Oh I get it. You're speaking a foreign language and relying on some computer program to translate. Well it's not working. I don't understand what you're talking about. I know what I said, and I don't see you referring to any semblance of it. "Impose religion and backwards??" What is that supposed to mean??you stated that social laws were weird attempts to impose religion and backwards. I asked you about a social law that you would approve of. You did not like the point that your categories were wrong.
Hope that helps
So what? We need a legal definition of gender, and relying on proven (and easily provable) scientific principles is a reasonable thing to do.I know the context. The problem is that attempts (by politicians) to legislate science always involve interpretations of science by non-scientists. Hard and fast rules like this never work. What work are flexible laws.
Really? So it is "just wrong" to believe someone with XX is a woman and XY a man?Your demand to see a law that incorporates good science is just not going to happen, and your reliance on the laws of Montana, Texas, etc. is misplaced, because the interpretation of the science is just wrong.
No, there are two genders. There are 30 (or more) variations of gender intentity. Anything is possible once delusion becomes a factor.The (scientific) fact is that there are about 30 variations on gender, and attempts to knock that back to two are necessarily going to lead to some discrimination. When you bake faults right into laws, those laws are going to lead to challenges, and they will be far more trouble than they are worth.
We will have to agree to disagree. A far left candidate would have a hard time getting my vote.
Wrong.But she will have an easy time getting votes from democrats to win the primary.
Is Jb prizker and Walz too far left for you? Cause that’s the type that running in 2028.We will have to agree to disagree. A far left candidate would have a hard time getting my vote.
I was hoping for Wes Moore/ Pete Buttigeig ticket, but Moore says he's not running, so I'm back to square 1.Is Jb prizker and Walz too far left for you? Cause that’s the type that running in 2028.
So what? We need a legal definition of gender, and relying on proven (and easily provable) scientific principles is a reasonable thing to do.
Really? So it is "just wrong" to believe someone with XX is a woman and XY a man?
Flexible? Please. I think you mean "arbitrary."At least they are flexible and not based upon a bad interpretation of science. They recognize the large number of non-binary variations and make a sensible compromise to come up with a workable law that doesn't discriminate.
Neither male nor female, but those cases are exceptionally rare. We are discussing whether a belief standard is a good legal standard for gender. It's not.How would you classify an XXY? XXX? XYY?
Neither male nor female, but those cases are exceptionally rare. We are discussing whether a belief standard is a good legal standard for gender. It's not.
Neither male nor female, but those cases are exceptionally rare.
We are discussing whether a belief standard is a good legal standard for gender. It's not.
Because they don't represent the cases we are discussing. We are not talking about people with rare genetic defects. We are discussing people with gender dysphoria.What does their being rare have to do with anything?
Cite, please. I don't believe that statistic is accurate.About one in 500 are born with these types of genetic anomalies, so let's call it an even one million Americans you want to leave in legal limbo.
No, and no.Really? Are you going to perform a chromosome test on every person before you assign them a gender? Are you going to peek down their drawers?
I understand what your definition is, and I think that system is nuts. And in some cases were opportunities are reserved for one gender -- particularly for women -- it creates both a fairness and a health & safety issue.In my system, the person in question decides what gender they are. In your system, somebody else - based on nothing but a first impression, probably - decides for them. I think the odds of making a mistake are far greater in your system.
@JohnfrmClevelan, actually, I stand corrected. The stat you cited on the genetic abnormalities does seem to be correct.Cite, please. I don't believe that statistic is accurate.
No, and no.
I understand what your definition is, and I think that system is nuts. And in some cases were opportunities are reserved for one gender -- particularly for women -- it creates both a fairness and a health & safety issue.
The "mistake" is believing that gender is no more than a state of mind. Or worse still, a product of delusion.
Cite, please. I don't believe that statistic is accurate.
No, and no.
I understand what your definition is, and I think that system is nuts. And in some cases were opportunities are reserved for one gender -- particularly for women -- it creates both a fairness and a health & safety issue.
The "mistake" is believing that gender is no more than a state of mind. Or worse still, a product of delusion.
@JohnfrmClevelan, actually, I stand corrected. The stat you cited on the genetic abnormalities does seem to be correct.
It doesn't change matters, though. Someone who suffers from that is neither male nor female.
More relevant to this discussion, some who is trans and merely claims to be the "other" gender need not prove they have that abnormality because -- once again-- there is no science in blue state gender laws. It's gender by assertion, and nothing more than that.
Those things overlap considerably.
However, my initial bet would be that he lacks the ideological self awareness to identify his own preferred social policies as such, and believes such things belong only to those with whom he disagrees.
As a swing voter, I would hope for someone like Andy Beshear KY or Laura Kelly KS on the democratic side in 2028. Both won in a deep red state which means independents were attracted to them. But my number one choice would be the spunky senator from Illinois, Tammy Duckworth. But first comes the midterms. This should be the democrat’s number one priority. Right now, it looks like a status quo election where in the house either party could gain or lose 1-5 seats. The senate is the same, either party probably gaining or losing a seat. No more.I was hoping for Wes Moore/ Pete Buttigeig ticket, but Moore says he's not running, so I'm back to square 1.
How many women (real ones) need to denied those benefits before you care?Do you see a lot of men claiming to be women just for the benefits?
To that point, genetics are not the be-all-and-end-all answer to the question of gender. If you take estrogen, you'll grow boobs.
If it's not diagnosed because it's not noticed than it's because it's likely not impacting their secondary sex characteristics very much.Thanks for accepting that much.
You are completely wrong here. Most of these conditions are never diagnosed, meaning there is not an obvious reason to check. You couldn't tell just by looking at them, or even peeking in their drawers. Most XXX women are capable of bearing children. Some XXY men are not sterile. And that makes your "XX or XY" test completely worthless.
No, there is no science behind blue state gender laws. We've been over this. You cannot cite such a law based on a scientific assessment. No one can. They don't exist because trans orthodoxy demands a belief standard and brooks no dissent.There is science in blue state gender laws, and it is more correct than the science in red state gender laws. To that point, genetics are not the be-all-and-end-all answer to the question of gender. If you take estrogen, you'll grow boobs.
How many women (real ones) need to denied those benefits before you care?
But that won't change your chromosomes or your ability to reproduce.
If it's not diagnosed because it's not noticed than it's because it's likely not impacting their secondary sex characteristics very much.
But when someone like Lia Thomas, a very average men's collegiate swimmer, decides he'd like to take place of a biological woman on the UPenn team and unfairly compete against women to win events, then I have a problem with it. When he then decides to sport his male genitalia while changing in the women's locker rooms -- which he's reported to have done, often -- that adds insult to injury.
Then there's the problem with biological men competing against women in contact sports. That is beyond reckless. Women's sports exist for several reasons, and in a quiet moment you should ask yourself what those reasons might be.
No, there is no science behind blue state gender laws. We've been over this. You cannot cite such a law based on a scientific assessment. No one can. They don't exist because trans orthodoxy demands a belief standard and brooks no dissent.
I just don't see what's at stake here for anybody except the person in question.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?