At least he has enough respect and decency to be honest.
You should try it some time, instead of perpetuating lies. If people never tell you the truth and always feed you lies, then after a while you could start believing them. 'The Emperor's New Clothes' is a little story that illustrates this point.
This is wild. So as long as you are honest about how you discriminate against individuals, that makes you a decent person?
Tell me how calling someone a biological male is discrimination when the subject is in fact a biological male?
Just because someone doesn't want to be something doesn't mean it can be changed.
And by the way, people with DSD's (intersex is an outdated, inaccurate term) don't produce 'both' gametes; they are either infertile or produce only one functional gamete. So the shoe analogy is already extremely generous to your preposterous notion and yet it still comes out with the answer of two.
Yet another example of how this cult group considers reproduction as the sole reason for human existence.
Here you go with the word games again. In this instance you use the phrase "sole reason for human existence" to conflate two distinct things: 1. the mechansim for reproducing the species, and 2. the existential meaning of the human experience.
People are beating their heads against the wall explaining that every single human being that's ever been born arrived here through the same reproductive mechanism. That is the sole cause of new human life. There is no human life without reproduction.
Few people would argue that existential meaning can be reduced to reproduction. This is the stuff of religion and spirituality. However, your tendency to conflate this spiritual view with sexual reproduction is telling. What you cannot see, what you refuse to see, is that you are attempting to force a spiritual claim on others, displacing scientific knowledge with these spiritual logics, and scorning those who don't kiss the ring.
By far, the biggest problem in many Western cultures is that they spiritual views have insinuated themselves in our knowledge-producing institutions. This is destroying public trust in experts and stoking conflict.
You insist on othering and monstering people with DSDs by calling them "intersex," an outdated, stigmatizing, political term that gender identity activists use and favor because it helps create, perpetuate and spread the pernicious myth that people with DSDs occupy some strange, otherworldly no-man's, no-woman's land in between the sexes - or they are somehow both sexes at once, or neither sex at all.
No sense in replying to this really since you are basically proving my point with your response.
Good.
I'm not infringing on your right to pretend that you're a woman. I'm just saying that you can't demand that anyone agrees. Throwing people in jail over this may further the lifespan of your illusion, but it doesn't change the cold, unwavering truth.
No sense in replying to this really since you are basically proving my point with your response.
Good.
I'm not infringing on your right to pretend that you're a woman. I'm just saying that you can't demand that anyone agrees. Throwing people in jail over this may further the lifespan of your illusion, but it doesn't change the cold, unwavering truth.
I get it. You don’t think transgender people’s identity is legitimate. I wasn’t originally replying to you, it was to the “18 pages” guy, who seemed well-intentioned though illogical.
18 pages guy, do you claim the silent implication as one of your ilk? Is this the type of side you want to align yourself with?
Oh good grief. No one is "denying the existence of" people with differences or disorders of sex development, DSDs. As you know from our many past exchanges, I'm actually pretty well informed about the 40 or so different conditions considered DSDs. In fact, I think I'm more knowledgable about them than you are.
Ha ha hah, isn’t it the quintessential throwing in of the towel when one has to take recourse to asserting their personal dominance in discourse!
You might be confusing being knowledgeable with having a lot of time and prejudice to write pages and pages of one-sided agenda text that is often irrelevant to the post being responded to, which is the hallmark of a bot.
Oh good grief. No one is "denying the existence of" people with differences or disorders of sex development, DSDs. As you know from our many past exchanges, I'm actually pretty well informed about the 40 or so different conditions considered DSDs. In fact, I think I'm more knowledgable about them than you are.
Ha ha hah, isn’t it the quintessential throwing in of the towel when one has to take recourse to asserting their personal dominance in discourse!
You might be confusing being knowledgeable with having a lot of time and prejudice to write pages and pages of one-sided agenda text that is often irrelevant to the post being responded to, which is the hallmark of a bot.
Dear God please register so I can block you and not be subjected to your pompous drivel
Jesus. Trans women have an unfair advantage in women's sports. no person of color has an unfair advantage when they compete in a category based on sex.
It’s just an analogy, sweetheart. It’s the most common tactic out there to structure your argument to appear compassionate towards a marginalized group before one reveals their latent racism, transphobia, sexism, xenophobia or whatever.
To be fair, your actual stance is a fairly common one shared by many Americans, perhaps even most.
Yet another example of how this cult group considers reproduction as the sole reason for human existence.
Here you go with the word games again. In this instance you use the phrase "sole reason for human existence" to conflate two distinct things: 1. the mechansim for reproducing the species, and 2. the existential meaning of the human experience.
People are beating their heads against the wall explaining that every single human being that's ever been born arrived here through the same reproductive mechanism. That is the sole cause of new human life. There is no human life without reproduction.
Few people would argue that existential meaning can be reduced to reproduction. This is the stuff of religion and spirituality. However, your tendency to conflate this spiritual view with sexual reproduction is telling. What you cannot see, what you refuse to see, is that you are attempting to force a spiritual claim on others, displacing scientific knowledge with these spiritual logics, and scorning those who don't kiss the ring.
By far, the biggest problem in many Western cultures is that they spiritual views have insinuated themselves in our knowledge-producing institutions. This is destroying public trust in experts and stoking conflict.
You seem to be the one with English comprehension deficit. I have no trouble interpreting that his “reason” means raison d’etre (hoping maybe French helps), not cause.
Jesus. Trans women have an unfair advantage in women's sports. no person of color has an unfair advantage when they compete in a category based on sex.
It’s just an analogy, sweetheart. It’s the most common tactic out there to structure your argument to appear compassionate towards a marginalized group before one reveals their latent racism, transphobia, sexism, xenophobia or whatever.
To be fair, your actual stance is a fairly common one shared by many Americans, perhaps even most.
So if she (he?) calls you sweetheart, she wins the argument
It’s just an analogy, sweetheart. It’s the most common tactic out there to structure your argument to appear compassionate towards a marginalized group before one reveals their latent racism, transphobia, sexism, xenophobia or whatever.
To be fair, your actual stance is a fairly common one shared by many Americans, perhaps even most.
So if she (he?) calls you sweetheart, she wins the argument
They is the norm when someone hasn’t expressed a gender.
Why do you keep pointlessly talking to me while also wanting to block me?
You are simply wrong, ovotesticular DSD being an example, but in any case, the existence of both is unnecessary to be classified as intersex in the view of every medical professional out there.
Nope, you are completely wrong. Someone can have random bits of tissue of both, but I specified gamete production, of which I was quite correct in stating that people with that incredibly rare dsd produce just one or the other. Binary.
Whereas I try to use more accurate and anodyne terms like DSDs, VSDs (variations of sex development) and and VSCs (variations of sex characteristics). Because those types of terms are preferred over the misleading, pejorative "intersex" by a large number of individuals and families directly affected by these conditions, including many of the (female) women who've miscarried or given birth to and raised offspring with DSDs.
I am a 40-something woman with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. My life is now pretty great, I have a family through adoption and love my job – and hope to increasingly work with ch…
She also says that not all people with DSD are "between sexes." That is also 100% correct. For example, people with an extra Y chromosome (Jacobs syndrome) are not between sexes.
She also says that the term has been misused by some people who identify as nonbinary, although they don't have any DSD. That is also 100% correct.
What she does NOT say is that sex is determined by gametes. She calls herself a "woman" although she was born with testes.
I am a 40-something woman with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.
Is she a "man identifying as a woman" according to your ideology? Is she "horning in" women's spaces by pretending to be a woman?
You are simply wrong, ovotesticular DSD being an example, but in any case, the existence of both is unnecessary to be classified as intersex in the view of every medical professional out there.
Nope, you are completely wrong. Someone can have random bits of tissue of both, but I specified gamete production, of which I was quite correct in stating that people with that incredibly rare dsd produce just one or the other. Binary.
We disagree on the possible manifestation of a rare type of DSD, but as I and others already plentifully clarified, the existence of two distinct gametes is irrelevant to anything outside of making babies.
And by the way, people with DSD's (intersex is an outdated, inaccurate term) don't produce 'both' gametes; they are either infertile or produce only one functional gamete. So the shoe analogy is already extremely generous to your preposterous notion and yet it still comes out with the answer of two.
Yet another example of how this cult group considers reproduction as the sole reason for human existence.
JAHJ, even after all this time, I still can't figure out if you're just being disingenuous or you really don't see and understand the stark, clear, and extremely important difference between descriptive statements and prescriptive ones.
Since you seem reasonably intelligent and educated, I find it hard to believe you've gone your whole life not learning to distinguish between "is" statments and "ought" [to be] statements.
Stating the empirical fact that humans are one of the many animals species on planet Earth which reproduce sexually, and only sexually - and that humans reproduce sexually in an anisogamous manner that always involves egg+sperm - is not the same as saying that "reproduction [is] the sole reason for human existence." It's not anywhere close.
Just as stating the empirical fact that owls are noctural is not the same as, or close to, claiming that being awake at night is the sole reason for owls' existence. Or a reason for owls' existence at all.
Pointing out that grizzly bears and Alaskan brown bears hibernate for long periods during the winter months is nothing like claiming that hibernating is the sole reason, or one of many possible reasons, for the existence of those kinds of bears.
BTW, I personally have no idea what the "sole reason for human existence" is. I'm not even sure that there is a reason for human existence, much less a "sole reason" for it. In a discussion about that topic, I'd probably take the position that if there is any reason for human existence, then it makes as much sense to surmise there are - or at least might be - multiple reasons rather than just one sole reason. But these sorts musing have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the topics that are the core issues and points of contention on this thread.
Ha ha hah, isn’t it the quintessential throwing in of the towel when one has to take recourse to asserting their personal dominance in discourse!
You might be confusing being knowledgeable with having a lot of time and prejudice to write pages and pages of one-sided agenda text that is often irrelevant to the post being responded to, which is the hallmark of a bot.
Dear God please register so I can block you and not be subjected to your pompous drivel
It's a constant stream of manipulation, scorn, and narcissism from this person. It might go away if the psychologically stable people on these threads limit discussion to one another.
You are simply wrong, ovotesticular DSD being an example, but in any case, the existence of both is unnecessary to be classified as intersex in the view of every medical professional out there.
Nope, you are completely wrong. Someone can have random bits of tissue of both, but I specified gamete production, of which I was quite correct in stating that people with that incredibly rare dsd produce just one or the other. Binary.
So if someone has ovotesticular syndrome, is this person a man or a woman?
