Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 99

Thread: LGBT rights in the USA today...

  1. #61
    Senior Member Ultralight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    9,005
    Quote Originally Posted by pinkytoe View Post
    I will never understand why it's anybody's business (and especially a political matter) what our sexual preferences are - as long as it involves two consenting people that aren't children. We are so hung up in this country that it feels like we are moving backwards.
    Free secular societies don't care who is boffing who as long as all are consenting adults.

    But theocracies have a shit fit about people doing gay stuff. God no likey the guy on guy action.

    And secular totalitarians -- who make themselves into national gods -- need scapegoats and minorities to vilify. It keeps the sheeple from focusing on real issues, like civil liberties.
    ďI came from a real tough neighborhood. I put my hand in some cement and felt another hand." -- Rodney Dangerfield

  2. #62
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    5,790
    Quote Originally Posted by bae View Post
    This is just cruel - throwing a bunch of marginalized, at-risk people to the wolves just to inflame his base.
    As I understand it, the idea is to define gender "on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable", as opposed to the variable definition instituted by the previous administration. I'm unclear how this throws anyone to the wolves.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  3. #63
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    5,667
    People get sex change operations and then the law says that they cannot use the bathrooms etc for their new gender.

  4. #64
    Senior Member JaneV2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    9,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    As I understand it, the idea is to define gender "on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable", as opposed to the variable definition instituted by the previous administration. I'm unclear how this throws anyone to the wolves.
    Once you get a bias involved, science is mutable. You can get some scientist somewhere to say anything you want, IMO.

    It wasn't so long ago that doctors just arbitrarily assigned genders to intersex babies; they may still be doing it. Some of the stories emerging around this are tragic. Science is a tool, sometimes a blunt one.

  5. #65
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    4,009
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    As I understand it, the idea is to define gender "on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable", as opposed to the variable definition instituted by the previous administration. I'm unclear how this throws anyone to the wolves.
    And iím not surprised that you donít understand.

  6. #66
    Senior Member bae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Offshore
    Posts
    7,287
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    As I understand it, the idea is to define gender "on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable", as opposed to the variable definition instituted by the previous administration. I'm unclear how this throws anyone to the wolves.
    I have little faith that the administration, given their commitment to scientific integrity, will actually dig deeply enough to formulate something fair and reasonable.

    For instance, I have odd genetics, and both male and female sexual components. You can see it in the DNA, or with intimate physical examination. Some decades ago, I might simply have been aborted, or "assigned" a gender at birth through surgery without my consent.

    The article claims: "The agency’s proposed definition would define sex as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with, according to a draft reviewed by The Times.". This does not to me to be a policy based in scientific reality.

  7. #67
    Senior Member JaneV2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    9,590
    How does the government, in its infinite wisdom, account for endocrine abnormalities or genetic chimerism, for example? I suspect this is another of Trump's edicts designed primarily to torment people.

  8. #68
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    5,790
    Quote Originally Posted by bae View Post

    For instance, I have odd genetics...
    As does my grandson with Klinefelter Syndrome, or 47,XXY. He is sterile, does not produce testosterone as a typical male should and has a micro-penis and slightly enlarged breasts but he is definitely a boy. Interestingly enough, some medical researchers believe that George Washington was also a 47 XXY as he had all the physical characteristics (history is thankfully ignorant on the micro-penis part) and had no known offspring, although there is no question that he was also a male.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  9. #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    5,667
    Now often parents of these babies are no longer encouraged to pick a gender and do surgery but to wait and see which sex the child acts like, etc so the correct gender is chosen. Many heartbreaking stories when surgery was done on babies.

  10. #70
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    4,009
    Quote Originally Posted by Teacher Terry View Post
    Many heartbreaking stories when surgery was done on babies.
    Indeed. A friend of mine had to, as an adult, sue her childhood doctors to get her medical records. She found out that the "stomach" surgery she had when she was 3 was genital modification surgery and she went from being Charlie to being Cheryl and her family moved to a new town shortly after that. She went on to found the Intersex Society of North America. They put together an interesting documentary with a group of intersex individuals talking about their life experiences. They mostly seemed to have been deeply traumatized by their experiences. The one exception, a woman in her early 20's, had avoided that fate because her intersexness had not been discovered by someone else when she was young, but instead, was discovered by herself as a teenager. Because of this she had never gone through the trauma of unwanted surgery. She has both a penis and a vagina and identifies as female. I have no idea what her chromosomes would say she is under the administration's proposal.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •