So this classfied-by-all female looking woman (as I described in my previous post) can now use the men's restroom because you say she's actually a man?
Current Affairs Free Speech
- Thread starter Lord Buckethead
- Start date
- Status
So this classfied-by-all female looking woman (as I described in my previous post) can now use the men's restroom because you say she's actually a man?
It's telling that you failed to mention what they can't do in nearly every instance in that list.
Yes, they're male. What you have described is a developmental defect - they remain male. You are describing a DSD and using pseudo-science to pretend it's evidence of a spectrum of sex. It isn't.
Exactly where is the pseudo-science you are referring to? And what can't they do, apart from argue on the internet since they are a hypothetical construct?
Bingo. Female looking woman. In every way looks like a female. Is a male.
As for your question, that's a legal matter to be clarified, I don't know if it already is, but in terms of common sense, clearly someone with Swyers should be afforded all the societal protections of women.
Bingo indeed. You mean, is a male to you, but to no one else.
That you are using developmental sexual disorders as evidence of intersex and therefore a sexual spectrum.
No, a male chromosomally and genetically. Not an opinion. That's the whole point.
Wait, what?
Yes, indeed, the whole point is you are placing your own personal emphasis on certain criteria over others. They are phenotypically, hormonally, genitally, neurologically, female, but somehow this doesn't count to you, in your opinion.
Philosophically
Should the mods be policing the free speech thread for free speech not actually being discussed, or should the principle of free speech allow posters to go off topic?
Should the mods be policing the free speech thread for free speech not actually being discussed, or should the principle of free speech allow posters to go off topic?
Of course it counts, but they don't overrule or supercede the fact they are biologically what they are. I'm not saying any of those things don't exist; it's just not evidence of a sexual spectrum.
Are people legitimately born into the wrong body due to neurological matters? Absolutely. Are they still biologically the sex they were born in? Absolutely. Not a zero sum game.
Sexual differentiation has been systematically studied by scientists for years. There is no pseudo-science about it. I have never mentioned the issue of intersex or used the word spectrum in any of my posts.
But it most definitely is a zero-sum game if laws are enacted to restrict their rights or deny them certain rights...which is how our whole exchange started: trans people wanted to extend the definition of woman to a more inclusive definition and not be discriminated against.
Anyways, kid just got home with mom, so gotta run, nice chatting.
And that's where I think it's misguided; I think trans people should have trans rights. Mostly because not every trans person will fit neatly into laws that protect men/women anyway; they need their own catered approach.
Chat again soon, might put things strongly but love a good debate!
kenada_blue
Welcome to Barcelonaton FC
Stanford University Science and Genetics - "When the SRY gene isn't working, the resulting condition is called Swyer syndrome, or XY gonadal dysgenesis. Individuals with this condition are genetically male (XY), but look female."
Like you say, these are extremely rare cases enough to even baffle genetic scientists how people with different genetic makeup can develop.
- Status