Treatments for trans children and politics, world-wide

[Ormond]

3 minutes ago, Ran said:

Caster Semanya and her wife have two children through IVF, and donor sperm has never been mentioned, so it seems likely that  the sperm was taken from her body using medical techniques.

 

At this point I'm not commenting on the rest of the argument, and realize this may be a tangential point, but I do not think your conclusion here is medically correct, because undescended testicles do not normally produce viable sperm. 

[Ran]

23 minutes ago, Ormond said:

because undescended testicles do not normally produce viable sperm. 

Apparently there are a number of examples of persons with Semanya's condition, 46 XY 5-ARD, managing to conceive children through IVF. I don't know if these are flukes or if methods have been developed to counteract the issues related to undescended testes in these individuals.

Edited May 4 by Ran

[Consigliere]

I'm not well versed on this topic so have refrained from commenting. What I will say though is that conservatives have generally tended to be on the wrong side of history when it comes to social issues. A lot of the rhetoric against trans people has mirrored the rhetoric that conservatives used against gay people back in the day so be careful about parroting conservative talking points.

About trans women in sports. I'd leave that up to the governing bodies rather than legislators. Governing bodies of each sporting discipline should determine whether an individual possesses an unfair advantage based on evolving scientific study. Legislators otoh are mostly just going to pander to the whims of their voter base.

From my own experience, South Africa tends to be a fairly conservative country socially but I'm glad that LGBT rights are constitutionally protected - in fact, in May 1996 South Africa became the first jurisdiction in the world to provide constitutional protection to LGBT people. LGBT people have a right to exist and participate in society the same as everyone else.

Edited May 4 by Consigliere
sp

[TrackerNeil]

2 hours ago, Ran said:

I think the sticking point is "well, there are exceptions". Yes. They are incredibly rare and they aren't actually much of an issue.

Exactly.

I find the "argument to exceptions" to be odd. I mean, occasionally, there are human beings born without functional eyes, but we still say that binocular vision is a normal human trait. If very, very rarely a human is born with only one leg, no one would seriously argue that it can no longer be said that humans are bipedal. Yes, occasionally there is a Castor Semenya, for whom sex is more difficult to clearly ascertain, but I think it's strange to think that her existence means there's no binary.

Edited May 4 by TrackerNeil

[Zorral]

Well, when it comes down to it, historically, there is nothing about and at which primates are more inventive and creative and innovative and willing to accept than sexuality and everything that can be even remotely connected to it.  Even when it isn't even remotely related or connected, trust primates to find a way.

Even if the Church(s) say no in thunder (while the individuals within it exuberantly participate(.

[Heartofice]

12 hours ago, TrueMetis said:

Been stewing on the "biological sex is about large or small gametes" thing for a few days, I can't really put into words how much I do not accept that as a method of categorization, but I'm gonna try.

 

I’ve also been stewing on your reply and I couldn’t put my finger on why I felt it was just going in the wrong direction.

Basically I think a lot of this comes down to the bluntness of our language, which leads to people using the same terms and words to talk about different things.

We have the sex binary, people really are born either male or female in almost all cases, that is probably how the majority of people will understand whether someone is a man or a women throughout most of history. 
 

We also have secondary sex characteristics that are correlated to a persons biological sex, but may vary for each individual, but do essentially gather around one or the other sex.

Then we have gender, which is related to social and cultural indicators of sex differences. I think it’s a useful concept to help expand out the fact that the way people interact with gender roles may be different.

So you have all these different factors playing into something as blunt and as vague as a word like ‘woman’ or ‘man’, it’s hardly surprising that there is disagreement when people try and force individuals into tidy buckets when people are not tidy. They are messy and different. 
 

Its impossible to not have disagreement because one person may define ‘woman’ based on one set of category and someone else another. IMO the issue is with language. 

[mormont]

13 hours ago, Heartofice said:

IMO the issue is with language. 

Language, sure. But the bigger issue, IMO, is the weird obsession many modern societies (Western society, but all across the globe too) have with gender and sex as being absolutely fundamental to identity, and the division and segregation of the sexes and genders in all sorts of contexts where it's largely unnecessary. Tackle that, and a lot of these issues simply solve themselves.

[Heartofice]

33 minutes ago, mormont said:

Language, sure. But the bigger issue, IMO, is the weird obsession many modern societies (Western society, but all across the globe too) have with gender and sex as being absolutely fundamental to identity, and the division and segregation of the sexes and genders in all sorts of contexts where it's largely unnecessary. Tackle that, and a lot of these issues simply solve themselves.

Like what?

[Spockydog]

 

[JGP]

That's rich, ol' Assassination Coordinates himself pushing for more positive content  

[Zorral]

So Rowling and Musk are the source of the gametes large (or small) to shut-down the discussion as to who is what and why? 

[DMC]

Do have to say it’s incredibly amusing that this thread started as a reaction to the Cass report.  Wherein we’re all told we have to believe that’s “science” and CANNOT question an old scientist’s statistical analysis.  But when it comes to biological sex, we all must abide by the binary of gametes and gonads - and that is absolute.  It’s fucking absurd argumentation, at best.

The reason I mention this again is because it does - as has been suggested - have real life repercussions.  The Biden administration spent years promulgating a new rule to Title IX that would protect trans students/faculty/staff at universities and colleges throughout the country from discrimination.

To be clear, the rule has nothing to do with sports.  It went through the rigorous notice and comment procedure like all rulemaking.  But how have the far right governors weaponized it?  By emphasizing the “basic” differences in sex.  I’ll let my own dear governor explain:

Quote

“We are not gonna let Joe Biden try to inject men into women’s activities,” DeSantis continued. “We are not gonna let Joe Biden undermine the rights of parents, and we are not gonna let Joe Biden abuse his constitutional authority to try to impose these policies on us here in Florida.”

This type of absolute horseshit politicized exploitation of the rule has traveled to about half a dozen states now, for the time being.  Heckofa job!

[Ran]

 

18 minutes ago, DMC said:

But when it comes to biological sex, we all must abide by the binary of gametes and gonads

Who has said that we must "abide" by that for policy purposes? I was dispelling misinformation about "changing [your] biological sex", which we can't at this time do, and "biological sex is a spectrum" nonsense that is obvious ideologically-motivated drivel that badly explains science.

There are many genders and they all deserve their civil rights. 

Politics is politics, parties in the US will always roll up their sleeves for anything that can be turned into culture war. It'd be nice if they weren't constantly given fodder for the culture war mill, though.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Ran said:

and "biological sex is a spectrum" nonsense that is obvious ideologically-motivated drivel that badly explains science.

Really sad that you can’t understand it’s your obstinate position that is obviously “ideologically - motivated” and subsequently being co-opted by plainly bad actors.

[Ran]

17 minutes ago, DMC said:

Really sad that you can’t understand it’s your obstinate position that is obviously “ideologically - motivated” and subsequently being co-opted by plainly bad actors.

Then go out, o great political scientist, and find the fabled third gamete that proves that there is something other than two sexes.

I bear no responsibility for what other people do with science, whether they fuck it up to shore up "sex is a spectrum" or they fuck it up to say "there are only two genders". 

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Ran said:

Then go out, o great political scientist, and find the fabled third gamete that proves that there is something other than two sexes.

I bear no responsibility for what other people do with science, whether they fuck it up to shore up "sex is a spectrum" or they fuck it up to say "there are only two genders". 

No, you don’t bear any responsibility for the “science” you are espousing.  That’s well and clear.

My point, which I think is rather manifest, is that this insistent attitude is precisely what the far right is looking for.  Because then they can use it even in opposing rulemaking for Title IX.  Which sucks.  And I think most everyone reading this would agree it sucks.

But, please, go on, denigrate me for being a political scientist.  What type of scientist are you again?

[Heartofice]

The irony here is that the Cass review was pushing back on the lack of scientific rigour in gender medicine. 
 

So for someone to try to criticise the Cass review for doing that, whilst simultaneously promoting pseudo science ideas like sex as a spectrum is really a bad look. 
 

Scientific truth isn’t a weapon.

 

[Ran]

22 minutes ago, DMC said:

My point, which I think is rather manifest, is that this insistent attitude

What cowardly censoriousness to hold that position that simply correcting a very basic issue of biology is "obstinacy" and "insistent attitude". How about encouraging people on the side we support to know their science and to argue from truth  rather than falsehood?

Last year's Title IX draft proposal on athletics looked fine to me, acknowledging that sex-based discrimination may be necessary for competitive fairness or safety in sports, as determined by the appropriate federations and associations.

I know less about this year's update to the role of Title IX in activities, but a cursory look at them makes them seem rather broader and I'd have to read comments for and against to see if it's all really just the right being assholes as they usually are, or if there are points where the regulations can be better improved.

I'm no scientist at all, which is why I'm even more mystified by your posting at 3AM on a Monday arguing for self-censorship on science.

If people start to turn to the right on some culture war issue because people on the left keep misstating facts or outright lying about them, whose fault is that? "The right made us do it!" isn't going to fly. We on the left should be willing to be truthful when discussing the interface between policy and science, even about facts that may be in some fashion inconvenient when we know our opponent will seize on it as a wedge. 

We should be talking about civil rights for all people and be opposed to gender-based discrimination outside of narrow contexts, and then go about fighting over those contexts, rather than attempting to falsify biology for the sake of putting forward a counter-maximalist position just because the opponent has a maximal one.

Edited May 6 by Ran

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Scientific truth isn’t a weapon.

It is!  And this is bereft of it.  I honestly don’t know where I fall on a number of issues discussed here, but your blatant biases certainly help the other side.

16 minutes ago, Ran said:

What cowardly censoriousness to hold that position that simply correcting a very basic issue of biology is "obstinacy" and "insistent attitude". How about encouraging people on the side we support to know their science and to argue from truth  rather than falsehood?

…Cowardly censoriouness?  WTF?  Are you trying to be the next William Safire?  Who, btw, was a dick that just used fun coins of term to make a career.  Anyway, how am I trying to censor anything?  Like, seriously, this defies basic logic and rather clearly is derived from some emotional based animus.  But, to your credit, positively Nixonian.

22 minutes ago, Ran said:

know less about this year's update to the role of Title IX in activities, but a cursory look at them makes them seem rather broader and I'd have to read comments for and against to see if it's all really just the right being assholes as they usually are, or if there are points where the regulations can be better improved.

So, in other words, you don’t even know what I was referring to.  K.  Lemme know when you catch up.

24 minutes ago, Ran said:

I'm no scientist at all, which is why I'm even more mystified by your posting at 3AM on a Monday arguing for self-censorship on science.

It’s very cute you think this.  It assumes you have a monopoly on science. And a bewildering understanding of what self-censorship means.

29 minutes ago, Ran said:

We on the left should be willing to be truthful when discussing the interface between policy and science

My friend, you are not on the left.  In any way, shape, or form.  Which is absolutely fine!  I’d also like to clarify I don’t think you are in any way associated with the far right - that’s why I emphasized the difference.  Further, I don’t think anyone here - and especially not you - is transphobic.  But..you aren’t on any version of the left in any industrialized democracy I’m familiar with.  Unless you think left means center.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

"Biological sex = gametes" is also scientifically not true. It's an overly simplistic understanding that is derived from a human desire to reduce sex to a simple binary. People only started identifying gametes with "biological sex" after those people who believed that chromosomes equated to biological sex got crushed by science. 

When we determine the "sex" humans or other animals, we are not looking just at gametes alone. That is bad science. The sex of a human or other animal is a sum of elements and markers that includes but not exclusive to gametes. Biologists will also use markers like sexual dimorphism, internal/external genitalia, chromosomes, hormone expression, behavior, neurological elements, etc. It's about a phenotypic sex model over andg against a singular aspect of genotypic sex. 

This likely factors into the problem with a lot of discussion. There are people who insist that gametes proves that biological sex is binary. However, those who view sex as a spectrum are using the phenotypical model in which is a person's sex is a sum of gametes, chromosomes, secondary sex expressions, brain chemistry, and behavior. 

Edited May 6 by Matrim Fox Cauthon