker Carlson's father.

The DSM listed 'gender identity disorder' in 1980 (DSM-III), which listed transsexualism as well.

Before the 70s?

Reassignment surgery goes back at least to 1917. Discussions of what we would call 'transgenderism' go back as far as the middle of the 18th century.

It's virtually impossible that there will ever be 'proof,' but proof isn't required.

Proof? We don't need no stinking proof!!

So basically you admit that it's all made up bullshit...

Thank you.

Nice straw man.

What I said was that absolute proof isn't required in this case. Preponderance of evidence, or even reasonable doubt, is more than sufficient to make a case for being 'born this way'.

I vaguely recall a study of the sexualities of identical twins but I can't remember the results. If there is a gay gene, I would expect it to have found some evidence.

AJ

I can go with that, since 'credible' is an 'in the eye of the beholder' statement. Many people find it to be credible. You do not.

Whether a majority finds it credible or not - who knows? And does it matter? To what extent do we let society decide how to treat 'types' of people based on how many people believe something about them?

gay gene

Evolution works through random mutations so it's possible a gay gene, or a gene with a gay setting, has evolved possibly multiple times. But surely it would ultimately be self-defeating because, for most of human history, it wouldn't get propagated.

AJ

I'd be extremely interested in a citation for that, if you're referring to anything other than a brief visitation.

A penis is neither necessary nor sufficient to make someone an assaulter. As noted elsewhere, the data I've seen indicates that people without penises (biological females) are more likely to commit sexual assault than trans people with or without penises.

However, trans people, with or without penises, are considerably more likely than non-trans people to be sexually assaulted.

As to sports - nobody is saying they can't participate - they have the full freedom to partipate on teams in line with their sex. How is that any more restrictive than to them than the situation where girls and women are forced to compete against males?

To borrow a phrase from the Left, I've said, "Punch up, don't punch down." Let anyone try to compete in the men/boys division, but reserve women/girls for those born that way. Not much different than age or weight classes in an attempt to get a fair level of competition. A 150 lb person can try out for heavyweight, but a heavyweight can't try out for 150 lbs.

It just means they're agnostic.

The problem with your analogy is that it is entirely possible to be agonistic AND a member of a specific church. Church membership and praxis are as separate from gnosis as you insist gender and sex are separate.

I'm an ordained clergyman in the Antiochian Orthodox Church and I'm an agnostic. My bishop knows that and it's not a problem.

Atheism, agnosticism, and theism often correlate with membership and praxis, just as gender and biological sex often correlate. And that leads to what I feel is an important source of the problems — human beings are very, very good at sorting and categorizing. This is valuable when used for good (e.g. science) and harmful when used for ill (e.g. racism, sexism, etc).

Initial sorting and categorizing is visual, and allows us to operate on those visual cues to choose correct titles, correct pronouns, and so on. When confronted with a disconnect between what our eyes see and someone says, our natural inclination is to believe what we see, not what we hear (Think about the phrase — "Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?").

That's not an excuse, mind you, but an explanation as to why this is difficult for so many people, including people of good will.

The sports thing is fairly easy, actually — women's sports are for XX, as they have always been (created expressly to allow them to compete with other females for social, physical, and political reasons). So called men's sports are for anyone who can compete.

Two anecdotal examples — there was a female field goal kicker on a local High School team and my son had girls on his hockey teams all the way through High School.

I agree with you about agnosticism. It's a very imperfect analogy.

On the 'sorting' comment: honestly, that should make things easier, but it doesn't. If someone presents as a woman, they're a woman, and vice versa. Sort them that way. Simple! Yet we have politicians trying to make it illegal for people who present as a woman to act like a woman, or people who present as a man to act like a man. The 'sorting' problem is far worse when a biological female who presents as male has to use the women's room by law.

I disagree with you on sports. While there are certainly examples of mens/boys sports teams which have accepted females, there are many examples of those who have not. The situation gets much worse if the 'female' in question is biologically male.

The answer is likely going to be to distinguish 'serious competitive' endeavors from mere participation. The problem nearly goes away for individual sports if one may participate as the gender to which they feel they belong, but are not counted in the outcomes. For team sports, only allow them in coed leagues?

There are few easy answers, but making a false dichotomy between 'everyone has to participate with their biological sex' or 'everyone can participate however they want to' isn't an answer, and that's how the politics of it go most of the time (and yes, that's not what you said - not trying to imply that it was).

In my opinion, 'everyone can be on the biological males' team, but only biological females can be on that team' really isn't an answer either, given the reception many trans kids get. It may be an option in certain parts of the country, but how well would you expect that to go in places where the majority of the population is highly anti-trans?

'Everyone gets to participate on a co-ed team' might be an answer, but of course that's expensive. Still, it's a possibility.

but of course that's expensive.

Fielding sports teams is expensive. Here's a (2022) report on income and expenses for NCAA athletic departments. The income numbers are staggering, but so are the expense numbrs:

NCAA Finances: Revenue and Expenses by School [USA Today]

Football is, generally speaking, the only profitable sport at most universities:

The average college football team makes more money than the next 35 college sports combined [Business Insider]

Oh, and for college, it's NOT television contracts that generate the football revenue:

The Economics of College Sports: How Does College Football Make Money? [The Citadel]

In the end, if you're going to field a third team at the High School level, taxes will have to go up. At the university and professional level, you're going to have to find sources of revenue, which requries fans.

It's a tough nut to crack, but the answer is absolutely not XY players in XX sports.

The answer is likely to require multiple tiers of sports, which, yes, is expensive. The question - as it always is - is whether it's acceptable to discriminate against categories of people because it's cheaper to do so.

And I'm not saying that's a one-answer question. There will always be cases where the answer is 'No, it's economically impossible to accommodate you.' Perhaps trans people are at that level, but perhaps they're not.

Part of the answer is likely to be to acknowledge that, for the vast majority of people, it makes very little difference. In many individual sports, it costs very little extra to allow an XY person to participate as an individual and, if they're only allowed to participate, not compete, they do not disadvantage XX people.

As has been noted, it's complicated, and there are no easy answers.

Just as a for-instance, requiring a young teenage biological male who has been on hormone therapy (and therefore has not developed, and may well be slower and weaker than a biological female of the same age), to compete only in XX sports is just as blatantly unfair as requiring biological females to compete against biological males who are fully developed but transitioned later. It's also dangerous: a young teenage biological male who presents 100% as a girl (and has for years), hasn't developed, and so forth is likely to find XX sports an incredibly hostile environment in many parts of the United States (and even worse in many other countries).

The lawsuits stemming from the consequences of forcing that person to participate only in XX sports won't be cheap, either. Even if one forces waivers and the like, one generally cannot avoid liability from knowingly subjecting someone to entirely foreseeable danger.

Of course, the law could force schools to do that, but enshrining discrimination into law should require a very high bar, and I don't see that being met thus far.

We differ greatly on what 'experimented on' means, clearly.

If the male has started puberty, he may be at an undeniable physical advantage with girls of the same age. In the first year or two of puberty, many males will not have caught up and will still be behind girls of the same age, though some will have. After that, it's a spectrum. The average male will have an advantage over the average female, but some males will still be physically inferior to the average girl. But, then, my entire point was that the male has not started puberty, in which case he will very likely be physically inferior to the average female.

No, my preference is discrimination against no people. I refuse to accept that it's necessary to discriminate against the 1.5% of teenagers who are trans to accommodate 50% of people. Why should the default be 'discrimination is fine'?

I've already stated that the ideal is to look for compromises that allow the 1.5% to participate without disadvantaging the 50%. If we can't do that, then look for alternatives. Discrimination should be the last option, not the first.

2.4% of Americans are Jewish. Larger than 1.5%, but not double. Would you say that it's fine to discriminate against Jews because they're 'miniscule'? I suspect very much that you wouldn't, and am not accusing you of that, but the point is that discriminating against a minority because their numbers are 'miniscule' is a very questionable thing to do.

And, beyond that, sports are one thing, yet sports are used to justify a wide range of discrimination beyond sports. Even if we assume that it is, in fact, necessary to discriminate against trans people in sports, why is it acceptable to discriminate against them in anything else?

I did in fact already state the level of committment elsewhere. Quoting:

I think there should need to be some long-term commitment before sports are involved. The point of the fight over sports is to not restrict access to sports based on one's gender. That gender should be relatively established. Certainly it shouldn't be a 'today I'm a girl' thing. Having to dress, live, etc on a sustained basis seems like a reasonable compromise, and compromise should be the name of the game.

I'm not ignoring anyone's rights. The very section that you quoted made that clear. Why you chose to quote a section that disproves your strawman is unclear to me.

Repeating: I also said that there aren't easy solutions to locker rooms, etc. Locker rooms in general are a problem, and they would be a problem if trans people didn't exist. Yes, trans people sometimes make it worse, and one should look for alternatives first. If there are simply no alternatives available, let the trans person participate but change and shower elsewhere if necessary. Mind you, I also said that it would be better for trans people to not compete in terms of scoring, at least in cases where there is a biological advantage. You seem to have ignored that.

There's no perfect solution. It's not (or shouldn't be) 'trans people get to do everything' or 'trans people get to do nothing'. There are very likely compromises which allow participation without victimizing another group. Why not look for them?

And from your viewpoint, what about "gender fluid" persons who claim the right to change their gender on a day-to-day basis depending on how they are feeling that day? The Virginia serial rapist made that claim. Shouldn't those people have the right to do as they wish?

They should definitely have the right to do as they wish. That right should not extend to participation in sports.

I don't know who judges the 'long-term commitment'. Are you expecting me to have every answer to every question? I don't, and I never claimed to. However, as best as I can tell, your standard is that no level of commitment is sufficient, and I think that's absurd.

I'll repeat what I said: Discrimination should be the last option, not the first. That includes both discrimination against trans people and discrimination against non-trans people.

However, as a (weak, but not that weak) analogy, consider the 1960s. White people in many places in the South felt that their rights were being infringed on by forced integration. Some still do. Nevertheless, continuing to force black students into second-class status was not judged by society to be a reasonable alternative - notwithstanding that, in many places, there were far more white students than black students.

Why should it be acceptable to discriminate against either XX people or (presumably XY) trans people as the first option? Why should anyone accept a false dichotomy that requires one group to suffer so that the other can get everything they want?

Where is the compromise, in your point of view? What level of discrimination against trans people is acceptable? How much should they be forced to give up in order to be who they are?

Or are they unworthy of being treated as if they were also citizens and members of our community, simply because their gender doesn't conform to the gender some people think it should be?

The sports thing is fairly easy, actually — women's sports are for XX, as they have always been (created expressly to allow them to compete with other females for social, physical, and political reasons). So called men's sports are for anyone who can compete.

Two anecdotal examples — there was a female field goal kicker on a local High School team and my son had girls on his hockey teams all the way through High School.

Totally agree and I just made a similar reply. The girl next door plays on our high school's girls golf and soccer teams, as well as on the boy's varsity hockey team as a forward. A girl in a nearby high school played defensive back on the varsity boy's football team, and is the state weightlifting champ in her weight group. I champion those who try to punch up but no one should be allowed to punch down.

Most of this would honestly be common sense

Coming from a science background, to me common sense means biological supremacy. If you get someone's biological sex wrong, it could conceivably kill them. But if you get someone's social gender wrong, the worst you can get is ruffled feelings.

I think the issue of body dysphoria has unfortunately been hijacked by celebrities who want to appear as someone special. First they all suffered from 'designer depression', then they were all self-diagnosing themselves with ADHD, now they're coming up with weird genders and sexualities.

I regard them as a sort of clique, with their own cliquey language, like fans of hentai or BDSM. The man on the Clapham Omnibus should not penalised for being ignorant of their particular affectations.

AJ

'Follow the golden rule' is common sense, too. Treat people as they wish to be treated.

Yes, medicine is an exception. Acknowledging someone's social gender in a non-medical context is extremely unlikely to kill them, though, yet 'biological supremacy' is used to justify egregious rudeness over and over.

It also results in terrible legislation. To repeat (likely too much), 'bathroom bills' take what might (or might not) be a very small danger (predators pretending to be trans to gain access to bathrooms where victims may be found) with a much later danger (throwing open bathrooms to people who present as the 'opposite sex' and normalizing their presence), all while disadvantaging a segment of the population for no good reason. It doesn't 'make women safer,' it makes women less safe. Predators can still cross-dress - what, someone who's intending to commit a sexual assault will be deterred by a 'sex assigned at birth' law? - while people who are dressed completely inappropriately still must be allowed to enter as well, normalizing the presence of potential threats.

I'm not sure that you're wrong about celebrities, but the trans people I know (about 30, now) aren't celebrities and have never been celebrities. They just want to live their lives in peace and be respected for who they are.

(Parenthetically, I should note that I'm not in 'the trans community,' nor have I sought out trans people. They're just people I've met living my life. Gender-wise, I'm a very boring straight cis heteronormative biological male. I do attend a church that welcomes pretty much everyone, which makes it attractive to trans people, but only about half of the trans people I know are associated with that church.)

Mirroring what you said, I think the issue of 'trans predators' has unfortunately been hijacked by people with a particular political agenda who want to conceal their bigotry as 'concern'.

I will in general agree with your last sentence. If one uses 'she' or 'her' for a female-presenting person, or uses 'they' when unsure, that should be fine. The intent is to treat people with respect. If someone wants to be 'zer', and wishes to be known as being 'Zermale', others should not be penalized for not knowing that.

On the other hand, if you say 'he' to someone who you know is a trans woman, that's offensive. If you insist on using their deadname, that's offensive. If you require them to use the men's room, that's both offensive and dangerous. If you treat them as second-class citizens, that's offensive and discriminatory.

Occasionally causing ruffled feelings will happen, and that's fine, if one is doing so with goodwill. Apologize and move on. However, setting forth to intentionally ruffle feelings by intentionally getting someone's social gender is being a jerk, and being a jerk should not be praised or rewarded or even normalized.

but the trans people I know (about 30, now) aren't celebrities and have never been celebrities. They just want to live their lives in peace and be respected for who they are.

My count is less than thirty, but that's something I wholeheartedly agree with.

Trans activists and trans people are very different datasets.

AJ

To repeat (likely too much), 'bathroom bills' take what might (or might not) be a very small danger

If you take the view of radical feminists, all men are potential rapists. If there's a weakness where predators can game the system, they will game it and take advantage of the vulnerable. Not allowing self-identifying trans women into women's prisons results in a significant drop in the number of men who claim to be trans after they're convicted.

throwing open bathrooms to people who present as the 'opposite sex' and normalizing their presence

Do you mean unisex bathrooms? That is definitely a form of Hell on Earth. Any head teach who introduces them in their schools should be tortured with a cattle prod until they come to their senses.

AJ

all men are potential rapists

And I agree with that, from their perspective.

Your point about prisons is interesting, but far more people use the bathroom than go to prison, and the 'bathroom bills' make it easier for men to enter women's rooms, not harder.

I don't mean unisex bathrooms in the sense of 'everyone uses a multiple-stall bathroom'. Single-toilet unisex bathrooms are the ideal, but impractical for schools.

No, I mean that 'bathroom bills' require that someone dressed as a man, perhaps with a beard, etc, must be allowed to use the women's room, because they can claim to be a trans man, biologically female. Unless one requires strip searches and has someone on staff qualified to evaluate surgical scars, that's what the law requires. What I'm saying is that 'bathroom bills' throw open women's rooms to people who present as male and normalize their presence. That's why they're idiotic.

Use the bathroom that matches your gender. That's by far the most sane option.

Use the bathroom that matches your gender. That's by far the most sane option.

Trust but verify. That's a saner option when the number of perverts exceeds the number of trans people.

AJ

How do you propose to 'verify'? That's the sticking point.

I really don't see businesses requiring an ID, much less a strip search, before someone is allowed to use the bathroom.

I guess common sense has to prevail, as it did before the trans issues arose. If someone presents as the appropriate sex for a particular bathroom (no facial hair or adam's apple) and doesn't do anything inappropriate (like peeing standing up, something that some biological women find offensive), then no harm no foul.

AJ

The point of bathroom laws is that when there is a complaint, the person can be removed/barred from using the facility.

I think it's obvious that I don't understand the US meaning of bathroom laws :-(

AJ

Laws requiring people to use the appropriate bathroom (men's or women's) for their biological sex.

That would work well in the UK where restrooms are mostly divided into men's, women's and single-occupancy disabled (except where GOs and NGOs have been enthralled by trans-supremacist 'charities' like Stonewall).

But other posters seem to imply that US bathroom laws allow trans people into bathrooms not of their biological sex.

So I'm still confused.

AJ

[The school district's lawyer] told me that only the female student had any rights, and the parents would not be informed."

And this is a perfect example of the promotion of transgender supremacy. It's not about reasonable compromises or accommodations. All hand-waving aside, it boils down to that statement — only the transgender person has any 'rights' in such circumstances.

I'm all for reasonable accomodation, but what it can't do is violate the rights of others.

A fundamental principle in the US is that no individual's rights are superior to any other individual's rights.

This is far different from anti-miscegenation laws, which interfered in the private acts of consenting individuals. No non-party to the marriage had their rights violated in any way. That's not true with locker rooms, etc.

Also, the policy described above interferes with something the courts have treated as a sacred right — the right to parent and to be informed of any actions taken with regard to their children. That's the entire point of family court — the government has to go before a judge and prove they need to interfere; they cannot interfere on just a whim. In exigent circumstances, such review can be ex post facto, if a child is in imminent danger of being injured or killed. But again, the government has to prove it in court, not just declare a policy.

Or at least that's how the US system functioned until the last few years.

A fundamental principle in the US is that no individual's rights are superior to any other individual's rights.

Tell that to a 50-yo white male in today's DEI world. And if he says anything about it, he's cancelled as a racist or white supremacist.

Tell that to a 50-yo white male in today's DEI world. And if he says anything about it, he's cancelled as a racist or white supremacist.

Any system of belief that contradicts itself is irrational. See above for my comment about the political theory being a mix of Maoism, gnosticism, and Gaia worship. 'Feelings' trump everything, including science and the Constitution, so long as you're in an 'oppressed' class. If you aren't, then you have no rights and deserve to be demonized and marginalized.

You know, the same exact thing the rational left fought against for a century.

That's not accurate. Under civil rights laws, "protected classes" have different, more rights than others.

It's completely accurate. Those laws violate that basic principle of equality and equal treatment under the law.

The US has become a failed experiement that has betrayed its basic principles.

That's not accurate. Under civil rights laws, "protected classes" have different, more rights than others.

I recognize that some groups of people are more vulnerable but giving some groups more rights than others should be unconstitutional as it still adheres to the concept of group rights, only switching the ranking of the groups. If anything is a crime (assault, murder) it should be a crime regardless of who the victim is. If something is a crime only when directed at certain groups then it should be illegitimate.

But other posters seem to imply that US bathroom laws allow trans people into bathrooms not of their biological sex.

From the OSHA website: https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA3795.pdf

OSHA is: The Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

A Guide to Restroom Access for Transgender Workers

Core principle: All employees, including transgender employees, should have access to restrooms that correspond to their gender identity.

Accordingly, authorities on gender issues

That makes me suspicious of whether they contracted out their policy to a trans-activist organisation like Stonewall, since IMO they clearly haven't given sufficient consideration to women's protection.

AJ

since IMO they clearly haven't given sufficient consideration to women's protection.

Of course they haven't. It's Far Left, Progressive, or whatever you want to call it religion.

The funny thing is, Title IX was pushed by the Left (laws to give women equal rights as men in sports). That was good. That was fair. The right thing to do (no pun intended). And now with the Far Left pushing to allow biological men who associate as female to compete in women's sports is taking away what Title IX gave women.

It's Far Left, Progressive, or whatever you want to call it religion.

IMHO, a deadly mix of Maoism, gnosticism, and Gaia worship.

I agree with Nate Silver that the group commonly referred to as 'woke' is neither 'liberal' nor 'progressive'. He uses 'Social Justice Left' or 'SJL' to distinguish it from liberalism (US definition) and progressivism.

Sort of, but not entirely, correct.

Many bathroom laws do not require a complaint. They make it a crime for someone to enter a bathroom which does not correlate with their sex assigned at birth whether or not there is a complaint. The pre-'bathroom law' situation (at least where I live, but it's true in many other states) was that anyone who entered a bathroom and caused a complaint could be removed if their biological sex didn't match anyway, so it didn't change that.

The unintended consequence here is that someone presenting as a male must be allowed to use the women's room, at least where I live, because they might be a trans man following the law. It's slowly normalizing people who are 'dressed male, 'acting male,' etc entering women's rooms. No facility can bar them, because the law requires that they have access to the women's room.

Yes, schools and prisons don't have that problem, but those are by far the smallest part of 'bathroom bills', because the pre-'bathroom bill' status quo never applied to schools and prisons in the first place.

If a person with a penis is convicted of raping woman, then it's proven that person is a criminal and rapist who victimizes women. Therefor it makes no sense to house that person with women. It creates a victim rich environment.

That was the case with the Scottish rapist who claimed to be trans in order to be placed in a women's prison. I believe (s)he committed two further assaults before being moved to a men's prison.

AJ

Your side

'Your side?' I'm arguing against there being 'two sides.'

Both extremes are wrong most of the time, as far as I'm concerned. Making this into an 'us versus them' argument, and forcing false dichotomies on everything, is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Schools and prisons are the most important areas.

They're the most important areas to people in school and people in prison. They're not the most important areas to the vast majority of people who are not in school or prison.

Often, they're used as battering rams to push policies which have nothing to do with schools or prisons.

Clearly you have a side: accept everything in the trans agenda without question and to hell with the rights of anyone else.

Really? So the 'trans agenda' says that biological males should generally not be allowed to compete with biological females? Wow! I missed that!

And the 'trans agenda' says that we need to compromise and balance rights, not make sure trans rights are supported in an uncompromising fashion? I had no idea!

You're just proving that you're not reading what I'm writing, you're just responding as if I was saying something I'm not.

The schools and prisons are the most important simply because people are forced to be there. The students and inmates have no choice except to follow the rules imposed by the government: rules that ignore their rights.

Are you of the opinion that people don't have to follow the law outside of schools and prisons? There are a number of trans-related laws that have nothing to do with schools and prisons.

'Follow the golden rule' is common sense, too. Treat people as they wish to be treated.

The golden rule is 'treat the people as you wish to be treated'.

Everybody wants to be treated like a king or a queen, but they hardly ever reciprocate.

My own golden rule, after living long enough, has become:

When you meet people the first time, treat them as you wish to be treated. After that, treat them as they treat you.

I meet you and treat you very well. If you treat me badly, I'll return it with interest.

There are people who think that the golden rule is: He who has the gold rules. :)

Because they are realists! 😎

Agreed, and my phrasing was awkward. I would say that the golden rule is 'Treat other people as you would wish to be treated if you were in their shoes.'

The golden rule is not 'I should treat gay people as if they were straight, because I'm straight and that's how I'd want to be treated,' it's 'I should treat gay people as I'd want to be treated if I was gay.'

Ditto for trans people.

I have mixed feelings about your addition. On the one hand, it makes sense that one does not wish to make of oneself a willing victim. But, on the other hand, 'If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also', not 'if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, slap them right back.' Admittedly, living life to Jesus' standards is very, very difficult, and most everyone will fall short.

Ditto for trans people.

Trans people fall into three categories as far as I'm concerned.

Mentally ill, sexual creeps, or those who seek advantage.

1 - If a man truly believes that he is actually a woman trapped in a man's body, that means he's mentally ill. You can cater all you want to his delusions, but I refuse to do so and it does him no actual good to cater to him. Mentally ill people need treatment, not confirmation. The world become a worse place when we do this shit.

2 - If a man gets a sexual high from pretending to be a woman, then you definitely don't need to cater to his cosplay.

The guy that won the swimming thing, Lea Thomas, posted a video of himself admitting to getting hard (getting an erection) when people sees him or play along that he's a woman. That is a sexual creep and the fact that he managed to bamboozle the sports world into playing along is a sign of deep societal decay.

3 - If a man pretends to be a woman for some advantage like when a convicted rapist pretends to identify as a woman to be sent to women's jail, then you definitely shouldn't cater to that at all.

Women live on easy mode in this world with many advantages, and many men are jealous and the current trans agenda allows those weak men to take advantage of various things in society when allowed by saying they are women.

If I see a guy dressed as a woman, I would only look at him as somebody who is disturbed or to be suspicious of. Unfortunately, here in Canada they passed a law that gets you in trouble if you don't play along with a creep or a mentally ill person. So I simply avoid them and refuse to deal with them.

Edited to Add: #3.

First they all suffered from 'designer depression'

The in-thing at the moment seems to be 'designer PTSD' - attention-seeking celebrities are trivialising the effect on genuine sufferers for the sake of self-promotion :-(

AJ

The Son

"The Child" because otherwise it's sexist or misogynist or something.

[sarcasm] And maybe Jesus identified as female? [/sarcasm]

[sarcasm] And maybe Jesus identified as female? [/sarcasm]

Well, if you ascribe any credibility to my experiment a few years back, God identifies as female.

AJ

God identifies as female.

I actually thought God is a DJ...

I actually thought God is a DJ...

I suppose it is a little unrealistic for God to be sitting on a cloud all day with all the angels harping away ;-)

Using the American Psychological Association as an authority is a joke. It is a purely political organization, not a scientific organization in any respect.

Sadly, this could be said for the AMA, ACS, and AAP as well.

(American Medical Association, American College of Surgeons, American Academy of Pediatrics)

The psychologists that I know would beg to differ. The APA may (or may not - I'll get to it) have some 'political' positions, but the notion that they're 'not a scientific organization in any respect' seems exceptionally unlikely, given the amount of attention they pay to research and scholarship that's clearly 'scientific.'

More to the point, if the argument is that they're 'political' because they use 'gender' to refer to social constructs and not biology, that's a terrible argument. There is a need for two different words. Claiming that 'gender' as a social construct doesn't exist is as silly as claiming that 'sex' as a biological construct doesn't exist.

Or, alternately, claiming that 'gender' (the social construct) isn't inherently important in psychology is as silly as claiming that 'religion' (the social construct) isn't inherently important in psychology.

Claiming that 'gender' (as a term and a concept) matters isn't 'political'.

The word 'political' is vastly overused today. At this point, pretty much everything has been called 'political', which makes the word of nearly no value at all.

Laws like this aren't meant to define what is, only what term will be used in legal cases. While these terms may seem overly PC, they are very useful for a lot of situations regarding complex and blended families.

Except that's not the reason because there would be no reason to change father to non-birthing parent.

Except that's not the reason because there would be no reason to change father to non-birthing parent.

Um, two lesbians having a child? One is the birthing parent, but the other isn't the father, just the non-birthing parent.

Um, two lesbians having a child? One is the birthing parent, but the other isn't the father, just the non-birthing parent.

I guess they would both be mothers, one being the birthing mother and the other being the non-birthing mother. Would the child ever call one of the lesbian mothers Daddy?

To put all this in context, the Hawaii changes that go into affect tomorrow also include the right for someone to change their gender on their marriage license.

I guess they would both be mothers, one being the birthing mother and the other being the non-birthing mother.

Or non-binary? Really, trying to stay with mother/father can get very strange in a world that acknowledges more than two genders (not more than two sexes, though that is true as well.)

To put all this in context, the Hawaii changes that go into affect tomorrow also include the right for someone to change their gender on their marriage license.

Seems reasonable to me. I recently met someone who didn't understand that she was transfem until she'd been married for more than 20 years. Her wife was very accepting of the change.

Would the child ever call one of the lesbian mothers Daddy?

Fortunately the medical profession has to be based on science rather than feelings. Doctors ask for the mother's medical history and the father's medical history because they're the ones that are relevant for heritable health problems, and in the case of a pair of lesbians the medical history of the non-birthing parent is irrelevant.

AJ

You are right that the biological history of inheritance is all that's relevant for that discussion. Sadly, my experience is that most arguments about language on forms have nothing to do with that. Adoption has been a fairly common occurrence far, far longer than transgenderism, yet it's still a notable event when a medical form actually makes it easy to indicate that one is adopted.

An astonishing number of doctors (in 2024, not decades ago) still use forms that don't include any provision for adoption, requiring adopted people to scribble notes in the margins lest the doctor assume that there is some connection between the health of the 'father' and the 'mother' and that of the patient. Even when one scribbles said notes, the number of conversations (with the same practice) in which references are made to parents' medical history is distressingly high.

I won't even get into how ridiculous the school system is on that subject, beyond saying that it's utterly ridiculous that, in 2020, one can still find state-mandated forms and language in use which presupposes that every child lives with their biological parents only and that only a biological parent can give consent. The language is, thankfully, not legally binding, but it's distressing.

Now consider how distressing things might be for someone whose circumstances are less well socially understood than the age-old practice of adoption, and how awkward the conversations will be with every health-care provider (and teacher, and principal, and ...) that one comes across.

As it does not affect you in any possible way

Well, I have a Hawaiian lesbian granddaughter (married to a woman, but no children) living on the family coffee plantation on the Big Island.

But that's not why I created the thread. Since we authors deal with words, I thought it would be interesting.

I've noticed something in the shops sold as "apple cider vinegar with mother", although I have no idea what that means.

It's a byproduct of yeast and bacteria that results from fermenting apple juice. It appears as a cloudy, spongy, or stringy mass and contains probiotics, enzymes, and nutrients.

Thanks. That sounds disgustingly healthy. And probably not an appropriate straight swap for white wine vinegar.

AJ

And probably not an appropriate straight swap for white wine vinegar.

I'm almost certain nobody cares, but I bought a cheap bottle of apple cider vinegar without birthparent this morning because the list of uses on the label included what I want to try.

AJ

You can use the mother to make your own vinegar.

Thanks. That's handy to know. My parents had a ginger beer plant that did something like that. However, if I go that route, I'd only be using small quantities so it's probably not worth the effort.

AJ

cider apple vinegar

A totally irrelevant aside, but Victoria Beckham (the Spice Girl who can't sing) allegedly starts the day with a couple of tablespoons of apple cider vinegar.

AJ

the Romans used diluted vinegar as an appetite suppressant.

Because vinegar can't be patented, I can understand there being no rush by pharmaceutical to trial it against Wegovy ;-)

AJ

My go-to is rice vinegar.

biological males are free to enter female spaces by simply saying they feel it is necessary.

On a lighter side, I was once at a huge company meeting in a fancy hotel ballroom. They were going to tell us about a huge layoff so there was plenty of alcohol. Back then I drank a little, but it only took a little to get me drunk.

So I was rather drunk when I went to the mens room. When I was inside, in my drunken state, I was shocked that it was all pink. And that it was the nicest mens room I ever saw. Then it dawned on me. It was the ladies room.

I got out of there as quickly as my drunk legs would take me.

One night after midnight I was getting sleepy and pulled into a rest stop on the turnpike to take a nap but first had to take a pee. In my brain's hazy state I was amazed that there weren't any urinals in the men's room.

Now laws in some states require them to allow biological male observation and to be exposed to biological male anatomy.

Worse than restrooms are the school locker rooms and showers kids use after PE.

Prior to trans activism — a biological male entering a female reserved space likely committed a felony

Not true in Texas, at least. The law in Texas was that a biological male entering a female reserved space 'for the purpose of creating a disruption' committed a misdemeanor. If they entered that space just to pee, there was no crime. There were giant billboards spelling that out along the entryways of the restrooms in the arena where I used to go for concerts. It was pretty common for the bathrooms of either sex to get crowded and for people to use the other bathroom to pee.

Now - post 'bathroom bills' - people presenting as men may enter female spaces simply by claiming to be trans men. Meanwhile, an innocuous trans woman who just wants to pee risks either assault by entering the men's room looking like a female or criminalization by entering the women's room.

The women I know are adamant that the situation is much worse as it is now. None of them had any problem if the occasional trans woman used 'their' bathroom. There are stalls; no one is exposed to anything.

Mind you, they may be atypical. But it's the sample that I have.

Why not criminalize poor behavior rather than anatomy? Gawking at women in the women's room, or assaulting them, is just as bad whether the person doing it is XX or XY.

In some ways, my favorite solution to this is one of the Alamo Drafthouse locations. They have a restroom (one*). In that restroom, there is a row of stalls, a row of sinks, and a smaller side room with urinals. People who want a stall use a stall. People who want a urinal use a urinal (there is no sex specified on the door). People who want a sink use a sink.

(*note: they also have a single one-toilet/one-sink restroom which can be used by anyone who doesn't like the other one, or for families, disabled people who need space or assistance, etc)

There's virtually no chance of either assault or gawking.

I suspect that wouldn't be good for business in a number of areas, but it works for them , cuts through all of the hyperbole, and makes the restroom simply about taking care of the needs humans have that require a restroom in the first place.

They have a restroom (one*). In that restroom, there is a row of stalls, a row of sinks, and a smaller side room with urinals. People who want a stall use a stall. People who want a urinal use a urinal (there is no sex specified on the door). People who want a sink use a sink.

In the UK, they're being forced to remove them from UK schools because boys are making their use a nightmare for girls. Imagine being on your period and boys banging on your stall door and trying to get in. And then after you finish, the boys search the trash for the used tampons or pads.

I hope there's a special place in hell reserved for woke bureaucrats who introduce them into schools.

AJ

Not true in Texas, at least.

Unfortunately, I can't provide anything other than anecdotal evidence, which I generally try to avoid. Searches for news articles from the 70s and 80s about incidents/laws of which I'm aware are basically impossible to find, as every search engine turns up the controversy of forcing sports teams to allow female reporters into male locker rooms (while at the same time insisting no male reporters be in female locker rooms).

Locker room configurations have changed since then, but it was a huge controversey back in the day. If schools had the money sports teams ahve, they could solve these problems, too (mainly by individual, rather than communal, bathroms).

I wasn't talking about locker rooms, but rather regular restrooms. Locker rooms are their own special nightmare, and they are even if they're restricted to one biological gender.

I wasn't talking about locker rooms, but rather regular restrooms. Locker rooms are their own special nightmare, and they are even if they're restricted to one biological gender.

And I did searches several ways, but using keywords about access to opposite-sex spaces only turned up those articles and references.

In other words, I wasn't saying it was locker rooms, I was saying that's all Google and DuckDukGo turned up.

I've been a member of the press in the Penguins locker room. Every player in there was naked, even when being interviewed for TV (camera got from shoulders up) I believe it was unfair to only allow male reporters access to the players after a game, but it would also not be proper to let member of the opposite sex into a room full of naked players. Today, I believe most sports no longer let any reporters into the locker room after games, when players are expected to be naked, but instead have a press conference in a designated room. That's a better situation all around.

My point was the controversy was resolved in a way that ignored the players' rights AND allowed female reporters into male locker rooms without male reporters being allowed in female locker rooms.

As I also noted, sports had enough money to solve this (with many locker rooms having separate areas where nudity is OK, and a 'public' area where it is not). And yes, there are also separate press rooms as well.

But remember, nobody considered it acceptable for males to be in female locker rooms because they were considered 'safe' spaces. That is no loner true.

My point was the controversy was resolved in a way that ignored the players' rights AND allowed female reporters into male locker rooms without male reporters being allowed in female locker rooms.

Yes, initially it was resolved by banning women from men's spaces but today there is an equitable solution (damn, I hate using that word!) but it's not being applied both ways with trans. Despite their fealty to women's rights, women are now at the bottom of the privilege ladder.

Despite their fealty to women's rights

SJLs have sacrificed women's right on the altar of Maoism, gnosticism, and Gaia worship.

We're seeing Nineteen Eight-Four and Animal Farm play out before our eyes. It's as if the SJLs decided to use them as instruction manuals.

I see that the whole trans issue in now kicking off in snooker

Snooker is a sport????

Next, you'll be claiming that darts is a sport :-(

AJ

It's one of the cue sports.

Oops, my attempt at humour didn't travel well.

I used to play snooker with friends occasionally. I was hilariously awful.

I don't consider anything to be a sport unless it helps us Greeks win battles against the Persians ;-)

However I can't see any advantage a male may have playing Snooker against a biological woman.

Speaking from experience, I believe breasts are a significant hindrance when bending over the table to play shots. And I suspect wider hips wouldn't help either. But women can play at a high level and beat men too.

AJ

However I can't see any advantage a male may have playing Snooker against a biological woman.

I was the same at first, then I Googled it. Apparently, there is an advantage in just the fact that males have longer arm reach. If you fail to see how that matters, then think about artillery. A long barrel is more accurate over distance than a short barrel (It's the same for firearms as well). This longer arm reach allows for more accurate lining up of shots. Males have greater muscle mass in the arms, so that allows greater control of said reach.

Another factor, is in the difference between men and women in calculating distance by sight. There have been many studies on this and it has been put down to the 'hunter gatherer' history of humanity where men were expected to go out to hunt (Where judging distance is very important if you do not wish to go hungry) and women were expected to stay home and look after the children. This has led, of course, to the many statements involving women and distance related tasks, like the perceived inability of women to park cars, etc etc.

Of course, this is all 'swings and roundabouts' with women being more adept in other tasks, than men are (other than the obvious one of child rearing).

Apparently, there is an advantage in just the fact that males have longer arm reach.

That reminds me. I've got a pile of ironing to do, and that's harder for biological males because of those longer arms :-(

AJ

I've got a pile of ironing to do

One of the best decisions I ever made, was to stop ironing about fifteen years ago. Apart from the odd dress here and there, the iron and board has stayed in the cupboard where it now rightly belongs.

Sadly I have lots of clothes and bedding from before the 'non-iron' days. So it's quite different from Michael Loucks's universe, where you bung a sheet in the washing machine and it's ready for after the next fuckathon.

AJ

The iron comes in handy in an action story. The man is overpowering the woman when she grabs the iron. If it's hot, she presses it to the side of his face. If it's not hot (or even if it is), she clobbers him with the iron.

Equally, she can use the spray bottle with the nice scent in it. A blast of that in the face and there is a good chance the chemicals in the mix will smart, ever so slightly... (in built iron water dampeners are for iron beginners...) 🤪

If she's ironing the tyres on her car the iron won't be hot, but it's still a good weapon to clobber someone with.

AJ

ironing the tyres on her car

That's a new one on me. What does it mean?

Mine seemed to fit this thread. Powerful man. Helpless woman doing "woman's work."

That's a new one on me. What does it mean?

It was a feeble pun on the term 'tire iron' (US), which is a frequent weapon of choice of antagonists in crime stories.

It's not a way of producing flat tyres ;-)

AJ

the term 'tire iron' (US), which is a frequent weapon of choice

Cars no longer come with them. They were the handle of the jack that came with the car. The end you slipped into the jack was flat. That's the tire iron part. Used to remove a tire from the wheel. The other end had a lug wrench on it that fit the lugs on the wheel. Not so easy to use so people had lug wrenches (which was a cross with different size lug wrenches on each tip).

So it's quite different from Michael Loucks's universe, where you bung a sheet in the washing machine and it's ready for after the next fuckathon.

His characters are careful to shower after each love making session, but the girls have to be careful not to use a wrongly scented shampoo.

My characters tend to have the shower as an afterthought and never thought of the sheets.