NationStates Jolt Archive

He wants to challenge the gender classifications. Now, you may say, born male, tough...but the fact that he is transgendered aside...does it REALLY matter what gender you put on your forms? What significance does your gender have in this sense? Name, you can't get around, though you could legally change that and not run into too much difficulty, be even were he post-op, it's unlikely his gender would be 'officially' changed. Why? Who cares? Ticking M or F on an admissions form means very little....

He wants to challenge the gender classifications. Now, you may say, born male, tough...but the fact that he is transgendered aside...does it REALLY matter what gender you put on your forms? What significance does your gender have in this sense? Name, you can't get around, though you could legally change that and not run into too much difficulty, be even were he post-op, it's unlikely his gender would be 'officially' changed. Why? Who cares? Ticking M or F on an admissions form means very little....

I think it has to do with "putting people in their place", which I find appalling.

However, this is somewhat funny. I was reading a thread on another forum, where one of the posters showed photos of two friends going to their last day of school dressed as women (as a joke).

Good on your brother :)

The only way I can see it mattering is if he were in a single-sex dorm. Other than that, it shouldn't matter. Especially since there isn't a clear definition of gender.

The only way I can see it mattering is if he were in a single-sex dorm. Other than that, it shouldn't matter. Especially since there isn't a clear definition of gender.
Dorm. *shudder* NO ONE should have to live in a dorm....*goes to take a shower a la Crying Game*

Especially since there isn't a clear definition of gender.
I suppose they could make it more specific...instead of M and F, they could have P, V or P/V for intersexed people... :D

Though this classification would STILL serve no discernable purpose...

For that matter why put anything on there but your name? Hell that's discriminatory because some peoples names are ethnic and too long for the little space they give you. We should just have number identifications for everyone, especially since no one can define "name."

For that matter why put anything on there but your name? Hell that's discriminatory because some peoples names are ethnic and too long for the little space they give you. We should just have number identifications for everyone, especially since no one can define "name."
Honestly, your Student ID number is more important than your name anyway. And why SHOULD you put anything but your name and birthdate? With these two bits of information, they can pretty much find out anything about you anyway. But this isn't about discrimination. There aren't more spaces for females than for males, or visa versa. It is simply about the idea that your biological gender has no bearing on the application process, so why bother with it?

He wants to challenge the gender classifications. Now, you may say, born male, tough...but the fact that he is transgendered aside...does it REALLY matter what gender you put on your forms? What significance does your gender have in this sense? Name, you can't get around, though you could legally change that and not run into too much difficulty, be even were he post-op, it's unlikely his gender would be 'officially' changed. Why? Who cares? Ticking M or F on an admissions form means very little....
Sounds like a case for fraud, if you want my opinion.

Honestly, your Student ID number is more important than your name anyway. And why SHOULD you put anything but your name and birthdate? With these two bits of information, they can pretty much find out anything about you anyway. But this isn't about discrimination. There aren't more spaces for females than for males, or visa versa. It is simply about the idea that your biological gender has no bearing on the application process, so why bother with it?

Right. Well then why even the birthdate? That's what I'm wondering. That has no bearing on the process either. Same with citizenship! That is an issue for the government, not education. Right?

I don't happen to think my student ID number is more important than my name either.

Right. Well then why even the birthdate? That's what I'm wondering. That has no bearing on the process either. Same with citizenship! That is an issue for the government, not education. Right? Bah.

I don't happen to think my student ID number is more important than my name either.
In terms of administrative processes while at post-secondary, it really is.

Sounds like a case for fraud, if you want my opinion.
Let them make that case. It could be interesting to know why that particular box (pun intended) needs to be ticked. What if you choose to put neither, because your gender doesn't fit neatly into either?

He wants to challenge the gender classifications. Now, you may say, born male, tough...but the fact that he is transgendered aside...does it REALLY matter what gender you put on your forms? What significance does your gender have in this sense? Name, you can't get around, though you could legally change that and not run into too much difficulty, be even were he post-op, it's unlikely his gender would be 'officially' changed. Why? Who cares? Ticking M or F on an admissions form means very little....
One consideration is that it is a legal document. Anything you have to put your signature to is a legal document, and should reflect truthful information.

He wants to challenge the gender classifications. Now, you may say, born male, tough...but the fact that he is transgendered aside...does it REALLY matter what gender you put on your forms? What significance does your gender have in this sense? Name, you can't get around, though you could legally change that and not run into too much difficulty, be even were he post-op, it's unlikely his gender would be 'officially' changed. Why? Who cares? Ticking M or F on an admissions form means very little....

Well, to you and I it might not make a difference, but they use your gender in statistics that "prove" that they're not oppressing anyone.

The women in the dorms might object if he goes in their bathroom (not an issue for him maybe, but some women will object).

He will always be a male.

And I'm reminded of the Monty Python Life of Brian scene:

JUDITH:
I do feel, Reg, that any Anti-Imperialist group like ours must reflect such a divergence of interests within its power-base.
REG:
Agreed. Francis?
FRANCIS:
Yeah. I think Judith's point of view is very valid, Reg, provided the Movement never forgets that it is the inalienable right of every man--
STAN:
Or woman.
FRANCIS:
Or woman... to rid himself--
STAN:
Or herself.
FRANCIS:
Or herself.
REG:
Agreed.
FRANCIS:
Thank you, brother.
STAN:
Or sister.
FRANCIS:
Or sister. Where was I?
REG:
I think you'd finished.
FRANCIS:
Oh. Right.
REG:
Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man--
STAN:
Or woman.
REG:
Why don't you shut up about women, Stan. You're putting us off.
STAN:
Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.
FRANCIS:
Why are you always on about women, Stan?
STAN:
I want to be one.
REG:
What?
STAN:
I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.
REG:
What?!
LORETTA:
It's my right as a man.
JUDITH:
Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
LORETTA:
I want to have babies.
REG:
You want to have babies?!
LORETTA:
It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG:
But... you can't have babies.
LORETTA:
Don't you oppress me.
REG:
I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
LORETTA:
[crying]
JUDITH:
Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.
FRANCIS:
Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
REG:
What's the point?
FRANCIS:
What?
REG:
What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!
FRANCIS:
It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG:
Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

Gender quotas or just data to find out the ratio of male to female applicants maybe? Anyway virtually every form you have to fill in has a box for gender, from job applications to voting registration so i dont see why this should be any different.

Let them make that case. It could be interesting to know why that particular box (pun intended) needs to be ticked. What if you choose to put neither, because your gender doesn't fit neatly into either?
I don't know what's to gain. Maybe undiclosed preferences in admission selection, maybe grant money. Still misrepresentation is fraud; whether or not the victim decides he has been harmed enough to prosecute is another matter. I guess I don't see the point of bucking the system, or the rewards that your brother might receive. Other than feeling rebellious for a few minutes, that is.

One consideration is that it is a legal document. Anything you have to put your signature to is a legal document, and should reflect truthful information.
The issue here of course is, what define gender? Is it just your genitalia? That is the concept that is being challenged here.

Well, to you and I it might not make a difference, but they use your gender in statistics that "prove" that they're not oppressing anyone. Then they should add a third box for transgenders, to REALLY show their cuddly side:)

The women in the dorms might object if he goes in their bathroom (not an issue for him maybe, but some women will object).
Not an issue. He's got a place on his own...no dorm living. If he WAS going to be in a dorm, I could see them enforcing the gender separation...IF the dorms were segregated, which they aren't anyway.

He wants to challenge the gender classifications. Now, you may say, born male, tough...but the fact that he is transgendered aside...does it REALLY matter what gender you put on your forms? What significance does your gender have in this sense? Name, you can't get around, though you could legally change that and not run into too much difficulty, be even were he post-op, it's unlikely his gender would be 'officially' changed. Why? Who cares? Ticking M or F on an admissions form means very little....
Bah, uninspired and boring. If he really wanted to impress me he'd try to pledge a fraternity as a girl. If he's white, it should be a black fraternity.
THEN I would be impressed.

He will always be a male.
Not if he has the operation.

The issue here of course is, what define gender? Is it just your genitalia? That is the concept that is being challenged here.

It's defined by the Olympic authorities as your chromosome mix. There's a definite pattern for male, and a definite pattern for female. There are "other" combinations as well.

We have a long way to go before women will accept a man in their bathroom who "says" that he's transgendered.

Good for her!

I wish her good luck. =)

It's defined by the Olympic authorities as your chromosome mix. There's a definite pattern for male, and a definite pattern for female. There are "other" combinations as well.

Not anymore.

After a rather well publicized case of a woman with CAIS being barred from the Olympics because of her chromosomes, and the large number of post-op transgendered people wanting to participate, the rules have been changed.

A post-op transgendered person (or CAIS patient) who has lived on hormone treatments as their new gender for a certain number of years can participate in the Olympics as that gender.

*snip*
I love Monty Python. :D

Bah, uninspired and boring. If he really wanted to impress me he'd try to pledge a fraternity as a girl. .
Not really the motivation...no offense :D

Not if he has the operation.

An operation to change his sex chromosomes?

He wants to challenge the gender classifications. Now, you may say, born male, tough...but the fact that he is transgendered aside...does it REALLY matter what gender you put on your forms? What significance does your gender have in this sense? Name, you can't get around, though you could legally change that and not run into too much difficulty, be even were he post-op, it's unlikely his gender would be 'officially' changed. Why? Who cares? Ticking M or F on an admissions form means very little....
Your life must be an interesting one.

He will always be a male.

Yes. But he can be male and a woman.

I guess I don't see the point of bucking the system, or the rewards that your brother might receive. Other than feeling rebellious for a few minutes, that is.
What would he gain for himself? Very little. No doubt it will be a pain in the ass. But the fact is, the two gender system is outdated. It does not take into account those people are intersexed, or those who are transgendered. If tracking gender is important for statistical purposes, then move beyond the two gender system. The long term gain would be the recognition that there is more out there than just cut and dry male/female.

An operation to change his sex chromosomes?

SO chromosomes are your guide to classification?

What about women with CAIS, who are XY, but never develop male traits?

What about women with Turner's syndrome, who are mostly XO, but may have begun as either XY or XX, or any other combination - and still have some cells with that type?

What about those with Klinefelter's syndrome, who are XXY or XXXY, etc. and may develop both male and female sex traits?

What about chimeras, who may have some XX and some XY (or any other combination) cells?

An operation to change his sex chromosomes?
Meh. *shrugs* They haven't tested his chromosomes in the first place. For all we know, he is genetically transgendered. And if someone looks, acts, and seems female, down to the last minute physical detail...who is to say they aren't?

Your life must be an interesting one.
It would be if this sort of thing shocked me in any way. I think my life is pretty dull, actually, being so boringly 'normal' and all...

Well, if he's serious about being transgendered, he should get the operation.

Yes. But he can be male and a woman.

XY

Well, if he's serious about being transgendered, he should get the operation.
I'll be sure to tell him that. I'll be sure to let him know that he really can't go around calling himself transgendered unless he has surgery, because people will assume he's kidding. Or, I'll accept that right now, he feels he can still be female without undergoing an extreme physical transformation.

XY

Q13?

It would be if this sort of thing shocked me in any way. I think my life is pretty dull, actually, being so boringly 'normal' and all...
Well, learn to appreciate it! Not everyone has the oppurtunity to tell stories about their TG sibling(s)! :D Me, my life stories suck. Anything of any interest is anywhere from mildly to extremely depressing.

XY
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9005816&postcount=32

The issue here of course is, what define gender? Is it just your genitalia? That is the concept that is being challenged here.
No, the question is, are they asking for gender identity or sexual identity on the form? If they ask for one, and he answers with the other, he is making no point in his "challenge."

A minor point, but it would seem to me that this is a hazardous line for your brother to be blurring, since discrimination laws will not protect him based on gender identity, only sexual identity (unless he's going to college in the NWT). (As an aside, Alberta is the only province that doesn't explicitly protect against sexual discrimination, but the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 1998 that it be included. Go Ralph. :()

I'll be sure to tell him that. I'll be sure to let him know that he really can't go around calling himself transgendered unless he has surgery, because people will assume he's kidding. Or, I'll accept that right now, he feels he can still be female without undergoing an extreme physical transformation.

The problem is that HE believes he's female. You believe it. Heck, I believe it.

But run into a bathroom and whip out that penis to go to the bathroom, and I'm sure he'll get arrested. No one else is going to believe it.

I've been told that getting the operation really helps on a personal level - even though it's an extreme transformation.

Well, learn to appreciate it! Not everyone has the oppurtunity to tell stories about their TG sibling(s)! :D Me, my life stories suck. Anything of any interest is anywhere from mildly to extremely depressing.
Kehehhehee...fine, alright, I'll be more thankful:). Maybe you should too...perhaps the things you consider mild or depressing are really strange and exotic to others...

He wants to challenge the gender classifications. Now, you may say, born male, tough...but the fact that he is transgendered aside...does it REALLY matter what gender you put on your forms? What significance does your gender have in this sense? Name, you can't get around, though you could legally change that and not run into too much difficulty, be even were he post-op, it's unlikely his gender would be 'officially' changed. Why? Who cares? Ticking M or F on an admissions form means very little....

In a truly race/gender/class bias free society, it would make not one bit of differance. Unfortunately/fortunately(depending on perspective) that is not the society we live in.

SO chromosomes are your guide to classification?

What about women with CAIS, who are XY, but never develop male traits?

What about women with Turner's syndrome, who are mostly XO, but may have begun as either XY or XX, or any other combination - and still have some cells with that type?

What about those with Klinefelter's syndrome, who are XXY or XXXY, etc. and may develop both male and female sex traits?

What about chimeras, who may have some XX and some XY (or any other combination) cells?

These are all deviations from the norm and are results of malfunctions. More than likely, to an extent we needen't bother with these deviations, XY signifies male and XX is for females. I've heard this argument before, it's just a Red Herring.

Kehehhehee...fine, alright, I'll be more thankful:). Maybe you should too...perhaps the things you consider mild or depressing are really strange and exotic to others...
Family deaths, multiple incidences of arm breaking-same arm, same bone... oh, yeah, that's what people want to hear.


Of course, my family does have beautiful stories of how we got our 3 cats and 2 turtles. It's just that no one who doesn't just LOVE animals cares. :p

I was looking for information on a legal definition of gender, and I came across the Canadian Bar Association (cba.org) that mentioned a conference to "address the needs and concerns of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and two-spirited members within the Association."

Question for anyone who knows: what are "two-spirited" people?

These are all deviations from the norm and are results of malfunctions. More than likely, to an extent we needen't bother with these deviations, XY signifies male and XX is for females. I've heard this argument before, it's just a Red Herring.

Good to know that a significant portion of the human population are insignificant to you.

Of course, as a scientist, I look for classifications that actually include all cases. *shrug*

Edit: Does this mean that you would not allow a woman with CAIS to marry a man? Should she have to go into the men's bathroom instead of the women's? And you still haven't defined how we will classify chimeras or those with Turner's - which bathroom can they go into?

I was looking for information on a legal definition of gender, and I came across the Canadian Bar Association (cba.org) that mentioned a conference to "address the needs and concerns of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and two-spirited members within the Association."

Question for anyone who knows: what are "two-spirited" people?
My first answer was gonna be, "people with bipolar/split personality disorders", but it's probably referring to intersexuals.

I was looking for information on a legal definition of gender, and I came across the Canadian Bar Association (cba.org) that mentioned a conference to "address the needs and concerns of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and two-spirited members within the Association."

Question for anyone who knows: what are "two-spirited" people?

Hmm, from what others had told me, I thought it was a tribal word for those who are transgendered. Perhaps it actually refers to transvestites?

My first answer was gonna be, "people with bipolar/split personality disorders", but it's probably referring to intersexuals.
My first thought was rather frivolous: Why do they get two spirits? and where can I get an extra one? ;)

Dempublicents1,

I'm not doubting you, but I am curious. Exactly what is a "significant portion of the human population"? As far as you know.

No, the question is, are they asking for gender identity or sexual identity on the form? If they ask for one, and he answers with the other, he is making no point in his "challenge."

A minor point, but it would seem to me that this is a hazardous line for your brother to be blurring, since discrimination laws will not protect him based on gender identity, only sexual identity (unless he's going to college in the NWT). (As an aside, Alberta is the only province that doesn't explicitly protect against sexual discrimination, but the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 1998 that it be included. Go Ralph. :()
Yeah, Ralph's DA man. Sure, it could be hazardous...but just existing as he does is hazardous. If he wants to push the issue, c'est la vie. We'll just have to see how it goes...it may be a non-issue...I kind of see two things happening:

1) they change his gender to suit his birth certificate, and nary a word is said, and he goes on as a female for all other intents or purposes

2) they change his gender to suit his birth certificate, and read him the riot act about what he can and can not do on campus, according to his birth gender. (such as not going into the girl's bathroom, which seems to be a thing that fascinates WL:) For the record...he uses the male one, because we all know there's less of a line up in the men's can...)

I suspect that it will be rather less of a fight than what he wants. That might be a good thing right now though...let him be a gender warrior when he's got a bit more legal experience under his girdle:).

Good for her!

I wish her good luck. =)

Not trying to offend, but is it technically "her", "him" or "it"?

In a truly race/gender/class bias free society, it would make not one bit of differance. Unfortunately/fortunately(depending on perspective) that is not the society we live in.
That doesn't mean such a society could never (even imperfectly) exist. Fatalism gets you no love :p

These are all deviations from the norm and are results of malfunctions. More than likely, to an extent we needen't bother with these deviations, XY signifies male and XX is for females. I've heard this argument before, it's just a Red Herring.
So your argument is basically, because genetic deviations are rare, we should not account for them? Hey, plenty of things that are rare are accounted for. At what point do we say, "This thing must occur in the population to this level before we acknowledge it's existence"?

That doesn't mean such a society could never (even imperfectly) exist. Fatalism gets you no love :p

It's an example I've seen, which is why I bring it up.

And I'm not fatalistic - just realistic. The vast majority of people would not be accepting of a transgendered person who had not had the operation.

Heck, almost as many wouldn't be very accepting even IF he had the operation.

I was looking for information on a legal definition of gender, and I came across the Canadian Bar Association (cba.org) that mentioned a conference to "address the needs and concerns of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and two-spirited members within the Association."

Question for anyone who knows: what are "two-spirited" people?
It's a native term for those that have both the feminine and masculine spirit within them. They used to be respected in our culture. It is, essentially, one who is both genders, or one who is one gender, housed in the opposite physical gender= transgendered.

Good to know that a significant portion of the human population are insignificant to you.

O thank ye, god of wit! I'm glad to know you're just BURSTING with rebuttals.

Of course, as a scientist, I look for classifications that actually include all cases. *shrug*

Then you're making a mistake grouping in (harmful) deviations with norms.

Edit: Does this mean that you would not allow a woman with CAIS to marry a man? Should she have to go into the men's bathroom instead of the women's? And you still haven't defined how we will classify chimeras or those with Turner's - which bathroom can they go into?[/QUOTE]

What does what I would do with these women have to do whether or not they're male or female?

The vast majority of people would not be accepting of a transgendered person who had not had the operation.

I for one would. So... proof? Since your being realistic you must have facts.

SO chromosomes are your guide to classification?

What about women with CAIS, who are XY, but never develop male traits?

What about women with Turner's syndrome, who are mostly XO, but may have begun as either XY or XX, or any other combination - and still have some cells with that type?

What about those with Klinefelter's syndrome, who are XXY or XXXY, etc. and may develop both male and female sex traits?

What about chimeras, who may have some XX and some XY (or any other combination) cells?


Solution? Simple?

Brings out the shotgun and yells "Hey paw, look what we got here. Better rewind that tape of deliverance."


For those of you who are humour challenged, that is a joke.

Dempublicents1,

I'm not doubting you, but I am curious. Exactly what is a "significant portion of the human population"? As far as you know.

I don't have any numbers, but I know that these conditions are common enough to be well known.

Genetically, human beings can't really deal with alterations in autosomal chromosomes. Only three types of trisomy have been seen to survive to birth, for instance, and of those, only those with Down's Syndrome live past a few years. However, the sex chromosomes have a lot more leeway. They can divide in all sorts of ways. Human beings can develop and be productive with monosomy, trisomy, and even higher numbers of chromosomes. Thus, we see these changes much more often.

Of course, most people never get tested for these things - as many people could be completely asymptomatic - especially chimeras, so it is impossible to know just how prevalent it is.

Either way, it is certainly significant enough that we can't shove those people out of the way and ignore them.

Not trying to offend, but is it technically "her", "him" or "it"?
It's really up to him. Unless he has the operation, he won't ALWAYS be 'her'...so it really depends. When he's 'male' it's 'he', when he's 'female', it's 'she'.

So your argument is basically, because genetic deviations are rare, we should not account for them? Hey, plenty of things that are rare are accounted for. At what point do we say, "This thing must occur in the population to this level before we acknowledge it's existence"?

No. Because they're rare and obviously mistakes. Harmful mistakes.

It's an example I've seen, which is why I bring it up.

And I'm not fatalistic - just realistic. The vast majority of people would not be accepting of a transgendered person who had not had the operation.

Heck, almost as many wouldn't be very accepting even IF he had the operation.
Not YOU, silly. I get the bathroom thing. However, it is increasinly becoming commen in clubs that there are unisex bathrooms. Yeah...picture it.... :D Who's to say this won't become the norm at some point?

No. Because they're rare and obviously mistakes. Harmful mistakes.

Really Doctor? How rare are they? What makes them "obviously mistakes". In what way are they "harmful"?

Then you're making a mistake grouping in (harmful) deviations with norms.

Why are they harmful? Because you say so? Someone with any of these conditiions can live perfectly normal, full lives.

Meanwhile, are you saying that those with, for instance, diabetes, should not be grouped in with other humans? They have a harmful deviation.

Should those with PKU not be counted either? After all, they have to be on a special diet.

Those deviations occur in normal settings. As such, they are part of the norm.

What does what I would do with these women have to do whether or not they're male or female?

So you admit that they are women? Even though they are XY?

Wait, doesn't that contradict what you already said? Didn't you say that XY made you automatically male?

Hmmmmmmm.....

Looks like you realize just how ambiguous it really is.

I for one would. So... proof? Since your being realistic you must have facts.
Sorry...where are you getting this quote from? Could you please put it back in context so I can review it?

He wants to challenge the gender classifications. Now, you may say, born male, tough...but the fact that he is transgendered aside...does it REALLY matter what gender you put on your forms? What significance does your gender have in this sense? Name, you can't get around, though you could legally change that and not run into too much difficulty, be even were he post-op, it's unlikely his gender would be 'officially' changed. Why? Who cares? Ticking M or F on an admissions form means very little....
I agree it should not make a difference, but there might be some issue with on campus housing (namely non coed housing or bathroom /showering issues)
But yeah

No. Because they're rare and obviously mistakes. Harmful mistakes.
Harmful in what way, exactly? Your prejudice is showing a bit...

I'll be sure to tell him that. I'll be sure to let him know that he really can't go around calling himself transgendered unless he has surgery, because people will assume he's kidding. Or, I'll accept that right now, he feels he can still be female without undergoing an extreme physical transformation.


Is that sort of ellective surgery offered in Canada?

I for one would. So... proof? Since your being realistic you must have facts.
Ah. You made a mistake...you quoted that as though I said it, when it was actually WL in http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9005990&postcount=57. Gosh that had me confused!

Sinuhue,

Oh sorry, I copied and pasted the wrong name. :p

It's been fixed.

Is that sort of ellective surgery offered in Canada?
I honestly don't know. The thing is, like me, my brother is really queesy when it comes to surgery and serious physcial alterations. Neither of us can even stomach the idea of laser surgery to correct our eyesight...so while it is something he might wish could happen, the reality of it gives him the willies. That may change in the future, but who knows. I'd imagine there is some doctor, somewhere in Canada that does it...

Why are they harmful? Because you say so? Someone with any of these conditiions can live perfectly normal, full lives.

They are harmful to it's host, as it cannot reproduce and/or will have other harmful "specialties."

Meanwhile, are you saying that those with, for instance, diabetes, should not be grouped in with other humans? They have a harmful deviation.

Hah. A little eugenics could take care of diabetes.....

Should those with PKU not be counted either? After all, they have to be on a special diet.

^

Those deviations occur in normal settings. As such, they are part of the norm.

Yes, and Harlequin Fetuses are part of the norm too so we should take them into account EVERY TIME there is a birth. :rolleyes:

They are harmful to it's host, as it cannot reproduce and/or will have other harmful "specialties."

Hah. A little eugenics could take care of diabetes.....
This is where I stop taking you seriously. You're in the wrong thread...we are not debating 'culling out deviations' to the 'norm'.

Why are they harmful? Because you say so? Someone with any of these conditiions can live perfectly normal, full lives.

They are harmful to it's host, as it cannot reproduce and/or will have other harmful "specialties."

Meanwhile, are you saying that those with, for instance, diabetes, should not be grouped in with other humans? They have a harmful deviation.

Hah. A little eugenics could take care of diabetes.....

Should those with PKU not be counted either? After all, they have to be on a special diet.

^

Those deviations occur in normal settings. As such, they are part of the norm.

Yes, and Harlequin Fetuses are part of the norm too so we should take them into account EVERY TIME there is a birth. :rolleyes:



So you admit that they are women? Even though they are XY?

I was using your terminology.

Looks like you realize just how ambiguous it really is.

Let's be honest and say they have a problem with their body. I prefer to call them "it"s myself.

He wants to challenge the gender classifications.
That's cool. :)

I think it has to do with "putting people in their place", which I find appalling.
To quote Cogitation, "Think about it for a moment." There probably isn't some evil ideological reason to ask applicants to state their sex. The college needs to know who's going to go there. Why? Because if their students are going to be 90% female then they obviously need more female toilets and such than male toilets. Stuff like that, you know?

They are harmful to it's host, as it cannot reproduce and/or will have other harmful "specialties."

Not all of these conditions result in an inability to reproduce.

Of course, some people don't want to reproduce anyways, so it really isn't a problem - now is it?

Hah. A little eugenics could take care of diabetes.....

^

I see. I'm sure you and everyone in your family are absolutely perfect Aryan specimins, no?

Yes, and Harlequin Fetuses are part of the norm too so we should take them into account EVERY TIME there is a birth. :rolleyes:

They are part of the norm. They occur. As such, they are part of nature and are counted among human beings. We don't look at them and go "They're deviations from the norm, so we shouldn't consider them at all." In fact, because their deformations make it impossible for them to live full and normal lives, we investigate the cause of the deviation - to see if we can prevent it.

Of course, again, most alterations of sex chromosomes don't cause anything harmful beyond the harm that people like yourself cause.

Let's be honest and say they have a problem with their body. I prefer to call them "it"s myself.

Correction: You have a problem with their bodies. They don't have any problem at all. Their body is what it always has been - female.

Hah. A little eugenics could take care of diabetes.....

Hark! What sound was that? Oh that's your credibility taking a nose dive into a field of sharp and jagged rocks.

That's cool. :)
It feels weird to have you agree with me on something:) Yesterday I kind of felt like we were going for the throat...

To quote Cogitation, "Think about it for a moment." There probably isn't some evil ideological reason to ask applicants to state their sex. The college needs to know who's going to go there. Why? Because if their students are going to be 90% female then they obviously need more female toilets and such than male toilets. Stuff like that, you know?
And I agree with this. I don't think it's a conscious decision to repress...but I DO think the concept of gender needs to reexamined, and if this helps to spur that examination, then yay! If not...well, there are other things we could be doing:)

Is that sort of ellective surgery offered in Canada?
Absoutely. It's even covered under Health Care in some provinces.
http://www.tgcrossroads.org/news/?AID=688&IID=&type=News

They are harmful to it's host, as it cannot reproduce and/or will have other harmful "specialties."
I was going to ignore this, but now I'm really curious: how is not reproducing harmful? and what are the "specialities"?
*leans forward to hear the gossip*

Absoutely. It's even covered under Health Care in some provinces.
http://www.tgcrossroads.org/news/?AID=688&IID=&type=News
Wow. What a friggin' process was THAT fight...and the expense of the operations themselves! Holy crickey! Who can afford that? This is, of course, another barrier to my brother having surgery. Still...interesting case!

This is where I stop taking you seriously. You're in the wrong thread...we are not debating 'culling out deviations' to the 'norm'.

I merely wish to think outside the box :)

That doesn't mean such a society could never (even imperfectly) exist. Fatalism gets you no love :p

I have made no comment as to whether such a society could or could not extist.

Given my political compass, it should be clear what I believe things ought to be like.

Hark! What sound was that? Oh that's your credibility taking a nose dive into a field of sharp and jagged rocks.

You fell into the trap. Ad Hominem.

It's really up to him. Unless he has the operation, he won't ALWAYS be 'her'...so it really depends. When he's 'male' it's 'he', when he's 'female', it's 'she'.

Well, that helped. I am not even sure if I should cross out "it" now. Glad I am not involved in this, grammar was always my worst subject.

edit: had to throw this in.

So what is on second?

I merely wish to think outside the box :)
By saying that everything that doesn't fit your particular idea of normal should be genetically modified? Not really outside the box...more like in one.

By saying that everything that doesn't fit your particular idea of normal should be genetically modified? Not really outside the box...more like in one.
Not only that, more like forcing EVERYONE into a particular box.

You fell into the trap. Ad Hominem.
So you admit that you are a troll under the General definitions of such? Hmmm...reportable? I think so. Making inflammatory statements with the intent to provoke a negative response.

Well, that helped. I am not even sure if I should cross out "it" now. Glad I am not involved in this, grammar was always my worst subject.
It's really not as confusing as you might think. 'It' implies no gender. That doesn't work.

You fell into the trap. Ad Hominem.
Nah, that's appropriate sarcasm. It doesn't rate as "ad hominem".

Nah, that's appropriate sarcasm. It doesn't rate as "ad hominem".
Yeah, I thought it was pretty clear that the validity of the argument was being questioned, not the personal character of the poster himself. Kind of rules out ad hominem.

Not all of these conditions result in an inability to reproduce.

Not all. Hence the catch-all "specialties."

Of course, some people don't want to reproduce anyways, so it really isn't a problem - now is it?

In my view, anyone who is healthy and has decent genes and doesn't wish to pass them off is mentally inferior on an individual level, but they still might be carrier of ubergenes. I also admire those who really want to pass their genes on but do not because it would spread harmful genes.

Though ailments that prevent reproduction are harmful because they may prevent the passing of whatever "ubergenes" (heh heh) they have.



I see. I'm sure you and everyone in your family are absolutely perfect Aryan specimins, no?

Absolutely.


They are part of the norm. They occur. As such, they are part of nature and are counted among human beings.

Yes. But they're deviations and shouldn't make us scratch our heads and say, "hey maybe gender is an arbitrary term."

We don't look at them and go "They're deviations from the norm, so we shouldn't consider them at all." In fact, because their deformations make it impossible for them to live full and normal lives, we investigate the cause of the deviation - to see if we can prevent it.

Yes. But we shouldn't change our definition of gender because a few deviate (harmfully) from the cycle of XX or XY.

Even if they somehow had deviations that were beneficial and "superior" to the 'norm' I still wouldn't change the defintion of gender to encompass them.

Eugenics could also prevent these mistakes in the long run as well--without having to spend resources combatting it on the individual level :)


Of course, again, most alterations of sex chromosomes don't cause anything harmful beyond the harm that people like yourself cause.


Awww....moralizing :p


Correction: You have a problem with their bodies. They don't have any problem at all. Their body is what it always has been - female.

Of course I have a problem with their bodies. I'd hope they would themselves as well. I'd rather much prefer that humanity be as healthy as possible and my own mistakes wouldn't weigh down on the populace as a whole.

I honestly don't know. The thing is, like me, my brother is really queesy when it comes to surgery and serious physcial alterations. Neither of us can even stomach the idea of laser surgery to correct our eyesight...so while it is something he might wish could happen, the reality of it gives him the willies. That may change in the future, but who knows. I'd imagine there is some doctor, somewhere in Canada that does it...

1) get the laser, it is life changing. *note, if you get both eyes done at the same time, make sure that they give you a long lasting topical anaestetic. It is very hard to keep your second eye open when tears are running down your face from the pain of the anaestetic from your first eye wears off.

2) Canada is free health care(unlike 2 tiered UK) so the govt might not spend resources on such a procedure and it is illegal to pay for private service. Thats why I ask.

So you admit that you are a troll under the General definitions of such? Hmmm...reportable? I think so. Making inflammatory statements with the intent to provoke a negative response.

Hah! It was a logical trap and I was hoping nobody would fall into the "trap."

If you report me it shows your lack of substance in your argument :) Can't debate, must censor....

It's an ad hominem because what my own value judgements are have no basis in the credibility of my soothsaying.

It feels weird to have you agree with me on something:) Yesterday I kind of felt like we were going for throat
We probably agree on quite a lot. We're both very liberal. We probably just disagree on some economics (I am reasonably socialist, and on protectionism you're more right-wing than me, apparently), foreign policy (hawk! ;)) and random things like borders.

Hah! It was a logical trap and I was hoping nobody would fall into the "trap."

If you report me it shows your lack of substance in your argument :) Can't debate, must censor....

It's an ad hominem because what my own value judgements are have no basis in the credibility of my soothsaying.
No, the lack of credibility comes in when you claim that something is harmful, but your definition of harmful is based on personal judgements rather than facts. And as for "if you report me it shows"...well, I've decided to show. Because I think you are trolling.

If you report me it shows your lack of substance in your argument :) Can't debate, must censor....
There's an interesting logical fallacy... if A, then X.

We probably agree on quite a lot. We're both very liberal. We probably just disagree on some economics (I am reasonably socialist, and on protectionism you're more right-wing than me, apparently), foreign policy (hawk! ;)) and random things like borders.
Protectionism: I'm actually for it...just not when some can and others can't. What's our difference on foreign policy? (I have a bad memory...)

No, the lack of credibility comes in when you claim that something is harmful, but your definition of harmful is based on personal judgements rather than facts.

Because "harmful" is a subjective term :)

There is no objective morality.

And as for "if you report me it shows"...well, I've decided to show. Because I think you are trolling.

I'm glad you have such a respect for dissent.

Because "harmful" is a subjective term :)

There is no objective morality.



I'm glad you have such a respect for dissent.
Okay, this little puppet's not cute anymore.

Because "harmful" is a subjective term :)

There is no objective morality.
It certainly can be an objective term, as in the case of things that are harmful to all, not just the self. You used it in an objective, not subjective, context when you described people apart from you as being harmed by a common condition.

Okay, this little puppet's not cute anymore.
Reported. Moving on. Don't feed the trolls.

He wants to challenge the gender classifications. Now, you may say, born male, tough...but the fact that he is transgendered aside...does it REALLY matter what gender you put on your forms? What significance does your gender have in this sense? Name, you can't get around, though you could legally change that and not run into too much difficulty, be even were he post-op, it's unlikely his gender would be 'officially' changed. Why? Who cares? Ticking M or F on an admissions form means very little....
It can, depending on how much Affirmative Action is practiced in Admissions. If women recieve additional incentives/benefits/reserved space in the admissions process at the school your sibling is applying to, ticking the wrong box can have legal repercussions.
including Expulsion and charges of Attempted Fraud.

1) get the laser, it is life changing. *note, if you get both eyes done at the same time, make sure that they give you a long lasting topical anaestetic. It is very hard to keep your second eye open when tears are running down your face from the pain of the anaestetic from your first eye wears off.


Damn, Jolt is driving me crazy today!

I'm fine with glasses. I'm used to them. And I just can't work myself up into letting someone mess with my eyes that way. *shudders* Not unless it was absolutely necessary...and it isn't. Not really.

It can, depending on how much Affirmative Action is practiced in Admissions. If women recieve additional incentives/benefits/reserved space in the admissions process at the school your sibling is applying to, ticking the wrong box can have legal repercussions.
including Expulsion and charges of Attempted Fraud.
He's going into General studies. There is no quota system.

Reported. Moving on. Don't feed the trolls.

But trolls are so cuddly. I just wanna hug 'em and squeeze 'em and call 'em George.

Damn, Jolt is driving me crazy today!

I'm fine with glasses. I'm used to them. And I just can't work myself up into letting someone mess with my eyes that way. *shudders* Not unless it was absolutely necessary...and it isn't. Not really.

I'd like to mess with your eyes, if you know what I mean.

Honestly, I think it would be nice if we stopped worrying about gender altogether. What does anyone care what gender your claims to be or is besides, I don't know, your brother and maybe anyone he is intimate with? I've never seen a guy's willy in a bathroom so why is everyone so worried about what sex a bathroom is for? Plus, if you did who cares? It's anatomy, why are we so squeamish? I look forward to unisex bathrooms so I can just melt some woman's face off after a trip to our local burrito establishment.

There's an interesting logical fallacy... if A, then X.

No. I've debated this stuff before, I know exactly what happens in such arguments. The opposing side begins to moralize and in an attempt to silence me, contacts authority for help.

Let's get back to the main topic at hand, hmm?

I look forward to unisex bathrooms so I can just melt some woman's face off after a trip to our local burrito establishment.
EWWWW!!!!

By saying that everything that doesn't fit your particular idea of normal should be genetically modified? Not really outside the box...more like in one.

I've never said that. But inside the box is the realm of comfortable, polite thought that is accessible to anyone. Outside the box is the realm of esoteric and iconoclastic knowledge.

EWWWW!!!!

Stop hitting on me, would you? We're trying to have a discussion.

es·o·ter·ic (adj.)

1)Intended for or understood by only a particular group: an esoteric cult.

2)Of or relating to that which is known by a restricted number of people.

And of course

i·con·o·clast (n.)
1)One who attacks and seeks to overthrow traditional or popular ideas or institutions.

2)One who destroys sacred religious images.

So your knowledge is that which is secretive and based on the premise of attacking accepted thought.

When will your Grand Wizzard show up to "enlighten" us.

I look forward to unisex bathrooms so I can just melt some woman's face off after a trip to our local burrito establishment.

DUDE!!!

Hahahahahaha!

es·o·ter·ic (adj.)

1)Intended for or understood by only a particular group: an esoteric cult.

2)Of or relating to that which is known by a restricted number of people.


Of course. Not everybody has the stuff to accept thought such as mine.


i·con·o·clast (n.)
1)One who attacks and seeks to overthrow traditional or popular ideas or institutions.

2)One who destroys sacred religious images.


The masses will find my ideas....undigestable. It destroys their preexisting notions yet they still retain the carcasses.


When will your Grand Wizzard show up to "enlighten" us.

I'm absolutely diggin' these nazi and KKK remarks. A typical text book case this debate is.

Damn, Jolt is driving me crazy today!

I'm fine with glasses. I'm used to them. And I just can't work myself up into letting someone mess with my eyes that way. *shudders* Not unless it was absolutely necessary...and it isn't. Not really.

I wake up and i can see.

I can jump into the ocean, open my eyes underwater and see.

I can jump out of the ocean and still see.

My eyes never get fogged up

I never get nicoteen stuck under my contacts and have it burn away.

I never have to worry about my contacts drying out if I am up late.

Did I mention that I can see when I wake up? :)

edit: no paranoia aout someone sitting/breaking on my glasses if I take them off and relax for a bit.

The dog had no interest in chewing on my eyes, like it does with my dads specs.

Of course. Not everybody has the stuff to accept thought such as mine.



The masses will find my ideas....undigestable. It destroys their preexisting notions yet they still retain the carcasses.




I'm absolutely diggin' these nazi and KKK remarks. A typical text book case this debate is.
Once again, I'm going to remind you that this thread is NOT about whatever the heck your argument seems to be...eugenics? Not sure really. So, feel free to start a thread where you can discuss "thoughts such as yours". Right now, you're just hijacking.

Let's get back to the main topic at hand, hmm?
But that would entail ignoring you... oh well.

es·o·ter·ic (adj.)

1)Intended for or understood by only a particular group: an esoteric cult.

2)Of or relating to that which is known by a restricted number of people.


Of course. Not everybody has the stuff to accept thought such as mine.


i·con·o·clast (n.)
1)One who attacks and seeks to overthrow traditional or popular ideas or institutions.

2)One who destroys sacred religious images.


The masses will find my ideas....undigestable. It destroys their preexisting notions yet they still retain the carcasses.


When will your Grand Wizzard show up to "enlighten" us.

I'm absolutely diggin' these nazi and KKK remarks. A typical text book case this debate is.

But that would entail ignoring you... oh well.

I thought the main topic was unisex bathrooms, burritos and Sinuhue hitting on me. I guess I'm a little off.

After reading his posts, I would say that Ocalmsnoci is not the troll of the accusations. His comments about classification based on chromosomes is scientifically accurate, and the rest of his opinions are not really that disrespectful. A lot of what he's posted about genetics is pretty much the goal of modern medical science.

Genetic deviations and impurities are the cause of the majority of most major human ailments today, and if one theory about viruses is correct they are the cause of all of them. Culling out these genetic anomalies is currently the only way we can cure the vast majority of gene-related diseases, including such uberkillers as cancer.

Note however, that while he is right, he is only right on the genetic level. Genetically, sex never changes once you reach a certain age, and there is nothing you can do about it. However, I am of the personal opinion that if someone wants to shell out the money and time to change their body's appearance from one sex to the other, that is up to them. Their bodies, their money, their life. The reason is the mental aspect of all humans, which is what pretty much counts for anything anymore.

*snip*
Seriously, upwards of 4000 posts, and I've never seen you around before? Do we just post at different times?

Edit: I just HAD to:)
I'm also one of the biggest assholes on NS, and you may quote me on that.

Genetic deviations and impurities are the cause of the majority of most major human ailments today, and if one theory about viruses is correct they are the cause of all of them. Culling out these genetic anomalies is currently the only way we can cure the vast majority of gene-related diseases, including such uberkillers as cancer.

However, is this particular genetic deviation the cause of any sort of ailment? Is it in fact harmful to the person who has this genetic deviation, or to anyone else? Would this sort of deviation be on the list of those to be 'culled'?

In my view, anyone who is healthy and has decent genes and doesn't wish to pass them off is mentally inferior on an individual level, but they still might be carrier of ubergenes. I also admire those who really want to pass their genes on but do not because it would spread harmful genes.

And since you are the ruler of the universe....oh wait, you aren't. So why exactly should your view apply to everyone else?

Absolutely.

If you really believe that, you are incredibly naive.

Yes. But they're deviations and shouldn't make us scratch our heads and say, "hey maybe gender is an arbitrary term."

In science, there are no deviations. The rules are the rules. These things occur according to the rules of biology - therefore they must fit into whatever biological classifications we use.

From a legal point of view, we could argue that it doesn't matter if and only if no laws were in any way based on sex. Of course, that isn't true, so we have to be able to classify people legally as well.

Yes. But we shouldn't change our definition of gender because a few deviate (harmfully) from the cycle of XX or XY.

Gender has never been defined by chromosomes, it is a psychological term.

As for biological sex, again, if we are going to base laws on sex, we must be able to classify everyone. So, yes, we must have a definition of sex that encompasses all human beings.

Awww....moralizing :p

How so? There is nothing objectively wrong with someone with one of these conditions. They can live life and be productive members of society, same as anyone else. And if there weren't people out there who would condemn them for something they had nothing to do with, they would be psychologically fine as well.

Of course I have a problem with their bodies.

Do you honestly think that other people should care if you have a problem with them?

Seriously, upwards of 4000 posts, and I've never seen you around before? Do we just post at different times?

We mostly post on different forums and different topics. I primarily post on the UN forum, with secondary posting in minor RPs and the Moderation forum. I don't frequent this one that much because it moves too fast for me to keep up, due in part to Jolt.

Edit: I just HAD to:)

I'm tempted to make that quote my nation's motto.

After reading his posts, I would say that Ocalmsnoci is not the troll of the accusations. His comments about classification based on chromosomes is scientifically accurate,

Not really. As I pointed out, alterations in the number of sex chromosomes are not unusual in the least. Why? Because they often don't cause deleterious effects, like trisomy/monosomy/etc. in autosomal chromosomes do. Chimeras often do not have any deleterious effects either. In fact, it is overwhelmingly likely that most chimeras never even know that they are chimeric, as there is never a reason to test for it.

A lot of what he's posted about genetics is pretty much the goal of modern medical science.

Really? Eugenics is a goal of modern medical science? Getting rid of traits that cause no harm to have some sort of super-human species is a goal of modern medical science? *considers a career change*

Genetic deviations and impurities are the cause of the majority of most major human ailments today,

And yet many genetic deviations cause either no ailment at all or something so easily treated that it is practically unnoticable.

Note however, that while he is right, he is only right on the genetic level. Genetically, sex never changes once you reach a certain age, and there is nothing you can do about it.

...which still doesn't change the fact that, genetically, human beings don't fit into the nice little black and white XX or XY categories.

However, is this particular genetic deviation the cause of any sort of ailment? Is it in fact harmful to the person who has this genetic deviation, or to anyone else? Would this sort of deviation be on the list of those to be 'culled'?

This particular deviation may be on the list to be culled because it is possibly harmful to the species by reducing the breeding stock. However, this particular genetic variation possibly may not be a variation at all, but part of a series of internal controls programmed into the human genetic code. We know at this time that the human body has a series of genetic controls that determine even major personality traits, such as anger, and it is possibly that homosexuality and transgenderism are hardcoded into human DNA as a natural part of population control, which humans managed to override. With the amount of junk DNA in the average person, it will be decades or even centuries before we know for sure.

Not really. As I pointed out, alterations in the number of sex chromosomes are not unusual in the least. Why? Because they often don't cause deleterious effects, like trisomy/monosomy/etc. in autosomal chromosomes do. Chimeras often do not have any deleterious effects either. In fact, it is overwhelmingly likely that most chimeras never even know that they are chimeric, as there is never a reason to test for it.

The only reason to test for it is the possibility that chimeras sometimes result in an unbalanced body chemistry that adversely affects the person's personality, resulting in criminal or insane acts that can be corrected with simple medications.

Note that, theoretically, the YY series in some males causes ultraviolent tendencies, though this has no real evidence due to the rarity of such a combination.

Really? Eugenics is a goal of modern medical science? Getting rid of traits that cause no harm to have some sort of super-human species is a goal of modern medical science? *considers a career change*

The problem is that we don't know for sure which traits actually cause harm over the long run. We're still trying to run down what in the human genome causes what, and so much of it is just random trash from the centuries of evolution that it's amazing we know as much as we do. Part of evolution of humanity will likely involve dropping a lot of this junk DNA to factor out certain mutations.

And yet many genetic deviations cause either no ailment at all or something so easily treated that it is practically unnoticable.

Cancer itself likely started out as "something so easily treated that it is practically unnoticable." So did certain genetic mutations around today, such as people unable to go out into the sunlight because their bodies are physically unable to deal with it. The problem is not that these genetic diseases are so mild now, but that they won't be a few centuries down the line unless we do something.

[quote]...which still doesn't change the fact that, genetically, human beings don't fit into the nice little black and white XX or XY categories.

No, but most people are still taught that those are the basic categories. Change the teaching to solve the problem. Also note what I said about the mental component, specifically how it's pretty much what matters.

Protectionism: I'm actually for it...just not when some can and others can't.

What's our difference on foreign policy? (I have a bad memory...)
I thought you were for protectionism because you wanted borders to disappear for both people and capital.

Our difference on foreign policy... oh man. I don't want to start a flame war, but I agree with the idea of spreading democracy (especially social democracy!) and human rights by military force.

The only reason to test for it is the possibility that chimeras sometimes result in an unbalanced body chemistry that adversely affects the person's personality, resulting in criminal or insane acts that can be corrected with simple medications.

Well, those aren't the only reasons, but that could happen. Like I said, unless some adverse affects are seen, we don't even test for it.

Note that, theoretically, the YY series in some males causes ultraviolent tendencies, though this has no real evidence due to the rarity of such a combination.

I believe you mean XYY, which is actually relatively common. There was a study that showed more men in prison were XYY, but that study reportedly had some flaws.

I don't believe that any cases at all of YY have been seen - in fact, considering the fact that many necessary genes are only carried on the X gene, my instinct would be to say that it could not happen. Of course, the more I study in this field, the more I learn never to say never.

The problem is that we don't know for sure which traits actually cause harm over the long run.

We know what types of things manifest a problem for the person - making them a less productive member of society. A transgendered person is in no way a less productive member of society.

We're still trying to run down what in the human genome causes what, and so much of it is just random trash from the centuries of evolution that it's amazing we know as much as we do. Part of evolution of humanity will likely involve dropping a lot of this junk DNA to factor out certain mutations.

Maybe, maybe not. The more we study it, the more we find uses for the "junk DNA". It seems, in fact, that much of that "junk DNA" makes a big difference in the expression of traits.

Cancer itself likely started out as "something so easily treated that it is practically unnoticable."

Cancer is a bit different, as it is rarely, if ever, caused by a single genetic mutation. It is also rarely, if ever, caused by a mutation that a person is born with. As a general rule, a single cell has to accumulate at least five harmful mutations before cancer will develop. This is not a genetic defect, but a set of later mutations that cause disease. Meanwhile, cancer has never been "easily treated".

So did certain genetic mutations around today, such as people unable to go out into the sunlight because their bodies are physically unable to deal with it.

There is quite a bit of evidence that this particular condition has cropped up over the centuries - always very rarely. What on earth makes you think it has been increasing in prevalence?

The problem is not that these genetic diseases are so mild now, but that they won't be a few centuries down the line unless we do something.

Genetic diseases don't work that way. It isn't like a bacterial infection - if you ignore it, it'll get worse. A mutation causes an effect. That is a genetic disease. Could a further mutation cause another effect? Certainly, but that would be another genetic condition. And so on.

No, but most people are still taught that those are the basic categories. Change the teaching to solve the problem. Also note what I said about the mental component, specifically how it's pretty much what matters.

Ah, so you admit then that our dear Ocalmsnoci was completely wrong, since you have not contradicted what he was saying to a tee?

And since you are the ruler of the universe....oh wait, you aren't. So why exactly should your view apply to everyone else?

No, not everyone. Just the population I live in. I'm not too concerned with other ones.

If you really believe that, you are incredibly naive.

Absolutely.

In science, there are no deviations. The rules are the rules. These things occur according to the rules of biology - therefore they must fit into whatever biological classifications we use.

Except they're the result of glitches in what the system is "trying" to do. The normal terms of gender don't apply because they develop differently sexually.

Gender has never been defined by chromosomes, it is a psychological term.

I suppose, through the power of psychological will alone, women sprout penises?

As for biological sex, again, if we are going to base laws on sex, we must be able to classify everyone. So, yes, we must have a definition of sex that encompasses all human beings.

Okay: Male, Female, and those who are the result of biological errors. Happy?


How so? There is nothing objectively wrong with someone with one of these conditions. They can live life and be productive members of society, same as anyone else. And if there weren't people out there who would condemn them for something they had nothing to do with, they would be psychologically fine as well.

Of course there is nothing objectively wrong. But such disorders are socially disruptive--it's up to the individual whether or not they care about society or not, but it affects us all.

Do you honestly think that other people should care if you have a problem with them?

Well, yes, but if they have a disorder it would be kind of them to realize that it is problematic for society.

One consideration is that it is a legal document. Anything you have to put your signature to is a legal document, and should reflect truthful information.
Ah, but given the nature of the word gender one could feasibly argue that in terms of gender specifications her brother is female. Be an interesting court case to say the least.

Hi Sinuhue...



How ya been?



How's your sib?



Hope everything goes swimmingly.

First off muchos solidarity with your sibling (am on the committee for my university LGBT group so have a limited understanding of some of issues involved, although I admit that it is pretty limited as to my knowledge we currently have only two TG members and I haven't met them as of yet)

secondly, why the hell does someones *sex* matter... we're actually discussing a *sex* issue seeing as how gender is a social construct, rather then the biological one under discussion.

'inter-sex' (new catch all term for TG/TS and all that great rainbow that exists out there) is an area where our science is only just begining to explore and develop. much as I have very little trust in 'science' in general this is an area where much work needs to take place if we are to have any hope of overcomming the social issues which surround this topic.

But from my strongly liberal philosophy, it doesn't matter a damn, and anyone that says otherwise is just being ignorant.

There was actually a(n unofficial) school tradition at my old high school which has the senior guys go to school in the girl's uniforms and the girls wearing the pants. I think I might have gone if I'd been allowed to wear a plaid or at least a kilt.

Maharlikana

He wants to challenge the gender classifications. Now, you may say, born male, tough...but the fact that he is transgendered aside...does it REALLY matter what gender you put on your forms? What significance does your gender have in this sense? Name, you can't get around, though you could legally change that and not run into too much difficulty, be even were he post-op, it's unlikely his gender would be 'officially' changed. Why? Who cares? Ticking M or F on an admissions form means very little....
Wow...that's...interesting. Congratulations to your brother on his attempt to demonstrate gender inequity.

As far as I have come to understand it, when a child is born with no penis, that child is relegated to the female basket, regardless of their chromosomal make-up. There is no gender limbo for intersex individuals. If you ain't got visible tackle, you're a girl. This culture of gender definition means that women are forced to accept anything not up to par as a male. Intersex individuals should be afforded a gender definition uniquely their own. They are not be regarded as defunct-males or women-by-default.

Moreover, I don't think it's fair on women as a gender to bear the respsonsibility of accepting anything not overtly male. This weakens the definition of what a woman is, and thus makes it all the more difficult for women to be proud of their gender as uniquely female. If an intersex or transgender person feels male or female, by all means they should be accepted into the gender definition of their choice. They must NOT have that choice forced upon them, though.

I'm assuming that your brother is transgendered because he feels female. He should be afforded every respect for his gender status, because in his heart of hearts, he has defined himself as female, which I believe would not be an easy affirmation to make in a culture that defines gender based on visible equipment. If, however, your brother was happily male, and decided to enroll in University as a woman just for a lark, I would have serious concerns about his values of gender. Biologically, XX is the benchmark, with XY representing an inferior product. Socially, Man sets the standard, and Woman/Intersex/Trensgender is the inferior product. To flippantly choose to represent the not-male further diminishes the value of not-male - it becomes a condition to be joked about.

Congratulations to your brother for his courage in representing his true self.

My brother is going to college as a girl.
Sounds like a Wayans brothers or Rob Schnieder movie...

Well, those aren't the only reasons, but that could happen. Like I said, unless some adverse affects are seen, we don't even test for it.

Which, in turn, leads to the question of how many adverse affects we don't know about because we are not testing. Vicious circle.

I believe you mean XYY, which is actually relatively common. There was a study that showed more men in prison were XYY, but that study reportedly had some flaws.

I don't believe that any cases at all of YY have been seen - in fact, considering the fact that many necessary genes are only carried on the X gene, my instinct would be to say that it could not happen. Of course, the more I study in this field, the more I learn never to say never.

It's odd, but the information I have on the subject hasn't been checked in awhile, so it's likely inaccurate. I'll check again and see if the original said XYY or YY.

We know what types of things manifest a problem for the person - making them a less productive member of society. A transgendered person is in no way a less productive member of society.

Only if you don't include reproduction in society for being productive.

Maybe, maybe not. The more we study it, the more we find uses for the "junk DNA". It seems, in fact, that much of that "junk DNA" makes a big difference in the expression of traits.

The junk DNA also sometimes contributes to random traits popping up that shouldn't exist.

Cancer is a bit different, as it is rarely, if ever, caused by a single genetic mutation. It is also rarely, if ever, caused by a mutation that a person is born with. As a general rule, a single cell has to accumulate at least five harmful mutations before cancer will develop. This is not a genetic defect, but a set of later mutations that cause disease. Meanwhile, cancer has never been "easily treated".

Cancer has never been easily treated in all records of it. The problem is, we don't have all medical records of humanity stretching back to the beginning.

There is quite a bit of evidence that this particular condition has cropped up over the centuries - always very rarely. What on earth makes you think it has been increasing in prevalence?

I didn't intend to give the impression I was saying it was.

Genetic diseases don't work that way. It isn't like a bacterial infection - if you ignore it, it'll get worse. A mutation causes an effect. That is a genetic disease. Could a further mutation cause another effect? Certainly, but that would be another genetic condition. And so on.

Genetic diseases don't work that way, but genetic defects not worked out through natural breeding do. You have one mutation that sticks around and grows in prevalence until it causes a second mutation, and so on until you get a disorder.

Ah, so you admit then that our dear Ocalmsnoci was completely wrong, since you have not contradicted what he was saying to a tee?

I'll admit it. And I'll admit I'm wrong. Just because I'm an asshole doesn't mean I have to be a dishonorable one. Besides, I'm just here to enjoy a discussion where, in the end, I could lose very easily. It's a refreshing change.

i'm stillnot seeing how 'intersex' is being classed as a genetic disorder/whatever...

I reacently read an article claiming that somewhere in the region of 1/100 humans are in some way, often minor and unnoticable, not entirely classifiable as male/female. So sod it.

oh yeah and if we need anything its *less* people that think the entire purpose of their lives is to produce more screaming replica's of themselves, lets continue our racial evolution to a point where reproduction is no longer seen as the greatest thing we can achieve... lets face it, its hardly difficult

i'm stillnot seeing how 'intersex' is being classed as a genetic disorder/whatever...

Hermaphrodites.

yes? and your point is?

if the statistics about 'intersex' is true then these really arn't abberrations at all, merely the point of greatest variation

Except they're the result of glitches in what the system is "trying" to do.

How do you know they are glitches? Because it doesn't fit into your world view? You would make a very poor scientist indeed. Having XXY, for instance, could prove to be an advantage socially if it weren't for the prejudices held by many. Transgendered people (something that those with Klinefelter's may be more prone to) were seen as blessed in many native societies and were actually revered.

The normal terms of gender don't apply because they develop differently sexually.

If you are going to use terms, please use them correctly. You are referring to sex, not gender. Gender is a psychological distinction.

Okay: Male, Female, and those who are the result of biological errors. Happy?

So are we going to have legal classifications that lump all of those who you have personally determined have errors into one bucket? Will we begin to have a male, female, and biological error bathroom? Who can those with "biological errors" marry? What will they place on the forms that ask for their sex?

Of course there is nothing objectively wrong. But such disorders are socially disruptive--it's up to the individual whether or not they care about society or not, but it affects us all.

Incorrect. Those with these conditions are not, in any way, in and of themselves, socially disruptive. It is those who condemn them who cause social disruption.

Well, yes, but if they have a disorder it would be kind of them to realize that it is problematic for society.

What you mean, of course, is that it is problematic for you. I hate to break it to you, however, but you do not personally constitute all of society. Most of us have no problem with people living their lives.

How do you know they are glitches?

Because they harmful aberrations?

Because it doesn't fit into your world view? You would make a very poor scientist indeed.

Maybe, instead, some people observe reality instead of trying to mold it in a pretend image.

Having XXY, for instance, could prove to be an advantage socially if it weren't for the prejudices held by many.

Such as super powers?

Transgendered people (something that those with Klinefelter's may be more prone to) were seen as blessed in many native societies and were actually revered.

(I'm assuming you're talking about Native Americans, since I believe I've heard the same thing with them)

Do I care what native american societies did? I'm not a Native American myself, why does it effect me? If the Native Americans wanted to screw themselves over socially, it's fine by me.

If you are going to use terms, please use them correctly. You are referring to sex, not gender. Gender is a psychological distinction.

Sex affects both body and mind. They're not mutually exclusive, even in your little dualist fantasy.

So are we going to have legal classifications that lump all of those who you have personally determined have errors into one bucket? Will we begin to have a male, female, and biological error bathroom?

Lets 'fix' errors, hmm? If we detect such problems in the child, just abort it.

Who can those with "biological errors" marry? What will they place on the forms that ask for their sex?

Who can they marry? Probably nobody. What will they put on forms? Who says the Empire of Ocalmsnoci uses forms? :)

Incorrect. Those with these conditions are not, in any way, in and of themselves, socially disruptive. It is those who condemn them who cause social disruption.

Sure. We all know of the numerous biological advantages they provide. :)

What you mean, of course, is that it is problematic for you. I hate to break it to you, however, but you do not personally constitute all of society. Most of us have no problem with people living their lives.

You're a soldier for modernity, you know that? :) That's because you're all sheep and don't care whether or not society is stagnating; as long as your own faults are unquestioned, society is acceptable.

He wants to challenge the gender classifications. Now, you may say, born male, tough...but the fact that he is transgendered aside...does it REALLY matter what gender you put on your forms? What significance does your gender have in this sense? Name, you can't get around, though you could legally change that and not run into too much difficulty, be even were he post-op, it's unlikely his gender would be 'officially' changed. Why? Who cares? Ticking M or F on an admissions form means very little....

I guess in theory under a system which treats both sexes equally, it does not matter. HOWEVER for university statistics and demographics, you must enter your sex correctly.

yes? and your point is?

if the statistics about 'intersex' is true then these really arn't abberrations at all, merely the point of greatest variation

Faulty logic. That can also be used to determine that mental disorders are merely a part of normal human variation in the mental department, due to the great prevalance of them. And don't even get me started on STDs.

Hermaphrodites.

The sad thing is, true Hermaphrodites tend to be both Frigid, and Impotent. (the genitalia don't normally work that way. something about conflicting biochemistry and abnormal development...)
They're also highly likely to be sterile. (this tends to be true of domestic animals showing physical characteristics of both sexes. Humans are still mammals...)
Unlike the Porn movies (ain't special Effects grand?) it's not a happy life. Imagine having to spend the rest of your mortal existence taking pills to permit you to function as either a man, or a woman?
Not to mention shots, surgeries... the chance of accidental mis-Classification...

From everything I've been able to glean, being Intersexed is a version of undeserved hell.

Agreed. I would hate to be part of that group.

Because they harmful aberrations?

You have yet to demonstrate harm.

Maybe, instead, some people observe reality instead of trying to mold it in a pretend image.

I see, so you are so infallible that no one can possibly interpret reality in a different light than you? Good to know.

Such as super powers?

Such as the ability to get along easily with both sexes - having common experiences with both.

Do I care what native american societies did? I'm not a Native American myself, why does it effect me? If the Native Americans wanted to screw themselves over socially, it's fine by me.

You have yet to demonstrate that it in any way "screwed them over socially". In fact, many native tribes had a wonderfully functional society - often much more so than our contemporary society. Looks like people can work just fine celebrating their differences.

Sex affects both body and mind. They're not mutually exclusive, even in your little dualist fantasy.

How is this in any way contradictory to what I said? Oh wait, it isn't.

The words themselves - by definition - describe psychology (gender) or physiology (sex). If you don't like the proper use of words, I suggest you cease trying to communicate.

Lets 'fix' errors, hmm? If we detect such problems in the child, just abort it.

Could we do the same if we find the errors causing irrational prejudice?

You're a soldier for modernity, you know that? :) That's because you're all sheep and don't care whether or not society is stagnating; as long as your own faults are unquestioned, society is acceptable.

Demonstrate that society is stagnating.

Demonstrate that I have made any attempt to correlate whether or not society is "acceptable" with my own faults.