Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female

[Steersman]

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".

"unpersoning trans people".

What pretentious twaddle. Transgender ideology writ large. Echoed by that Independent article -- which I see comes from San Francisco:

"Trump's executive orders seek to deny existence of trans people"

Trump executive orders seek to deny existence of trans people and end DEI

Trump has signed flurry of executive orders on first day of office as 47th president

www.independent.co.uk

No one is trying to "unperson" them or "deny their existence". Just denying that they can change sex which is clearly what too many of them insist is possible:

Is it really true that “no one's denying the reality of biological sex”?

There seems to be a lot of people doing that thing that "no one" is doing

speakingplainly.substack.com

"science denialism" writ large. In 24 pt. and flashing neon.

 

[smartcooky]

I just reread the EO; I'm not finding the passages you're referring to.

Oh FFS, are you just pretending to be stupid? Do you not understand the concept of unspoken consequences?
For example, if a town council building code states that the roof colour on new builds must either be grey or red, you don't need it spelled out in the code that blue and green would not be allowed to know they are not allowed!

 

[Steersman]

Oh FFS, are you just pretending to be stupid? Do you not understand the concept of unspoken consequences?
For example, if a town council building code states that the roof colour on new builds must either be grey or red, you don't need it spelled out in the code that blue and green would not be allowed to know they are not allowed!

LoL. Not the same kettles of fish at all.

"gender affirming care" -- AKA the sterilization and castration of autistic and dysphoric children -- is quack medicine at best. Given your list of people who've been "cancelled" for challenging transgender ideology, you might note this post by Jerry Coyne which suggests that Pamela Paul has gotten the heave-ho at the NY Times for her several articles on transgenderism:

The NYT deep-sixes columnist Pamela Paul

I am pretty sure I predicted this, though I’m not going to trawl back through my posts to see for sure. Pamela Paul is a heterodox op-ed writer at the New York Times, tackling topics that you…

whyevolutionistrue.com

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/12/opinion/gender-affirming-care-cass-review.html?unlocked_article_code=1.o04.z0Yt.L98XINs4EILE&smid=url-share

Opinion | As Kids, They Thought They Were Trans. They No Longer Do.

Trans activists have pushed an ideological extremism by pressing for an unproven treatment orthodoxy.

www.nytimes.com

Opinion | On Transgender Issues, Voters Want Common Sense

Rather than pushing Americans in a direction they oppose, Democrats should endorse nuanced and humane alternatives.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh FFS, are you just pretending to be stupid? Do you not understand the concept of unspoken consequences?
For example, if a town council building code states that the roof colour on new builds must either be grey or red, you don't need it spelled out in the code that blue and green would not be allowed to know they are not allowed!

Leaving aside the problem with how colors are supposed to know anything, this is still a pretty nonsensical analogy. When you make a roof (because roofs don't spontaneously appear), the color you make it is a choice. Someone has to choose a color, and in this hypothetical, only two choices are legally permitted. That doesn't mean no one is able to color a roof a different color, it only means there are legal consequences for making a different choice.

But according to trans ideology, whether or not you are trans (or any other option) is supposedly not a choice. Biological sex certainly isn't a choice, not by the person themselves anyways. And even to the extent that trans identity might be a choice, so what? If the government says that there are only two sexes, what's the consequence for trying to be some third sex? Nothing other than the government won't play along.

So it you want to make a parallel with your roofing code, a much better one is that the town will categorize roofs as being either grey or red. If your roof is blue, then the council might call it grey on their property documents, but what you call it doesn't really change what it is, and the town isn't making to actually do anything to your roof. Of course, that still presumes that you actually can be some color other than grey or red, and that's where the analogy still breaks down, because you can't really be something other than male or female, or switch between them, even if you adopt some other visual appearance. But even ignoring that, within the context of your analogy you still did it wrong.

 

[d4m10n]

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.

Doesn't this discussion belong in the thread about trans rights/accommodations?

 

[d4m10n]

This is like changing the value of a "black" person back to being three fifths of a white man.

Please stop making this backwards analogy. Northern civil rights leaders were (righteously) pushing for zero fifths, because the Southern States did not deserve to apportion people whom they did not allow any role in the process of democratic representation.

 

[smartcooky]

Doesn't this discussion belong in the thread about trans rights/accommodations?

Well that's the trouble when you try to apply strict separation between closely related subjects. You can't really have a fair and honest debate about transgender without involving how you define the sexes and vice-versa. That whole discussion is BASED on the dispute about definitions - there are aspects that overlap, so the two discussions are always going to keep drifting back towards each other.

 

[d4m10n]

Well that's the trouble when you try to apply strict separation between closely related subjects.

I neither make the rules nor enforce them; just providing warning that my posts on trans issues got moved from this thread to AAH and (since we all know the mods are fair and unbiased) pointing out that other such posts are likely to be endangered as well.

You can't really have a fair and honest debate about transgender without involving how you define the sexes and vice-versa.

IIRC, we are still allowed to argue about the meaning of sex in the trans thread.

 

[smartcooky]

Leaving aside the problem with how colors are supposed to know anything, this is still a pretty nonsensical analogy. When you make a roof (because roofs don't spontaneously appear), the color you make it is a choice. Someone has to choose a color, and in this hypothetical, only two choices are legally permitted. That doesn't mean no one is able to color a roof a different color, it only means there are legal consequences for making a different choice.

But according to trans ideology, whether or not you are trans (or any other option) is supposedly not a choice. Biological sex certainly isn't a choice, not by the person themselves anyways. And even to the extent that trans identity might be a choice, so what? If the government says that there are only two sexes, what's the consequence for trying to be some third sex? Nothing other than the government won't play along.

So it you want to make a parallel with your roofing code, a much better one is that the town will categorize roofs as being either grey or red. If your roof is blue, then the council might call it grey on their property documents, but what you call it doesn't really change what it is, and the town isn't making to actually do anything to your roof. Of course, that still presumes that you actually can be some color other than grey or red, and that's where the analogy still breaks down, because you can't really be something other than male or female, or switch between them, even if you adopt some other visual appearance. But even ignoring that, within the context of your analogy you still did it wrong.

Well, it only looks like an crap analogy to you because you have missed the point entirely. My post was a response to Ron Obvious' expectation of finding unspoken conquences clealy laid out, then upon not finding them, deciding those consequencys don't exist.

In the discussion about the EO, we are talking about what it says, but not necessarily the truth (or otherwise) or fairness (or otherwise) of what it says, and the interpretation of what it doesn't say. I am neither saying this EO is a good thing or a bad thing. I actually like the idea of making a legal defintion to nail down exactly how men/males and women/females are defined in the eyes of the law, so that there can be no later argument about the practical applications of those defintiions, but the fact remains that THIS EO is badly written, not based in science, and as a result, will cause some unspoken consequences - things that will later be legally interpeted. Building codes are a good analogy for those unspoken consequences because, like EO's they are declarations of what is and what is not!

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think I've explained it several times, but I don't think you're listening.

No, actually, you haven't. You've always backtracked to an assertion that phenotype changes over time and that infants have a different reproductive phenotype than adults do. But you've yet to actually explain what you personally interpret the word phenotype to mean.

And as this is at the heart of many of the disagreements, it seems worthwhile for you to provide an explanation - in your own words - of how you interpret that term, and how it applies within the context of this discussion.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Any law covering millions of people is going to have to deal with "exceptionally rare cases" at least some of the time.

Would "female rights, safety, and dignity" be impacted by placing CAIS prisoners in female prisons?

If so, how so? If not, why forbid it via EO?

JFC. Because the alternative is to either try to itemize every single possible karyotype variation including ones we haven't yet run across, and write policy for every conceivable potential exception and spend 50,000 pages trying to nail down something that will satisfy all possible naysayers - including you AND steersman simultaneously....

OR it just ◊◊◊◊◊ over females across the board because there might be some edge cases, and it's more important to make sure we don't inconvenience those rare exceptions than to give a ◊◊◊◊ about 50% of the goddamned population!

 

[Emily's Cat]

So Bruce Jenner is also "phenotypically female"

False

 

[Emily's Cat]

Also, immediately start kicking biological males out of women's prisons

 

[Emily's Cat]

"I'd resort to violence to deny women single sex safe spaces" is quite the statement

No kidding.

 

[Emily's Cat]

My argument is simple; any EO purporting to define sex needs to deal with the possibility of intersex conditions

No it doesn't. Everyone with a DSD is still either male or female, nobody is something "in between" and nobody is a "third sex".

 

[Emily's Cat]

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 ...

TIA ...

Not hard to have gotten banned pre-Musk... but to still be evicted post-Musk takes some extra special misbehavior.

Also... make a new account, don't be daft.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Baloney.

Denying that a male can turn into a female isn't denying that they exist. People with mental health issues centered around their sex and/or their social roles certainly exist. But having such mental health issues doesn't make them into the opposite sex, nor into no-sex. Transgender identified males are still males, even if they buy the nicest Prada heels and slap on the gaudiest MAC make-up. Transgender identified females are still females, even if they wear the cargoiest of cargo pants and grow the bushiest of beards.

Nobody is denying that transgender identified males exist. Many of us, however, very strongly deny that they are women.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Oh FFS, are you just pretending to be stupid? Do you not understand the concept of unspoken consequences?
For example, if a town council building code states that the roof colour on new builds must either be grey or red, you don't need it spelled out in the code that blue and green would not be allowed to know they are not allowed!

I'm not seeing any denied services either. What am I missing, as it seems clear to you?

 

[Steersman]

Not hard to have gotten banned pre-Musk... but to still be evicted post-Musk takes some extra special misbehavior.

Quoting and linking to various Substack posts -- by me and many others including Matt Taibbi -- was more or less explicitly anathematized by Musk, Himself.

I wasn't the only only one exiled to the "outer darkness" for that "crime".

Also... make a new account, don't be daft.

I've tried -- several times, including using VPNs. Their algorithms for detecting offenders are a bit more aggressive and thorough -- probably enhanced by AI ...

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not seeing any denied services either. What am I missing, as it seems clear to you?

Maybe he's worried this will lead to transwomen being denied pap smears.