RE: Another Outrage

RE: Another Outrage (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> RE: Another Outrage (6/27/2014 8:39:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The question is why assign gender to newborns at all? There is absolutely no reason to do so. Nobody is assigning gender. They are reporting the sex of the newborn. It's called English. Get used to it. Let Orwell rest in peace. K.

Sanity -> RE: Another Outrage (6/27/2014 8:53:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer I'm told it can be done, though not with ease - but thank god I've never seen a woman wazz into a urinal. There are limits. 'T'aint ladylike. They make adapters for that [image]local://upfiles/292349/EAC48B8FDB4742FEAECD65D90031FA0A.jpg[/image]

DomKen -> RE: Another Outrage (6/27/2014 8:56:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri How do we determine what one's "gender identity" is? Is it simply what the person says it is? Is that fluid? Should it be fluid? While it's not a guarantee, sports performance relying on speed, strength and agility tend to favor males. Could a male athlete take a shortcut to success and claim a female "gender identity" so as to compete against females rather than males? Isn't that inherently unfair to the female athlete? The male athlete would have to convince a psychologist the he actually had gender dysphoria which is not easy for kids who actually have it. And how many guys do you think would be willing to live their life as a girl just to run track against the girls? I thought the metric was... quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Why not hold off assigning gender to newborns until they pick it themselves? So, why not let them pick their gender when they want? Who says they have to live their life as a girl? Why not let them pick their gender again later? Who are you to say that their gender identity won't change later? Because we're not fools. The point of the CA law isn't to let boys run girl's track but to cut down on the psychological damage down to transgender kids. If you really think some boy is going to abuse it that way you really have no idea the sort of abuse a trans kid has to live with as it is.

DomKen -> RE: Another Outrage (6/27/2014 9:01:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Why not hold off assigning gender to newborns until they pick it themselves? What's the harm in that? Beyond the fact that it offends your rigid way of thinking? "Innie" or "outie?" Not really a difficult thing to determine at birth, is it? Gender certainly can be changed at a later date, but at birth, it's pretty much going to be obvious (there are exceptions). The question is why assign gender to newborns at all? There is absolutely no reason to do so. If we raised all children gender neutral until they expressed their own gender preference that would do no harm to the vast bulk of kids who are born where the biology matches the brain. But for those kids where there is a mismatch not forcing the kid into the wrong gender would save a great deal of psychological harm. I don't know. Maybe to help tell the baby apart in the Maternity Ward? New Parent: "I thought our baby had an outie, Doc?!?" DocKen: "What does it matter what the exterior anatomy? We can change that. You want us to turn that innie into an outie for you?" New Parent: "No, I want MY son!" DocKen: "This specimen can very easily be your son. We can even switch it with another specimen if you'd rather have one with a different color meat suit. Are you out of you mind? Do you think newborns are solely identified by their gender? Have you been in a maternity ward in the last 20 years? Let me clue you in, they put a band on the kid as soon as it's delivered to make sure it doesn't get taken without permission and to make sure it doesn't get mixed up.

quizzicalkitten -> RE: Another Outrage (6/27/2014 9:06:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer I'm told it can be done, though not with ease - but thank god I've never seen a woman wazz into a urinal. There are limits. 'T'aint ladylike. Ive Peed in a urinal, a pig trough, and countless other places quite easily. 35 seconds and a paper cup and Im Golden to pee Anywhere the wind takes me ... My favorite was hiking up my skirt on the side of the road and peeing standing up with my motorcycle "hiding" me and a cop walking up asking if i was okay....

Sanity -> RE: Another Outrage (6/27/2014 9:09:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Because we're not fools. The point of the CA law isn't to let boys run girl's track but to cut down on the psychological damage down to transgender kids. If you really think some boy is going to abuse it that way you really have no idea the sort of abuse a trans kid has to live with as it is. I doubt you could possibly foresee how a normal boy (or millions of them) might take advantage of that law

Kirata -> RE: Another Outrage (6/27/2014 9:11:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Are you too stupid too understand that we have moved beyond relying upon a glance at the plumbing, which we can change with surgery anyway, to determine that? It's how the person feels that is important not which bits the baby developed. The subject is the sex of the child, Ken. Try to get that through your head. Third time's a charm. If the sex of a newborn was determined by how it "feels," there would never be any need to change the plumbing. K.

DomKen -> RE: Another Outrage (6/27/2014 10:35:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Are you too stupid too understand that we have moved beyond relying upon a glance at the plumbing, which we can change with surgery anyway, to determine that? It's how the person feels that is important not which bits the baby developed. The subject is the sex of the child, Ken. Try to get that through your head. Third time's a charm. If the sex of a newborn was determined by how it "feels," there would never be any need to change the plumbing. No, actually if you'd learn to read, the article is talking about assigning gender which is distinct from the plumbing you are born with as I've tried to explain to you.

DomKen -> RE: Another Outrage (6/27/2014 10:38:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Because we're not fools. The point of the CA law isn't to let boys run girl's track but to cut down on the psychological damage down to transgender kids. If you really think some boy is going to abuse it that way you really have no idea the sort of abuse a trans kid has to live with as it is. I doubt you could possibly foresee how a normal boy (or millions of them) might take advantage of that law Strangely not a single one has tried this so far. Despite all the fear mongering. It has been in effect since Jan. 1. As a matter of fact LA county had implemented the same program 9 years earlier and had no problems at all. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/01/31/one-month-later-how-californias-transgender-stu/197864

LafayetteLady -> RE: Another Outrage (6/28/2014 1:37:24 AM)
Forget athletics and bathrooms. Think realistically. No boys or girls, just children. Ok, so what do you tell them when they notice that difference in "plumbing?" Its not uncommon for a girl with a couple brothers to wonder why she doesn't have a "thing," or the boy with a couple sisters to question what the hell happened that he has a "thing., do they suffere from GID? No, they simply notice the difference. No boys or girls? Ok, so there is also now no such thing as being heterosexual or homosexual, everyone is technically now bisexual because until the clothes come off, no one has any idea what parts the other has. "Infant gender assignment" is a term made up by the author, not a recognized term. I'm all for allowing children to ply with whatever toys they like or wear what clothes they find comfortable. Gender identity disorder means your insides don't match your outside from a psychological/mental aspect. I don't mean its a mental health problem ratther that the head and body don't match. Logically, that means your outside has to have a particular gender for your head to disagree with. When that happens, by all means one deserves the right to make them match. However, the reality is that the vast majority of people match inside and out. The writer obviously has not overcome all her issues with her SRS (or just her transgenderism if she has not compleated surgery). She seems to be confused with what "equal rights" really means. It doesn't mean taking away the identity of those who don't have GID just to make her feel better.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Another Outrage (6/28/2014 4:01:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri How do we determine what one's "gender identity" is? Is it simply what the person says it is? Is that fluid? Should it be fluid? While it's not a guarantee, sports performance relying on speed, strength and agility tend to favor males. Could a male athlete take a shortcut to success and claim a female "gender identity" so as to compete against females rather than males? Isn't that inherently unfair to the female athlete? The male athlete would have to convince a psychologist the he actually had gender dysphoria which is not easy for kids who actually have it. And how many guys do you think would be willing to live their life as a girl just to run track against the girls? I thought the metric was... quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Why not hold off assigning gender to newborns until they pick it themselves? So, why not let them pick their gender when they want? Who says they have to live their life as a girl? Why not let them pick their gender again later? Who are you to say that their gender identity won't change later? Because we're not fools. The point of the CA law isn't to let boys run girl's track but to cut down on the psychological damage down to transgender kids. If you really think some boy is going to abuse it that way you really have no idea the sort of abuse a trans kid has to live with as it is. Whew, I'm glad the point of the law wasn't to let boys abuse an option to cheat and compete against girls. Now, if we could just get to that point where the point of a law is the only way a law can be applied and used, we'd be all set. Was the point of the Interstate Commerce Clause to regulate and tax pretty much anything that crossed state lines?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Another Outrage (6/28/2014 4:12:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Are you out of you mind? Do you think newborns are solely identified by their gender? Have you been in a maternity ward in the last 20 years? Let me clue you in, they put a band on the kid as soon as it's delivered to make sure it doesn't get taken without permission and to make sure it doesn't get mixed up. [font='sarcasm']HOW DARE THEY DISCRIMINATE!!![/ font]

GotSteel -> RE: Another Outrage (6/28/2014 7:25:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri "Innie" or "outie?" Not really a difficult thing to determine at birth, is it? Sometimes it is, ambiguous and both are options which exist.

DomKen -> RE: Another Outrage (6/28/2014 8:21:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady Forget athletics and bathrooms. Think realistically. No boys or girls, just children. Ok, so what do you tell them when they notice that difference in "plumbing?" Its not uncommon for a girl with a couple brothers to wonder why she doesn't have a "thing," or the boy with a couple sisters to question what the hell happened that he has a "thing., do they suffere from GID? No, they simply notice the difference. No boys or girls? Ok, so there is also now no such thing as being heterosexual or homosexual, everyone is technically now bisexual because until the clothes come off, no one has any idea what parts the other has. "Infant gender assignment" is a term made up by the author, not a recognized term. I'm all for allowing children to ply with whatever toys they like or wear what clothes they find comfortable. Gender identity disorder means your insides don't match your outside from a psychological/mental aspect. I don't mean its a mental health problem ratther that the head and body don't match. Logically, that means your outside has to have a particular gender for your head to disagree with. When that happens, by all means one deserves the right to make them match. However, the reality is that the vast majority of people match inside and out. The writer obviously has not overcome all her issues with her SRS (or just her transgenderism if she has not compleated surgery). She seems to be confused with what "equal rights" really means. It doesn't mean taking away the identity of those who don't have GID just to make her feel better. Did you not understand the essay at all? The writer is not saying never have gender. The point is not to have anyone outside assign the gender solely by looking at the genitalia but instead to wait and let the child choose their gender themselves when they get old enough to express it.

thishereboi -> RE: Another Outrage (6/28/2014 8:51:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The question is why assign gender to newborns at all? There is absolutely no reason to do so. Nobody is assigning gender. They are reporting the sex of the newborn. It's called English. Get used to it. Let Orwell rest in peace. K. Apparently from the responses I have read we aren't supposed to refer to them as boys or girls anymore. At least not until the child decides which one they should be. I guess up until then we just refer to them as it. Maybe outlaw gender specific clothing. After all we wouldn't want to traumatize the little tots by throwing them in the wrong color.

mnottertail -> RE: Another Outrage (6/28/2014 8:53:24 AM)
how about boi and gurl?

Kirata -> RE: Another Outrage (6/28/2014 9:01:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Are you too stupid too understand that we have moved beyond relying upon a glance at the plumbing, which we can change with surgery anyway, to determine that? It's how the person feels that is important not which bits the baby developed. The subject is the sex of the child, Ken. Try to get that through your head. Third time's a charm. If the sex of a newborn was determined by how it "feels," there would never be any need to change the plumbing. No, actually if you'd learn to read, the article is talking about assigning gender which is distinct from the plumbing you are born with as I've tried to explain to you. For someone so obsessed with his alleged high intelligence, it would be helpful if you could manage to demonstrate some on occasion. You know, just now and then, to surprise us. It's called infant gender assignment: When the doctor holds your child up to the harsh light of the delivery room, looks between its legs, and declares his opinion: It's a boy or a girl, based on nothing more than a cursory assessment of your offspring's genitals. The doctor is reporting the newborn's sex. What it may "feel" like is indeterminable, and no claim about that is being made. K.

Sanity -> RE: Another Outrage (6/28/2014 9:01:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi Apparently from the responses I have read we aren't supposed to refer to them as boys or girls anymore. At least not until the child decides which one they should be. I guess up until then we just refer to them as it. Maybe outlaw gender specific clothing. After all we wouldn't want to traumatize the little tots by throwing them in the wrong color. Thats kind of the idea, in the name of tolerance. But, what if a boy acts like a boy though, in school... Like my friends and I did in the 1960s and 1970s. Call in a SWAT team, right?

MercTech -> RE: Another Outrage (6/28/2014 10:27:23 AM)
Gender identity vs. genetics. The last time I looked, the center of the bell curve and the majority of human beings fall into XX=>female and XY=>male. Given the blatant evidence of genitalia at birth, the assumption of male or female, until proven different, is quite valid. Yes, there are more humans than the 67% or more that fall in the one sigma center of existence. And if you look at the culture over the last three decades you will see a lot of progress in acceptance of the fact that not everyone falls into two, and only two, sexual identities. To decry the initial evidence of physical presentation of sexual selection is just confrontational and counter productive. What would be more productive is a discussion of "How would you describe an inter-sexed baby to the parents?" Would it be, like in the 1950s, "We are sorry but your baby has a deformity. But, the good news is there is a method of treatment." And many infants received sexual assignment surgery. I'd rather hear something like, "You have a really special child that may lead to some unexpected questions as they grow up." The bottom line, to me, is that the majority really don't often remember that everyone is not a medium. Not everyone fits the average. And "one size fits all" just flat doesn't.

Sanity -> RE: Another Outrage (6/28/2014 10:32:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Strangely not a single one has tried this so far. Despite all the fear mongering. It has been in effect since Jan. 1. As a matter of fact LA county had implemented the same program 9 years earlier and had no problems at all. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/01/31/one-month-later-how-californias-transgender-stu/197864 How many people are in California? How many schools? How many students? And you can state with absolute authority that there has never been one problem. It is my opinion that you are just DK being DK because I know for a fact that I would have tried to shower with the cheerleaders if there was even a small chance. We spied on them as it was, there was a convenient viewing area... And I joined home ec rather than wood shop because there were ladies in there... Who cared what anyone else thought, you know?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625