I would rip it to pieces and burn it. It has nothing to do with science or social benefit whatsoever. It's an ignorant, vile piece of work, written by vile people, for their vile emperor. Then kick them in the balls for a week for good measure.
LoL. Striking your colours as a skeptic and raising your real ones as a transactivist and science-denier?
www.independent.co.uk
What a flaming joke.
Showing their true colours ...
My argument is simple; any EO purporting to define sex needs to deal with the possibility of intersex conditions, especially if it repeals federal guidance about how to treat people with those conditions.
You wouldn't happen to have the second post in that thread of hers? Not really available if one doesn't have a Twitter account. I only have an "ex-Twitter" one -- Elon hasn't yet gotten around to reinstating my various accounts ...
I agree. Though "intersex" is a misnomer - they are disorders, And there is no coherent use of the term (intersex) that I've seen. Even the term DSD is muddied, as cystic fibrosis often results in males lacking a vas deferens - a clear abnormality of sexual development, but it's not considered a DSD - that's why I put "specific genetic disorders" in my example. I do think HIPAA rules and early DX will take care of a lot these concerns, but there will edge cases - e.g. the Chinese boy I mentioned in my last post. Moreover, some trans-activists claim that they are "intersex" as their "brain sex" and actual sex differ.
Thanks muchly. I've only skimmed her second tweet, but this concluding point looks rather "problematic":
But the biological definitions say diddly-squat about "designed around". It's all about producing them right now. Something that even PZ Myers gets:
I suspect that you're correct that the people writing are likely vile. But your answer is... not good. Again - this issue was handed to them by folks on the left. Women and girls are oppressed/discriminated against on the basis of their being female, and the Dems lost sight of that - at least officially. Another impact is the kind of claims I mentioned weakened peoples belief that the Dems are the party of science. When I was a young scientist, I heard the phrase, "the right hates science when it goes against their interpretation of the bible, and the left when it conflicts with accepted hippie wisdom". At that point, the only example I could think of for the latter was the anti-vax stance of some. Now, however, there are a few - and the examples to do with sex I mentioned above are prominent among them.
Governments should not interfere with the work of people who are FAR better informed of the science these holy-rollers desire to regulate unnecessarily. That goes for the dip-◊◊◊◊ right and left of politics. I have no particular axe to grind in the trans debate. Yesterday, opinion was one way, today another, tomorrow something could easily different. In my view, as long as ailing people receive the care they need, that's the result I would prefer. The sole intention of this EO is to cynically and cruelly deny that service to a small segment of US society just because they think they can.
"vile" seems somewhat "over the top". Almost as if the author had a "particular axe to grind in the trans debate".
fedsoc.org
terfisaslur.com
ICYMI, you might be "amused" by this old tweet on the topic from Steven Pinker:Aye, there's the rub ...
Umm did you read all of Norman's post? He actually states the service
Umm did you read all of Norman's post? He actually states the service
This EO is a precursor to the US government "unpersoning" trans people - trying to insist they don't exist because it makes a couple of the bible-bashing hotheads feel a bit icky. So the answer is "all services, but especially health care as needed".
Indeed. Though a bit of an understatement. Reading between the lines or just connecting the dots, that "care" seems to often boil down into turning dysphoric and autistic children into sexless eunuchs. Some "parents" seem unclear on the concept of a "duty of care":
They're not in there because, as I said, this is a precursor. Once they can unperson people by denying they even exist, lots of discrimination follows. This is like changing the value of a "black" person back to being three fifths of a white man. But in this case, it is denying their existence entirely.
