If you think there's a hint of bigotry in saying that trans women are not actual women, that's where the problem. is. That statement is rooted in biological fact, not how one feels toward the people involved.
A male body that has undergone drastic surgery and ongoing administration of female hormones is not a female body. It retains de…
If you think there's a hint of bigotry in saying that trans women are not actual women, that's where the problem. is. That statement is rooted in biological fact, not how one feels toward the people involved.
A male body that has undergone drastic surgery and ongoing administration of female hormones is not a female body. It retains deep differences. That person is not the same as a biological female.
That person is still fully human and deserves the same basic human rights and the same moral sympathy as all other humans. But that person is not actually a woman.
It should be permissible to say so without being accused of bigotry or even just a hint of bigotry.
I do agree with that. My best friend's is now a female. I've known him since birth. It's pretty easy to see the difference, imo. But as long as he is happy, it's okay by me.
Again, About 98% of the time, visual inspection at birth reliably identifies the unified sex/gender of the baby. The unification requires components in four areas to develop normally, both prenatally and at puberty, (1) genetics, (2) neurobiology, (3) endocrinology and 4) psychology. Maybe what society should be examining is that transitioning indicates an acceptance of the binary concept. People who transition also need constant pharmaceutical maintenance which may not be healthy in the long term.
Carol, it's fairly common for people who do actually hate or want to discriminate against trans people to latch onto the issue of biological differences between cis people and trans people and use it as an excuse to justify what they actually want, which is to discriminate against them and deny them equal civil rights and the freedom to live happy, productive lives. The biology is irrelevent to what really matters for the vast, vast majority of trans people, which is having equal civil and human rights.
Why does anyone care about the biology? It doesn't matter with regard to how trans people are treated in our society or how you or I interact with them in everyday life.
So when someone brings it up (especially in the same breath they are saying "new woke religion"), it's perfectly reasonable to note the similarity and infer that that speaker may ascribe to an actual discriminatory position.
I didn't actually call Adrienne a bigot; I just noted the similarity in the language.
It seems like you're latching onto a partial sentence while ignoring the rest of my message because you're looking for a reason to be mad.
"That statement is rooted in biological fact, not how one feels toward the people involved."
If somebody has two X chromosomes and a Y chromosome, are they female or male? If someone has XY, but the Y fails to trigger, are they male or female? If someone is born with undifferentiated reproductive organs, are they male or female? What about Turner Syndrome, where someone only has one full chromosome? All of the above are, if not common, then common enough that over the course of your life you've probably encountered at least a few cases of them.
You seem to have a lot of conviction that this is a simple matter, so explaining all these edge cases shouldn't be too difficult.
But how many trans people in competitive sports are we talking about here? Enough so that there needs to be LAWS that target trans children? Or does it make more sense to handle it case by case, with these few trans women having to submit to blood tests to check their testosterone levels (which is currently what happens).
I am sympathetic to the argument that the issue isn't numerically big enough to require sweeping laws. And I don't like the consequence of keeping some people out of competition altogether -- though people are also kept out for other reasons (i.e. disabilities). But "case by case" might mean arbitrary.
The main point is: It should not reflexively be called "bigotry" to say that there are real differences between a "trans woman" and an actual biological woman.
It is not bigoted to say that girls have a good reason to feel cheated when someone who recently competed as a boy is now competing against them and winning all the races.
If Dems go along with the free and easy charge of "bigotry" against anyone who raises these legitimate concerns, it alienates a lot of people who are not hateful bigots at all.
Carol does not have to hold any science credential or completed any studies herself. She only has to cite studies when asked. Which specific assertion do you think requires citation? Probably the one about real differences between a trans woman and an actual biological woman," correct? It is common knowledge that a trans person must constantly take hormones and other drugs to maintain the transition or the body will start to revert back.
If you think there's a hint of bigotry in saying that trans women are not actual women, that's where the problem. is. That statement is rooted in biological fact, not how one feels toward the people involved.
A male body that has undergone drastic surgery and ongoing administration of female hormones is not a female body. It retains deep differences. That person is not the same as a biological female.
That person is still fully human and deserves the same basic human rights and the same moral sympathy as all other humans. But that person is not actually a woman.
It should be permissible to say so without being accused of bigotry or even just a hint of bigotry.
I do agree with that. My best friend's is now a female. I've known him since birth. It's pretty easy to see the difference, imo. But as long as he is happy, it's okay by me.
Again, About 98% of the time, visual inspection at birth reliably identifies the unified sex/gender of the baby. The unification requires components in four areas to develop normally, both prenatally and at puberty, (1) genetics, (2) neurobiology, (3) endocrinology and 4) psychology. Maybe what society should be examining is that transitioning indicates an acceptance of the binary concept. People who transition also need constant pharmaceutical maintenance which may not be healthy in the long term.
Carol, it's fairly common for people who do actually hate or want to discriminate against trans people to latch onto the issue of biological differences between cis people and trans people and use it as an excuse to justify what they actually want, which is to discriminate against them and deny them equal civil rights and the freedom to live happy, productive lives. The biology is irrelevent to what really matters for the vast, vast majority of trans people, which is having equal civil and human rights.
Why does anyone care about the biology? It doesn't matter with regard to how trans people are treated in our society or how you or I interact with them in everyday life.
So when someone brings it up (especially in the same breath they are saying "new woke religion"), it's perfectly reasonable to note the similarity and infer that that speaker may ascribe to an actual discriminatory position.
I didn't actually call Adrienne a bigot; I just noted the similarity in the language.
It seems like you're latching onto a partial sentence while ignoring the rest of my message because you're looking for a reason to be mad.
"That statement is rooted in biological fact, not how one feels toward the people involved."
If somebody has two X chromosomes and a Y chromosome, are they female or male? If someone has XY, but the Y fails to trigger, are they male or female? If someone is born with undifferentiated reproductive organs, are they male or female? What about Turner Syndrome, where someone only has one full chromosome? All of the above are, if not common, then common enough that over the course of your life you've probably encountered at least a few cases of them.
You seem to have a lot of conviction that this is a simple matter, so explaining all these edge cases shouldn't be too difficult.
And "biological fact" used to say Black people were inferior to white people
Yes, 1000% yes.
But how many trans people in competitive sports are we talking about here? Enough so that there needs to be LAWS that target trans children? Or does it make more sense to handle it case by case, with these few trans women having to submit to blood tests to check their testosterone levels (which is currently what happens).
I am sympathetic to the argument that the issue isn't numerically big enough to require sweeping laws. And I don't like the consequence of keeping some people out of competition altogether -- though people are also kept out for other reasons (i.e. disabilities). But "case by case" might mean arbitrary.
The main point is: It should not reflexively be called "bigotry" to say that there are real differences between a "trans woman" and an actual biological woman.
It is not bigoted to say that girls have a good reason to feel cheated when someone who recently competed as a boy is now competing against them and winning all the races.
If Dems go along with the free and easy charge of "bigotry" against anyone who raises these legitimate concerns, it alienates a lot of people who are not hateful bigots at all.
Carol does not have to hold any science credential or completed any studies herself. She only has to cite studies when asked. Which specific assertion do you think requires citation? Probably the one about real differences between a trans woman and an actual biological woman," correct? It is common knowledge that a trans person must constantly take hormones and other drugs to maintain the transition or the body will start to revert back.
Okay boomer.
I understand your irritation, but thought-terminating cliches are unhelpful.