That's right. Don't forget and race.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can I self identify as older and collect SS checks?
Not only should you be able to do that, but you should be able to identify as an entire GROUP of people, men and women and other, alike, and collect a check for each and every one of them!
I mean, it's no MORE absurd than a 38 year old man declaring that "she" is a woman now, and demanding everyone use "her" preferred pronoun and allow her access to women's bathrooms and locker rooms.
I mean, we've already crossed that Rubicon.... So how dare anyone tell you that you CANNOT identify as a group of 9 senior citizens?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
In humans, those are anomalies. And just like if you have a heart condition at birth and then go on to fix it you were still born with a heart, if you were born at birth XY or XX you were born male or female regardless of how long it took to confirm based on a birth defect. And if you have an extra chromosome it is the same thing, an anomoly that is not relevant to anyone other than the small subset of people effected by it.
Look up androgen insensitivity syndrome: https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/androgen-insensitivity-syndrome
Is Hanne Gaby Odiele a man or a woman?
You keep just ignoring the use of the word anomaly.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
In humans, those are anomalies. And just like if you have a heart condition at birth and then go on to fix it you were still born with a heart, if you were born at birth XY or XX you were born male or female regardless of how long it took to confirm based on a birth defect. And if you have an extra chromosome it is the same thing, an anomoly that is not relevant to anyone other than the small subset of people effected by it.
Look up androgen insensitivity syndrome: https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/androgen-insensitivity-syndrome
Is Hanne Gaby Odiele a man or a woman?
You keep just ignoring the use of the word anomaly.
Nobody said that everybody is like her. But there she is, just the same. So, is she a man or a woman?
It is important in the context of sociology/history/biology, basically all of human history.
Women are in many many ways defined by their sex organs and reproductive systems. It is what makes us vulnerable, it is the defining rights that are constantly in danger of being stripped from us. And yes some of that is societal, but societal pressures that are inextricably woven into our biology.
But they don't get to change the definition of what a woman is or what a man is
to address the plight of a small subset of the population with a medical condition.
If there was no real difference between men and women then why on earth do transgendered people feel so intensely focused on identifying as one or the other.
The very definition of the transgendered condition speaks to the real differences between the sexes. If it was all a bucket of societal changes, then no one would feel so compelled to change their bodies and appearances so drastically.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:[
It is important in the context of sociology/history/biology, basically all of human history. Women are in many many ways defined by their sex organs and reproductive systems. It is what makes us vulnerable, it is the defining rights that are constantly in danger of being stripped from us. And yes some of that is societal, but societal pressures that are inextricably woven into our biology.
I do not pick on transgendered people at all, I think they should be allowed to live their lives however they want to live their lives. Like I said earlier I have a transgendered relative who I treat exactly the way I treated her before her transition. I don't care if they want to call themselves a woman or a man. But they don't get to change the definition of what a woman is or what a man is to address the plight of a small subset of the population with a medical condition. If there was no real difference between men and women then why on earth do transgendered people feel so intensely focused on identifying as one or the other. The very definition of the transgendered condition speaks to the real differences between the sexes. If it was all a bucket of societal changes, then no one would feel so compelled to change their bodies and appearances so drastically.
Let's stop doing that.
Not that it's particularly on-topic, but I do think it's interesting that most of the angst and horror about transgender people seems to be about transwomen (people who were assigned male at birth and who live (or want to live) their lives as women). Nobody is angsty and horrified about transmen (people who were assigned female at birth and who live (or want to live) their lives as men).
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
In humans, those are anomalies. And just like if you have a heart condition at birth and then go on to fix it you were still born with a heart, if you were born at birth XY or XX you were born male or female regardless of how long it took to confirm based on a birth defect. And if you have an extra chromosome it is the same thing, an anomoly that is not relevant to anyone other than the small subset of people effected by it.
Look up androgen insensitivity syndrome: https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/androgen-insensitivity-syndrome
Is Hanne Gaby Odiele a man or a woman?
You keep just ignoring the use of the word anomaly.
Anonymous wrote:[
It is important in the context of sociology/history/biology, basically all of human history. Women are in many many ways defined by their sex organs and reproductive systems. It is what makes us vulnerable, it is the defining rights that are constantly in danger of being stripped from us. And yes some of that is societal, but societal pressures that are inextricably woven into our biology.
I do not pick on transgendered people at all, I think they should be allowed to live their lives however they want to live their lives. Like I said earlier I have a transgendered relative who I treat exactly the way I treated her before her transition. I don't care if they want to call themselves a woman or a man. But they don't get to change the definition of what a woman is or what a man is to address the plight of a small subset of the population with a medical condition. If there was no real difference between men and women then why on earth do transgendered people feel so intensely focused on identifying as one or the other. The very definition of the transgendered condition speaks to the real differences between the sexes. If it was all a bucket of societal changes, then no one would feel so compelled to change their bodies and appearances so drastically.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
In humans, those are anomalies. And just like if you have a heart condition at birth and then go on to fix it you were still born with a heart, if you were born at birth XY or XX you were born male or female regardless of how long it took to confirm based on a birth defect. And if you have an extra chromosome it is the same thing, an anomoly that is not relevant to anyone other than the small subset of people effected by it.
Look up androgen insensitivity syndrome: https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/androgen-insensitivity-syndrome
Is Hanne Gaby Odiele a man or a woman?
Anonymous wrote:
That is kind of my point. Even in cases like that, where there are a significant subset of women who no longer have their uterus, it is still a defining trait of being a woman (or people with an XY chromosome) to have a reproductive system.
When you are talking about the human species, how it exists and grows etc etc the two sex structure is essential. And the differences between them are basically all about reproduction when it comes down to it.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
So, 'dogs have four legs' 'horses have four legs' 'women have a uterus' 'men have a penis' 'chimpanzees have a tail' are all factually incorrect?
Or do we now have to attach the word most/all to any declarative statement?
How do you refer to the qualities of a species globally?
Do you have the faintest idea how common hysterectomies are?
That is kind of my point. Even in cases like that, where there are a significant subset of women who no longer have their uterus, it is still a defining trait of being a woman (or people with an XY chromosome) to have a reproductive system. When you are talking about the human species, how it exists and grows etc etc the two sex structure is essential. And the differences between them are basically all about reproduction when it comes down to it.
So now its not "women have a uterus" but "women have a reproductive system" ? Is a woman with uterus more of a woman than one without? How about a woman who has her uterus removed but keeps her fallopian tubes?
Or how about people just drop this? What is the context where defining who is a woman important? Are you a physician? A statistician? Or are you just trying to justify picking on a group of vulnerable people?
Anonymous wrote:
In humans, those are anomalies. And just like if you have a heart condition at birth and then go on to fix it you were still born with a heart, if you were born at birth XY or XX you were born male or female regardless of how long it took to confirm based on a birth defect. And if you have an extra chromosome it is the same thing, an anomoly that is not relevant to anyone other than the small subset of people effected by it.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
In humans, those are anomalies.
What is the scientific definition of an "anomaly"? Why does it matter? Why is it so important to have definitions, and then use the term"anomalies" to exclude exceptions, when the English language allows us to address this simply with the word "most".
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
So, 'dogs have four legs' 'horses have four legs' 'women have a uterus' 'men have a penis' 'chimpanzees have a tail' are all factually incorrect?
Or do we now have to attach the word most/all to any declarative statement?
How do you refer to the qualities of a species globally?
Do you have the faintest idea how common hysterectomies are?
That is kind of my point. Even in cases like that, where there are a significant subset of women who no longer have their uterus, it is still a defining trait of being a woman (or people with an XY chromosome) to have a reproductive system. When you are talking about the human species, how it exists and grows etc etc the two sex structure is essential. And the differences between them are basically all about reproduction when it comes down to it.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
So, 'dogs have four legs' 'horses have four legs' 'women have a uterus' 'men have a penis' 'chimpanzees have a tail' are all factually incorrect?
Or do we now have to attach the word most/all to any declarative statement?
How do you refer to the qualities of a species globally?
Do you have the faintest idea how common hysterectomies are?
That is kind of my point. Even in cases like that, where there are a significant subset of women who no longer have their uterus, it is still a defining trait of being a woman (or people with an XY chromosome) to have a reproductive system. When you are talking about the human species, how it exists and grows etc etc the two sex structure is essential. And the differences between them are basically all about reproduction when it comes down to it.