Transgender people poised to destroy US military

'What's the use of responding on a blog, which has been overtaken nearly completely by anonymous readers? Just do a check on recent responding anonymous readers. What do these readers hope to achieve? You don't know? Read their posts and answers. A recent list of responding readers I have cited below.

See latest Recent Comments by (all anonymous) Readers:
1. dean on Trump touts racial segregation, antisemitism, lewd behavior, at Boy Scout rally
2. Lionel A on Michael Mann Did Not Sabotage His Law Suit, But Deniers Are Sabotaging The Planet
3. BBD on Michael Mann Did Not Sabotage His Law Suit, But Deniers Are Sabotaging The Planet
4. BBD on Michael Mann Did Not Sabotage His Law Suit, But Deniers Are Sabotaging The Planet
5. BBD on Michael Mann Did Not Sabotage His Law Suit, But Deniers Are Sabotaging The Planet
6. Helianthus on Trump touts racial segregation, antisemitism, lewd behavior, at Boy Scout rally
7.Wow on Trump touts racial segregation, antisemitism, lewd behavior, at Boy Scout rally
8. Wow on Trump touts racial segregation, antisemitism, lewd behavior, at Boy Scout rally
9. Wow on Trump touts racial segregation, antisemitism, lewd behavior, at Boy Scout rally
10. Wow on Michael Mann Did Not Sabotage His Law Suit, But Deniers Are Sabotaging The Planet
11. Wow on Michael Mann Did Not Sabotage His Law Suit, But Deniers Are Sabotaging The Planet
12. Wow on Michael Mann Did Not Sabotage His Law Suit, But Deniers Are Sabotaging The Planet
13. Wow on Michael Mann Did Not Sabotage His Law Suit, But Deniers Are Sabotaging The Planet
14. Wow on Michael Mann Did Not Sabotage His Law Suit, But Deniers Are Sabotaging The Planet

Laren NH, Wednesday 26 July 2017, 16:06 PM DT.

;

" ….Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming….."

And not thinking about the transgendered woman who has well hard abs and a good grip... Because our forces can't operate while trying to hide a stiffy.

What's the prob, great boogers?

Given you post shite on here constantly, where do you get to whine about what you think of my postings?

Bogaers

Look up anonymous, it does not mean what you think it means.

I would allow transgender people to serve.

It is merely cosmetic surgery, with a sprinkling of hormones.

I would house them with their sex, and it shouldn't be a problem.

If they are XX they live and shower with women and if they are XY they live and shower with men.

That should solve the vast majority of the issue, except for the few genetic anomalies who fall outside XX, XY.

Problem solved.

"If they are XX they live and shower with women and if they are XY they live and shower with men."

Is contrary to your earlier claim:

"I would house them with their sex, and it shouldn’t be a problem."

Moreover, if anything WERE to be uncomfortable or distracting due to being unusual, it would be a trans male living with women while having a dangle, and trans female living with men while having bubblies and a toot-toot?

And given the uproar about homosexuals, surely a trans male should not be living with males that they identify as partner material, and vice versa?

At least in this case there will be no unexpected flash of boob or bollock where none were expected by actually separating those who may partner with the gender they shower with if they were kept with their "birth physical gender".

Wow #6:

First, cosmetic surgery doesn't change a person's sex.

A male (XY) is still a male even if they dress and have surgery to look like a women. A female (XX) is still a female even if they dress and have surgery to look like a man.

People are just going to have to tough it out and deal with it. Because people are going to have surgery and dress and alter their appearance to look like the sex opposite to what they actually are - so that is that.

But the military doesn't have to go along with pretending that they have actually changed their sex - because they haven't.

If a male has surgery and now has man boobs, that is no different than plenty of other males who have man boobs just from being fat - so it isn't a problem.

I suspect we will all get over it as long as we just keep in mind that a person's sex is an objective fact and cannot be changed by surgery. A person can pretend they have changed sex (and calling it a gender change), but in fact no sex is changed with surgery or homrones. All their cells are still XX or XY, just the same as before the surgery.

"First, cosmetic surgery doesn’t change a person’s sex."

The only way that can be the case is if they are female despite having a male-looking body.

Sex is more than chromosomal. Don't be a dickhead here too.

"A male (XY) is still a male even "

Wrong.

If a woman gets changed in the mens' shower, it will distract, because this is still the society we live in.

If that woman turns out to have a Y chromosome, NOBODY THERE WILL SEE IT.

They will see the vagina and breasts.

And they will be distracting.

If you insist they are male and they are in the womens' dorm, then NOT ONE PERSON THERE will see the Y chromosome, but they WILL see the breasts and vagina.

And not one will be distracted.

Since the chromosomal segregation has no effect, yet the physiological appurtenances DO have an effect, and this is all about minimising the effect of the "wrong" gender placement in barracks et al, then your idea is completely the wrong one.

Just for the record, people who are transgender have this thing ... they are trans. gender.

So, maybe they were a girl and now they are a boy, or visa versa. Many people will correctly and rightly object to the binary, but we're going to have the binary, at least for now, in the US military. In that context, the only burden on transgender people should be that they have to pick a sex.

But they get to pick the sex, or at least, we can expect there to be a common culturally understood picking process, so if anybody wants to be a wiseguy/girl, that will be apparent.

A very large number of people in the military now are neither XX nor XY, by the way. That is pretty much managed. Also, X and Y are chromosomes, so to the extent that there are genetic determinants involved in what will ultimately become person's gender, they are not actually determinative not being actual genes and all.

Choosing won't work. For a trans man with the outer appearance of a woman to get to choose to be in the male quarters it would have to be made clear that they had reassignment.

This would immediately put a huge social stigma on them for those who feel uncomfortable with this fact, discomfort that would not exist if the information had been withheld. Unless you allowed women who were always women and identify as women to choose to bunk and shower with the men.

And vice versa.

This would not be healthy in society we have today.

Note: it would be best for sexual tensions for gay men to house with the women and lesbian women to house with the men, if it were as dick seems to want to imply, that the outer appearance were not of any useful determinant for who should bunk where.

After all, a lesbian would not want to boff with the men,and so they would not have to worry about advances in the barracks after lights out or in the shower. And the women are likewise similarly safe from the gay men.

BY DEFINITION they do not want to interfere with members of their own sex.

This is not the case because the outer appearance DOES matter. A case could be made that there was pretence going on in homosexuality, but that doesn't hold out for long or is moot. And someone willing to go through gender reassignment just to shower with women (or the other way round) is a nonexistent fantasy by people who really don't understand.

Greg:

Gender and sex are two different things.

The X and Y chromosomes are SEX chromosomes.

There is no gender chromosome.

Gender takes into account what people want and think, but gender doesn't change any of the cells in their body from XX to XY.

So I have to push back a little.

Trans gender is a word - but it has nothing to do with a person's sex.

How a person feels or thinks or even wishes or wants has nothing to do with a person's sex.

I can take a blood test of anybody and determine their sex.

Sex is an objective fact.

Gender is not.

Now, you are correct that 1 in 1,666 births (according to http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency) are not XX or XY. This is .06% ish of the general population. The military already deals with these non XX or XY people and as far as I know there are no issues, and no special accommodations are sought or are necessary, as most align with their align with their exterior appearance (xxx or xxy for example).

Reasonable people can differ, between treating a person's sex based on external appearance versus treating a person's sex based on a blood test - but I fall into the blood test camp. No matter which way you go, you will run into problems.

The most difficult cases will by those how are XX (or XY), but identify as the opposite sex, and do not want surgery. Now you have XX women, who feel like men showering with men and XY men, who feel like women showering with women.

What about the privacy rights of the many versus the desire of the one? I come down on the side of the many in this instance.

No matter what - it looks like people will have to deal with showering with people who either look like the opposite sex or who actually are the opposite sex. I would rather a rule which allowed me to at least know, that no matter how a person looked, they were the same sex as me.

I realize others will disagree - but we need a hard and fast rule, rather than an anything goes rule (in my opinion).

"Gender and sex are two different things."

Not in this context. They are the same thing.

"The X and Y chromosomes are SEX chromosomes."

They are one of the factors defining gender. Which is what sex you are. See how the two can mean the same thing, dick?

"Sex is an objective fact.

Gender is not."

No, sex is the act of copulation, this is a fact, not an opinion. Unless you frequently think you have had sex and it's been entirely in your own mind. I believe this could be a wet dream.

"as most align with their align with their exterior appearance (xxx or xxy for example)."

They do not have the external appearance of "xxx" or "xxy". They look like humans, not asci art.

"Reasonable people can differ, between treating a person’s sex based on external appearance versus treating a person’s sex based on a blood test –"

But without any blood test and DNA sequencing you have only the external appearance or the flat claim of gender or sex to go on. Therefore since gender reassignment has fuck all to do with anyone other than the person themselves and their doctor, it's no fucking business of the military either.

So all there is to go on is the external appearance as to their gender.

"What about the privacy rights of the many versus the desire of the one? "

What about it? There's no privacy right being shat upon by having a trans of the same intellectual gender identity as themselves in the barracks, toilets or showers.

" I come down on the side of the many in this instance."

There is no side they have here. They are not the ones being outed or privacy invaded.

Unless you are advocating for separate cubicles for beds, toilets and showers for everyone so that nobody with a tit can look at someone else with a tit or similar for balls.

"No matter what ..."

I do not see any source for this claim whatsoever. Is the system currently co-ed showers, head and bunks?

" but we need a hard and fast rule, rather than an anything goes rule (in my opinion)."

OK. So the hard and fast rule is if you have gender reassignment surgery you go with the gender (or sex: the male sex or the female sex) that you appear to be.

RickA, I have a PhD in this.

People do often refer to gender and sex as different things, but in fact, the distinction is not in reality what people think they are.

X and Y are sex chromosomes, more or less (one could argue that only Y is a sex chromosome in mammals but that is probably beyond this discussion) but chromosomes are not genes. They are packages of genes. It is not that uncommon that a gene ends up on a different chromosome, or that a bit of chromosome gets duplicated, etc. So in the context of looking at rare chromsomal variations, which is what we were talking about, XX and XY do not determine sex OR gender, but rather, the genes on them determine something. This is not an unimportant distinction.

Both sex and gender, meanwhile, are determined by a combination of genetic and environmental factors, where the environmental factors can be very diverse and include signaling pathways at the cellular level, endocrine processes at the cellular or organic level, uterine environment, developmental canalization, cultural factors, and of course, things like surgery and medially supervised hormonal or other pharmaceutical regimes.

The most difficult cases will by those how are XX (or XY), but identify as the opposite sex, and do not want surgery. Now you have XX women, who feel like men showering with men and XY men, who feel like women showering with women.

That is indeed the scenario that frightens conservatives into saying things like “this is the end of our school system as we know it” and mildly worries liberal parents who know that there isn’t much of an issue there. But it is an issue, and it can be addressed. Or undressed. As the case may be.

The problem has been solved, by the way, for entirely different reasons, in facilities across the country, and it isn’t difficult. In any given facility where there are multiple people using bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers, there is typically a multiplicity of layouts. My wife (an XX female) can go with my young son (an XY male) to a place to go to the gym or swim and find proper facilities with proper privacy and everything that is needed.

Designers and users of facilities simply have to be reasonable and thoughtful.

I agree that new facilities can easily incorporate a non-gender bathroom (or shower).

I am sure if enough money is thrown at the problem even existing public facilities could be retrofitted.

However, I was recently at the Walker Art Center, and all of the public restrooms are now non-gender specific. Consequently, there is a huge line, because they just don't process men as efficiently as a men's room with a row of urinals. Politically correct - yes - an improvement - no (if you don't like lines).

I expect a ton of litigation on gender bathroom/shower issues, and at some point the Supreme Court will have to rule on this issue.

It will all come down to the definition of sex.

Is it an equal protection violation to force XY men to share a public restroom (or shower) with an XX women who considers themselves a transgendered male?

Is it an equal protection violation to force XX women to share a public restroom (or shower) with an XY male who considers themselves a transgendered women?

I don't know what the Supreme Court will decide, but my opinion is that it is an equal protection violation (and perhaps a privacy right violation).

Non trans-gendered people have rights also - including a privacy right.

Not every public bathroom/shower will be retrofitted or provided with a gender neutral option before this case gets decided by the Supreme Court (in my opinion).

So I guess we will have to wait and see what the outcome is.

It is amusing to see rickA, he of no science training at all, try to explain to Greg why science is wrong and ignorance (rickA's ignorance) is correct.

Lets make this simple: packaging does not determine what is inside that packaging. If you remember the shower scene from Starship Troopers; they didn't worry about packaging only if they were MI (mobile infantry) or not. This nation still shows puritanical roots all to much.

Here's an idea Gerrit. Start your own non science blog where you can post about asinine things like your fake psychic and his "predictions" about climate change, and screen it so only the uneducated folks who believe in that claptrap can post. You'll be happy among them.

Rich #18:

It would be interesting to see if that would really work out in the real world military. Is this done anywhere in the world?

Now throw some 9 year old boys and girls into that shower scene and see if any parents object to that being forced upon their children.

Combining the sexes (of all ages) in bathrooms and showers is not as simple as I think you think it is. If this is common worldwide, than I guess America is puritanical. I don't think it is as common in other countries as you think - but I could be wrong.

RickA, you missed to whole point of what I posted. As a hint: It had nothing to do with everyone showering together.

Well I'm just so glad we are taking those defense budgets seriously.... [see overruns. F35 etc] and glad its just about the money 'cause otherwise I'd be tempted to think its another Macho attack on a sub group that has little political influence. [Tho this time I'm seeing lots of conservatives struggling to be ok here....]

and to RickA's point- I'd be hella more comfortable with any of the Trans Folk I have met spending time with my kids than I would the current POTUS spending an hour alone w/ my 15 yr old daughter or ANY of these screeching homophobes spending 5 minutes alone in a bathroom w/ my 9 yr old son ....

Gender is very simple to deal with. If a person presents themselves as a man, treat them as a man, if a person presents themselves as a woman, treat them as a woman. If you can't identify what gender they are presenting as, use 'you' 'your', 'them' and 'their' to talk about them and you'll be fine.

It doesn't matter whether or not you think they are "convincing" or "real" - you'll be wrong a lot of the time if you act on that. The supposed "Trans" women and men who've been ejected from bathrooms around the country have almost always been women who were born female or men who were born male, but who didn't "look right" to some ignorant jerk. Traumatizing for the people attacked, and totally shaming for the jerks who were capable of shame. At the same time lots of normal Trans people use the appropriate bathroom all the time with no fuss, no invasion of privacy, no problem. No one even notices, it's so problem-free.

What it comes down to is that it's not your business. Never. You are not appointed by God or the government to poke your nose into other people's gender and make ignorant judgments about it. And if you do - you are the problem, not the Trans people you are trying to harm or the non-Trans people you will end up harming because your personal stereotypes of women and men are so narrow.

XY people with mutations at the androgen receptor can often look perfectly female, and may live their whole lives without knowing it (they'll be sterile though, and might figure it out by looking into why). I could give 10 other examples of mutations leading to reverse-looking or inter-sexed people. I work with endocrinologist who often have to help parents decide how to assign their kids or whether to wait - we want good vaginal mucosa via organogenesis, to do a better job. There are not even 2 sexes, unless you add "mostly" to the sentence.

Rick A

Sex is an objective fact.

So what sex is a human with well formed breasts and a penis?

or

One with ambiguous genitals?

Combining the sexes (of all ages) in bathrooms and showers is not as simple as I think you think it is.

Didn't seem an issue for those at a naturist camp where I ran the bar for the summer months between university years. I had to use the toilets in the hotel section, in lockable cubicles, but the only place to wash my hands was in one of the bathrooms.

BTW Maybe you should look up: 'Gender dysphoria' and its possible causes.

I have read, not sure which of my books here this is in have been looking (I thought it was in one of Dawkins but yet to locate), that this can be caused by hormonal exposure during gestation, especially in the case where a single male foetus is position between a number of females in a multiple pregnancy. But other external causes could also be at work in particular the large number and huge quantities of hormone disrupting chemicals, new to nature, that we have put into the environment.

But don't expect Trump to have even heard of any of this.

Sex is an objective fact.

You've already been pinged on this multiple times, but it bears repeating how ignorantly wrong you are in saying this.

You want to put things into two categories. Unfortunately for you there is an entire spectrum of "sex" between male and female. Some of it arises from variations in karyotypic structure. Some of it arises from mosaicism. Some of it arises from allelic variations, such as androgen insensitivity. Some of it arises from differential genderisation of the body compared to the pyche. Some of it arises from cultural influences.

Compounding the difficulty of definition, not all strictly conventional XY males and XX females are fertile, and not all non-XY males and non-XX females are infertile. Also, some women are quite able to urinate standing up - perhaps they should have the right to use a urinal as as much as does a person with a penis...

Your suggestion that identity be assigned on the basis of X and Y chromosomes shows either an abject ignorance of the breadth and prevalence of variability in gender ætiology, or a powerful ideological antipathy to anything but a strict puritanical definition of gender. Or both. Any such an approach will fail.

Edgar's solution is by far the better one. Allow people to identify with their gender as they please. It's no one else's business but an individual's own what they keep in their underclothes.

Hn, Greg posted about AIS just as I was about to expand on my initial mention. Whole books could be written on this aspect of gender development, and on other apsects - and indeed such books have been written...

RickA, you would to well to throw your views about sex into the nearest dumpster and go back to high school sex ed classes, and eventually graduate up to some teriary classes. There's a world of gender categorisation and identity beyond the one you propose on the basis of two permutations only of X and Y chromosomes.

Lionel A #27:

I did look it up:

"the condition of feeling one's emotional and psychological identity as male or female to be opposite to one's biological sex."

Gender dysphoria doesn't change a persons biological sex.

Yes, there are a very very small number of cases where a person's genetics are not XY or XX, or where there is some other genetic mutation which causes external genitalia not to develop or both sets to develop. In those few cases (perhaps 1 in 100,000 births), I would allow the person to select their sex.

I would not allow XX or XY individuals to pick their sex, as for most it is a biological fact, not ambiguous and cannot be changed based on feelings or hormones (or surgery).

But that is just one person's opinion.

Your suggestion that identity be assigned on the basis of X and Y chromosomes shows either an abject ignorance of the breadth and prevalence of variability in gender ætiology, or a powerful ideological antipathy to anything but a strict puritanical definition of gender.

I think you don't comprehend dick's problem here. He doesn't care about the puritanical definition of gender, not care what the genetics say about things. He solely and purely want these people hounded out of pubic sight.

Because their existence makes HIM uncomfortable, and he wants them PUNISHED for that outrage. As long as he doesn't know they exist, and as long as they NEVER ask to exist or be recognised in any form whatsoever, he's happy because he can pretend they don't exist and avoid the discomfort.

And to that end he wants them PUNISHED for making him aware of their existence. And will want that until not one "weirdo" that makes him feel uncomfortable (e.g. gays, but not lesbians, they don't make him feel uncomfortable) ever even hints at existing and disturbing that placid ignorance.

PS as well as ll those wrinkes to the "only two genders", what about chimeric humans? Or the less extreme of conjoined twins of two different genders?

"Gender dysphoria doesn’t change a persons biological sex. "

But it IS different from it. And it's still their sex.

Moreover their biological sex is NOT their chromosomal components. Their chromosomes are only one factor of one factor of someone's sex.

A fact you still refuse in your crusade to punish those who make you uncomfortable by making them uncomfortable too.

" it is a biological fact,"

Wrong. It's a label that simplifies conversation.

"not ambiguous and cannot be changed based on feelings or hormones (or surgery)"

Wrong again.

And your gender is not just your chromosomes. Therefore you do not get to claim that it is the ONLY determinant.

At least not as fact, merely as your opinion. An opinion nobody else has to give a flying fuck over. Check your DNA and refuse to go into the girls' toilets all you like. Hang around men with their penises out as you prefer to. But you don't get to tell others what they have to believe their gender is.

"But that is just one person’s opinion."

That's how you can tell rickA realized his mixture of lies, ignorance, and denial of science he doesn't agree with isn't flying.

“But that is just one person’s opinion.”

I give RickA credit for that admission at least. There are plenty of hardline fundy Repubs who think they are conduits for god's voice in the world and will just keep chanting "There are just two sexes" as long as they live no matter what evidence or logic is brought up.

It's not that benign an admission. Dick only uses that defence when he is unable to make it a claim about reality any more but refuses to let the fact that hesays its merely an opinion change what acts are done in the world.

For AGW "Its my opinion" because what he WANTS is currently what "his opinion" wants done: nothing. He keeps his denial,. Paris is wrong, the treaty is not being followed.

Same here; the trans are forbidden from the military, the laws making them have to go in the wrong bathroom remain. So as long as his opinion is what the government does, he is fine with claiming it "his opinion". Despite the fact that if it's his opinion, then that has no bearing on the actions of others with a different opinion. If it's his opinion, then trans are not banned from the military, they are not forced into the wrong bathroom, since people's opinion does not force others by force of law to do different.

Claiming it's his opinion is merely his way of refusing to be wrong and it is only used when hes getting his own way anyway.

...I would allow the person to select their sex.

I would not allow XX or XY individuals to pick their sex...

On what basis do you have the prerogative to "allow" someone else the capacity to decide on their personal gender identity? Why are you "allowed" to decide what other people are "allowed"?

Try this:

I would not allow XX or XY individuals to pick their sexual orientation…

How does that sit?

Oh, he would think it OK until you told him he had to gobble cock. We all know he wants to. He can't stop thinking about that forbidden fruit of the loins. But he hopes as long as he keeps yelling against it and flogging the living hell out of that demonthorn between his legs for putting those thoughts in him, he can pretend he's not gay. But he's terrified that if it's normalised that he'll try and he KNOWS that he'll be slurping away happy as larry and loving every inch of it.

So such things must be hidden from him so he can pretend it's not an option and never give in to his temptation.

He's fine as long as he gets to be the gender preference he thinks he ought to be. It would be a shock if you got him to agree to the imposition of preference if you then revealed he'd agreed to be permanently and solely gay.

He'd feel better for coming out of the closet and not repressing any more, but he'd still be horrified.

'cos his preacher (who had fucked boys in the arse in the vestry earlier, just not him) told him it was bad.

Bernard #39 asks "On what basis do you have the prerogative to “allow” someone else the capacity to decide on their personal gender identity?"

First, it is my opinion I am offering. I actually do not control any policy and cannot implement my opinion (other than by voting).

Second, I am not telling people what their gender identity is.

I am merely observing that a person's sex is a biological fact, which can be determined with a blood test.

Other than very rare cases of genetic mutation, people do not get to pick their sex - it is assigned at conception.

If you want to pretend that people can change their sex by wishing, that is ok with me. But I reserve the right to object to showering with women and to object if the government wants people of the opposite sex to shower with my children. My view of reality is not affected by court orders or what people want or wish. People cannot change their sex with cosmetic surgery.

Bernard #39:

I was under the impression that people actually cannot pick who they are attracted to. So I agree with your statement.

"First, it is my opinion"

Lie. "Allowing" is not an opinion, it is an action.

As well as being in the closet, you're reading dictionaries in the dark in there.

"I was under the impression that people actually cannot pick who they are attracted to"

And you can't help thinking about the manlove situation. Especially with ladyboys?

"Second, I am not telling people what their gender identity is."

Lie.

You absolutely HAVE said, even in the one you ended with "my opinion", you said sex was NOT subjective but a fact.

YOU ABSOLUTELY did tell people what their gender identity had to be.

"it is assigned at conception."

And is not merely their chromosomal make-up. Despite "your opinion" that it factually has to be solely that.

But what the hell, dick, next time you claim "fact", we will correct you and inform you that it is not fact you are saying but your opinion and request that you change the word to the one that you will "actually meant" and not the fallacious word "fact".

Deal, dick?

"If you want to pretend that people can change their sex by wishing"

If you want to pretend that is the conversation just by wishing, go ahead, retard.

People have the wrong anatomy to fit with their sex. Just like you have to have viagra to get it up with your missus. And gender reassignment surgery is making their anatomy fit their gender, which is decided by the "consensus of opinion" of the entire person, not merely your insistence of their chromosomal format.

This isn't about pretending or wishing, it's about knowing. And they, oddly enough, know themselves far better than you do, dick.

Even if you do obsess over what is in their underpants and desire a look...

"But I reserve the right to object to showering with women"

Go ahead. But don't make them shower in the wrong cubicle just because you object to that. You may be entitled to your own fatuous opinion, as fact free and moronic as it is, but you do not own the ability to make them conform to your opinion's restrictions.

Nobody is forcing you by gunpoint to shower with women. Leave.

" People cannot change their sex with cosmetic surgery."

They aren't. They're conforming their body to their sex with cosmetic surgery.

Just like any cosmetic surgery. Some people think their nose isn't the right shape. Cosmetic surgery. Some people think their genitalia incorrect. Cosmetic surgery.

Object in your own mind to cosmetic surgery, but that gives you no right to demean another, dick, just because your opinion is that you loathe them for what they are.

See the IT Crown, Series 3, Ep 4.

A dick turns down his perfect woman because they used to be a man.

"I am merely observing that a person’s sex is a biological fact, which can be determined with a blood test."

RickA is a man who appreciates all 16th century science. Hates anyone who isn't a well of white male though.

"well off", not well of.

Wow - perhaps this topic strikes a bit close to home.

With your prior instance that your are not a "he" or a "she", I wonder if you are transgender yourself?

No matter.

Whether you have cosmetic surgery on your nose, or on your external genitalia, you cannot change a man into a women or visa versa.

In this case, science agrees with my opinion.

I meant "insistence".

"Wow – perhaps this topic strikes a bit close to home."

I don't doubt it does, dick. You clearly have gender issues and problems with your sexuality.

Most people are secure enough in themselves to let people be what they want to be, as long as there's consent to engage.

But not you.

The man doth protest far too much.

"In this case, science agrees with my opinion."

In fact it refutes your opinion. Your sex is not the presence of a Y chromosome. Just like it's not the presence of a dick or tits. Both of which can be found on some people. Naturally and without any cosmetics.

Yet you will not condone anything of the sort.

You just want "weirdos" punished so they hide from you and never ruffle your protective sheath of ignorance.

And we all know why. Even if one person here is in denial.

"or on your external genitalia, you cannot change a man into a women or visa versa."

The plain fact of the matter is that this is not changing a man into a woman or vice versa. Yet you would insist that they pretend to be a man because you decided that they looked like one when born, and for not accepting the simplistic world that is the maximum complexity your tiny little ego can handle, you want them hounded out of society and silenced.

The surgery does not change their sex. It makes their body conform to their sex.

Despite your discomfort, dick.

"The surgery does not change their sex. It makes their body conform to their sex."

Inability to even comprehend this seems similar to the problem some people have in comprehending that homosexuality is neither a sin nor a lifestyle choice.

If a man declares that he(now she) believes he(ow she) is a woman then scientifically is this person now a woman?

MikeN, the answer to your question is largely "yes" - look up the difference between male/female vs man/woman.

Why does it matter if it's "scientifically" so? If they're going to take surgery to change their gender to match their claim of gender identity, how much more evidence do you need?

Sex and gender are two different things, and ironically, RickA gets that part more right than Wow. However, RickA gets even more wrong.

The issue with sex is that it's identification includes some morphological aspects (penis vs vagina/uterus). Transgenders who have had surgery to get their body to match their gender thus would not be immediately recognized by a doctor as a male woman or female man.

Culturally, we perceive people as men or women, not male or female. We would be uncomfortable as men to share the bathroom with a male woman, because this person looks like a woman. No argument that the genes are male would take away that feeling of being uncomfortable. Forcing such people, as per RickA's suggestion, to use the men's facilities would thus make BOTH parties uncomfortable.

Nope, marco. You get it more wrong than either (cf ACC's "the earth is flat..." comment).

In this context sex and gender are the same thing.

OR sex is not the chromosome, it's the act of copulation.

Odd how Enlgish isn't precise, innit.

"No argument that the genes are male"

The human genome has 20,000 genes. They have gender, each one?

Chromosomes aren't genes, by the way.

And the "sex" genes aren't male, nor are they actually definitively your gender nor your sex. They relate to the expression possibilities of organism growth.

Which may result in a gender or sex.

Here, for example, and excluding the act of copulation and other out of this context definitions, are the definitions of sex and gender:

Sex: either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.

Gender: the state of being male or female

Though the gender says "typically not used in a biological context", this is not exclusively nor forbidding use in a biological context.

Note the two terms both refer to male and female.

Oh, as an addendum, there are more chromosomes than X and Y and more *sexual chromosomes* than X and Y.. Which makes the proportion of genes that are sexual determinants (let alone the clearly inaccurately phrased "male" gene) even smaller.

An extreme version can be seen in crocs, where the temperature of eggs determine the mix of male to female born, despite the genetic information being identical between them.

Or naked mole rats where the females do not mature to become sexual due to the chemicals released by the single fertile female in its urine.

If you wish to counter with a claim that a trans female is infertile having never had an uterus or eggs and therefore is not female by sexual function, then post menopausal women or castrated men are likewise no longer any sex at all.

And infertility can arise with "normal" people who are not trans or outside the breeding age and not otherwise ill or incapacitated. Are these not male or female? Are they sexless?

Comedy has marriage (and especially children) as the end of sex in a relationship. Therefore parents are sexless???

No, I don't think you get to claim trans are not the sex they claim merely because their reproduction does not allow them to conceive, else we have to reclassify many people, if not (one would hope) all people, since unless you die young, everyone gets old.

Wow, in humans it is the y vs x chromosome that is the main determinant of the phenotype male vs female (the sex). Other species are not relevant, especially non-mammals.

In the medical sciences there is a clear distinction between sex and gender.

Marco, go read post from bernard at 29, you don't even have to accept I even fucking exist and you'll see you're talking out of your anus.

But here you go on the fallacies you blurted out like a tosspot:

1) "in humans it is the y vs x chromosome that is the main determinant of the phenotype male vs female (the sex)"

a) How the hell does that make sex not gender, hmmm? You know, the thing you said I got wrong? Oh, it doesn't.

b) How does this make the human gene male. Or female. It doesn't.

c) How does it make humans male or female? BECAUSE IT CHANGES THE ORDERING OF PROTEIN FOLDING AND HORMONE EXPRESSION. It does fuck all in itself. And you know all those processes? They can be fucked around too. Which was the frigging point of the talk about crocs and mole rats. That your sex depends on the chemistry during growth. The chromosome merely extends or retards some chemical pathways and reverses the effect on others.

d) how does the chromosome Y become all genes as you prattled on earlier? Oh, it doesn't?

e) how does it make the Y chromosome the sex gene when it's neither a gene nor the only one that does it? Oh, it doesn't?

f) Got anything to do with gender reassignment ? Nope.

g) or the fixidity of gender? Nope.

h) How about it being only chromosome Y? Not that either.

Sheesh.

And like I said, go read the other posts, e.g. Bernard at #29, so it's not like you'd have to sully yourself with agreeing with me on anything either.

2) "Other species are not relevant, especially non-mammals."

They are when you make the claim that genes have sex and that chromosome Y determines it. Because those examples are

a) examples

b) disprove the primacy of chromosomes in determining gender

c) prove that there is something other than "you have this chromosome" that makes gender. The penis isn't filled with Y chromosome making it look like a dick, you know.

3) "In the medical sciences there is a clear distinction between sex and gender."

And if you come across a thread where the topic was medical expertise then bring it up, moron. This is about what we see walking into the public toilets. We don't do an autopsy or full genetic scan, nor are we qualified medical doctors. And we are the context of this debate, dipshit.

But, hey, for shits and giggles, you explain how they're different instead of shoving your nose in the air and going "I smarter than everyone here". Show the definition and how it makes them so radically different that saying they are the same thing is wrong.

Go ahead.

So Pissident Trump was whining about how much medical care for transgender personnel would cost. I just read that it would cost about one-fifth of what the military spends on Viagra.

Unsurprisingly wow resorts to abuse and misrepresentation when contradicted. You really are a nasty piece of work.

Well, there we go, Marco can' find an argument in his support so resorts to meaningless complaining.

Moron isn't an insult, it's a description.

Wow clearly never read what I told RickA about the stupidity of using the presence or absence of the y chromosome to determine which facilities this person should use.

Apologies may be accepted, but are unlikely to be forthcoming from Wow.

Marco clearly you cannot defend yourself from the accusation you're a tosspot talking out of their anus so you resort to asserting ignorance when there's been none, and no evidence of it.

Add in the fact you haven't read any of the other posters, you haven't addressed any of the points I made and you haven't supported your claim that gender and sex are as different in meaning as you claim.

Note, unlike you I don't claim you haven't read them (just not anyone else's points), I just point out you haven't addressed them. Which is objective fact

Pretty solid case against you showing you're a tosspot talking out of their anus here, marco.

Also note I don't CARE about apologies. Apologies are meaningless unless the situation that caused the apology to be necessary or offered is avoided in future. Learning, not apologising, is meaningful. Without the former, the latter is just hot air. Without the latter, the former is still the result that is needed.

"Wow clearly never read what I told RickA about the stupidity of using the presence or absence of the y chromosome"

And you clearly never read you when you said this:

"it is the y vs x chromosome that is the main determinant of the phenotype male vs female (the sex). "

I'm arguing you've asserted this but it is fallacious blank assertion. And given evidence and argument why.

Care to tell me where I berate you for trying to use chromosomes to determine the correct facilities? 'cos I sure as shit don't see it. I do see me berating you for using chromosomes to determine what sex is. Which is a different claim.

I would upbraid you for some made up claim I've never said as if you'd accused it of being wrong or even a claim I'd asserted, but since you don't read you, why the hell would you read me?

"I’m arguing you’ve asserted this but it is fallacious blank assertion. "

Really? So the presence of a functional SRY gene, which is *only* found on the Y chromosome, has nothing to say about the development of male sexual organs, and prevention of the formation of female sexual organs?
You can argue that you can do something to knock that gene down, but that means that you can only prevent male reproductive organs to form. You cannot take an XX individual and make it develop male reproductive organs.

"Care to tell me where I berate you for trying to use chromosomes to determine the correct facilities? ‘cos I sure as shit don’t see it."

Apart from the fact that this is NOT(!) what I complained about:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2017/07/26/transgender-people-poised-…
"And if you come across a thread where the topic was medical expertise then bring it up, moron. This is about what we see walking into the public toilets. We don’t do an autopsy or full genetic scan, nor are we qualified medical doctors."

What I complained about is that this is *frikkin' exactly what I told RickA* and you either not noticing that, or deliberately ignoring that.

It is a pity that we can no longer rely on the honor system for public restrooms.

But when it is "ok" for men to use the women's room and visa versa, you will begin to encounter issues.

Whether you "check" people based on their equipment or their blood test, either way you have problems and issues.

Since biological sex is a fact and everybody knows what sex they were born with, I would go back to the honor system and just tell people use the restroom based on your sex.

The problems only arise when you do not pay attention to sex, but allow feelings to matter.

The truth is, feelings have nothing to do with what biological sex a person is, except for the very rare exception to the rule.

You do not make public policy based on the rare exception to the rule - that is public policy 101.

I am constantly amazed at the depths of stupidity rickA plumbs.

"“I’m arguing you’ve asserted this but it is fallacious blank assertion. ”

Really? "

Yes.

Do you accept this is the case and your earlier complaint was therefore invalid and incorrect?

'cos I don't feel like rushing after goalposts here,marco.

"It is a pity that we can no longer rely on the honor system for public restrooms."

Yeah.

Problem is, though, that it's not the gays or trans or even lesbians we need worry about, it's the rightwing politicians:

https://youtu.be/lWnHvEoPI6I

"But when it is “ok” for men to use the women’s room and visa versa"

When someone here is saying it IS OK, get back to us. Because if a trans man goes into the mens restroom, it's a man going into the men's room (or vice versa).

"Whether you “check” people based on their equipment or their blood test, either way you have problems and issues."

What issues? Is this like the fiction claim of "privacy issues" *for the majority*???? Because that claim was made, queried and abandoned without any form of clarification or support in the face of even the weakest query for verification of what you were on about. And it will be the same here, won't it, dick?

"The problems only arise when you do not pay attention to sex, but allow feelings to matter."

OK, we'll ignore your feelings on the subject, then, dick.

"You do not make public policy based on the rare exception to the rule "

Currently the orangutan in the oval is trying to, though. Just because a tiny minority of people are "scared" of trans people, he's trying to make public policy to pander to you and the rest of that tiny minority.

Please tell trump that he has to ignore feelings like you said, dick.

"The truth is, feelings have nothing to do with what biological sex a person is"

Truth is a trans person's biological sex is not the same as their external appearance would indicate and the surgery corrects that flaw and your feelings about it being icky or worrying have nothing to do with it, dick.

"So the presence of a functional SRY gene, which is *only* found on the Y chromosome, has nothing to say about the development of male sexual organs"

So you are about 40 years out of date and behind where I was about 20 years ago, marco?

There are many genes and (can't remember the correct term off the top of my head, so take the following name as a gestalt approximation) exogenic factors that have many and varied things to say on whether some genetic characteristic normally associated with either male or female genders are expressed or repressed, but you only got as far as SRY and started looking for the rude pictures in your biology book to see what near-porn you could get "legit" in school.

The only thing male or female in the human sphere of reality are the egg and sperm. That is all. The egg is purely female and the sperm purely male. At least as far as sexual reproduction is concerned. The resulting organism when they fuse and complete gestation is a gestalt being with a variation in the characteristics that will either produce organs and biochemistry that aids in the production of eggs and gestation of .the next generation or that aids in the production of sperm to bind to the eggs for the production of the net generation.

Though note that the sperm may actually have XX chromosomes and still be a sperm. It may have XXY or indeed XXX, I believe. Neither of those change the fact that the sperm is the "male" cell that produces the next generation, even if these alternatives are less "fit" to do so. But the sperm remains the only male cell for reproduction and the egg the female cell for reproduction.

The resultant is not pure male or female, since it is a complete complex organism, not merely independent cells not even a human being.

Indeed your errors are why the pro-GM rhetoric is so bad for society (and for much the same reason, DNA fingerprint evidence). You do not comprehend the detail or simplification of what you were taught and do not care to find out or comprehend that what you THOUGHT you knew was merely "lies to children". A gene has one use and one use only. Junk DNA does nothing. The DNA is the blueprint of an entire organism. Genes describe everything that makes you. Genes decide everything that makes you.

It ain't that simple. Even if you are.

Go read up on what SRY does, how it does it, how it goes wrong and why it may operate differently.

And find out that variously, it does not determine every gender, it can result in something else at times, it sometimes NEEDS to result in something else at times, to make a viable organism, it can be interfered with by precursors, it can be interfered with by illness in either the mother or child, it can go wrong because of stress, drugs, diet and so on for the mother. And it can be disrupted by the immune system of the mother, despite the placenta trying its best to isolate the foreign body from the mother's (depressed) immune system.

But you never read my previous posts either, did you marco, preferring to be butthurt and ignorant.

Because learning you're wrong means something that you want to avoid. Fuck knows why. And I don't care. I just point it out and watch you scream and pout and I laugh like a drain.

Educate yourself, dumbass. And stop crying. Nobody is impressed.

Wow #89:

You are so off base.

An egg normally has one X.

A sperm normally can either have one X or one Y.

When the sperm fertilizes the egg, you normally get either an XX person or an XY person.

But sperm are not "purely male" - as 50% of them carry the female sex chromosome.

You really need to brush up on your 8th grade biology Wow.

"So you are about 40 years out of date and behind where I was about 20 years ago, marco?"

I see you ignore to comment on the part that followed the section you quoted. Once again: without a functional SRY gene you *cannot* form male genitalia. PERIOD. No matter what other genes have further relevance to other aspects we associate with "maleness" or "femaleness". Those other genes and their functionality is why there are further elements that are used in medical sciences to decide whether to call someone male or female (and those are distinct from man or woman). In the current world, where we simply cannot yet do full phenotypical analysis, the distinction male vs female is of relevance to decide about potential risk of certain diseases. If you are a male man, you can get testicular cancer. If you are a female man, you simply can't. I am well aware that dichotomic distinctions (or even *any* way you decide to create boxes) can be problematic, but at present it is a necessity in our society and in science in order for it to work.

None of this, however, in any ways supports RickA's suggestion to make the genotype decide which bathrooms to use. As a result of *his* suggestion, we can get people with XY chromosomes who look fully female (because of a nonfunctional SRY gene), who are then forced to showed with men.
He knows fully well that the issue we have in our society (and complain about that all you want, but it takes time to change this) is not what the genes say, but how someone physically looks. At the same time this is also the issue for those who'd want it all based on gender identity, and not whether one looks male or female. I know a woman who is as open-minded as it gets on many issues, but having been raped twice, she'd scream her lungs out if someone looking as a man would enter the showers with her, regardless how much this person asserts they identify as a woman.

"An egg normally has one X".

Didn't you say I was way off base???? YET THE ABOVE IS WHAT I SAY!!!

See that word "normally" there? If I were wrong, that would be "always".

Dumbass...

"I see you ignore to comment "

I see that you have made a partial quote to support that claim. And I note that you ignored my comments and Bernards and Greg's.

Sorry, dumbass, please revisit reality some day and get back in touch then, moron.

"But sperm are not “purely male” – as 50% of them carry the female sex chromosome."

And Men have the X chromosome....

But you're a fucking moron, dick, and you don't know what you're saying, nor why.

And then there are birds.

It seems apposite:

http://www.boredpanda.com/transgender-man-before-and-after-jamie-wilson/

I fear that RickA would benefit from a read of the book reviewed here:

Y: The Descent of Man by Steve Jones

for he will discover that, as Marco indicates, things are a good deal more complex.

Also a look at Theo Colborn's 'Our Stolen Future' should provide food for further thought:

For her groundbreaking work on the effect everyday chemicals have on children, Theodora “Theo” Colborn has been called “the Rachel Carson of the ’90s.” Just as Carson was pilloried for her 1962 book Silent Spring, which warned of the dangers of the pesticide DDT, Colborn has been in the hot seat for her 1996 book Our Stolen Future (co-authored with Dianne Dumanoski and John Peterson Myers). Colborn’s controversial message is that even low-dose exposures to many of the man-made chemicals found in common plastics, cleaning compounds, and cosmetics can affect newborn babies and developing fetuses, and can cause a range of problems, including low IQs, genital malformations, low sperm counts, and infertility.

Source.

"as Marco indicates"

'course, Marco is the only one doing that. Not even you, Lionel. Only Marco.

Hell, if you wanted to be more accurate, either of Greg or Bernard who put a lot more detail out there would be better sources of "as X indicates, it's more complicated".

Given dick has no problem ignoring facts from those two, what the fuck makes you think marco's name is going to swing it?

Especially since marco claims it's the same simplistic idea that was taught to 14 year olds a decade or more ago in school which even then was quite a long way behind the medical knowledge.

FFS, the moron hasn't even shown his claim that sex and gender have hugely different meanings in medical terms.

In medical terms, they're identical. It's only when you expand the terms to include, say, social issues, that they begin to deviate. Then again, one means copulation while the other one doesn't. So it's not like only sex is the pure unadulterated term to use.

But marco has had the opportunity to show indication I'm wrong, except he'd prefer to whine about how mean I am and how he's saying things that I'm not disgreeing with and complaining I'm ignoring them by not disagreeing with them. While, of course, ignoring things I'm saying and complaining about me....

#97 I dunno if Colborn discussed lead or not but theres a huge problem with it in children in at least one Australian town, Mt Isa.

" If you are a male man, you can get testicular cancer. "

Wrong.

If you have testes you can get testicular cancer. Try diagnosing a eunuch with testicular cancer, retard.

And why is it only postal service workers can get it? Moron.

"whether to call someone male or female (and those are distinct from man or woman). "

You keep bleating this moronic screed out yet not yet managed to find any reason.

What gender are you? Man.

On the census form: Gender M/F/Other(please specify). So the F means "fucking woman"????

Hmmm. Doesn't fit, does it, moron.

"without a functional SRY gene you *cannot* form male genitalia. PERIOD"

If you have a PERIOD, then you are a post-pubescent female.

So by your assertion here I have to conclude that you are male if, and only if, you have male genitalia.

So a post-op is male.

Simples.

Of course, if it was male genitalia, does that override any other attribute? Is the dangler the top determinant that overrides any other? What if it is not fully functional? What if there are lactating breasts? What if they are not there any more because of, for example, testicular cancer?

And where is this definition that you prattle out created in consensus in the medical field, because at the moment, like a penis, this claim seems to be pulled right out of your arse. The previous paragrpah was just pointing out how simple minded your assertion is. This one is about if your claim is RIGHT. Stop asserting and start proving, dumbass.

Thinking about it, marco's "ideas" seem very much bred by the muslim faith. There you are a male (and going to get into heaven) if, and only if, your testicles are complete, dual, and intact at death.

Hence the suicide bombers wearing what is otherwise ridiculous metal protection around their groin. The Quran doesn't say your head or arms have to be attached to your body, just your nuts.

Marco is expressing the same level of comprehension of reality as 15th century desert dwellers who herd camels.

#101 " F " I was instantly reminded of the sheer genius of Sir Humphrey and found the clip.

https://youtu.be/OhZRDoGZg00

Nice to see Wow doing his usual misrepresentation and making loads of stupid comments along the way.

Funny thing is that Wow just stated that if you have male genitalia, you are male. Which in turn means that, according to Wow, transgenders before their transition are to be considered a different gender from their perceived gender.

Since I apparently forgot to give Wow the references, despite the fact he also claims he is well ahead of me with respect to understanding the complexities of gender and sex. I'll start easy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_gender_distinction
A bit more complex:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232363.php
http://www.med.monash.edu.au/gendermed/sexandgender.html
http://www.cmsdocs.org/news/what-is-gender-medicine
and one that makes it clear why dichotomic distinctions are useful:
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/sex-gender-and-sexuality-its-complicat…

Yes, eunuchs will not develop testicular cancer - because their testes have been removed. However, they most assuredly could, before they had their *operation*.

"The Quran doesn’t say your head or arms have to be attached to your body, just your nuts."

Care to provide a citation for that? It's easy: chapter and verse of the koran. You can freely choose the translation.

And another thing you can apparently help me with, since you seem to know so much about muslims and suicide bombers:
why did Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab wear the bomb in his underwear, and how did the bomb get 'degraded'?

You may want to stay away from the right-wing echo chamber, Wow.

"Care to provide a citation for that?"

Sorry buttmunch, still waiting for where you get the idea that male and man are medically different.

Ladies first.

"And another thing you can apparently help me with, since you seem to know so much about muslims and suicide bombers:"

Not really, heartyfartblast, it's just that you know so little. About lots of things. Including gender and medicine.

Which is what a muslim fundamentalist would suffer from as well.

And they'd be worried about losing their first class ticket to poon heaven if they missed a caveat.

A case is building up, marco. Is the FBI watching you?

My post with references was in moderation (I guess too many links).

Now I will not hold my breath waiting for you to provide references for your fake stories about what the koran says. It's content is bad enough - no reason to make stuff up. Ironically, those kind of lies are actually directly helping muslim fundamentalist to make their case to fellow muslims: "see, they lie about what our scripture says, they are bad people". Congratulations on being a muslim fundamentalism enbaler, Wow!

**enabler

"My post with references was in moderation (I guess too many links)."

Two is too many. And some links get eaten.

" provide references for your fake stories about what the koran says."

Hmmmm... So you have to call them fake and ask me to prove those fake stories. How about I prove true stories instead? Will they be acceptable, fuckwit?

"Congratulations on being a muslim fundamentalism enbaler, Wow!"

I've certainly enabled you to complain about "weterners" and how all those bad things about islam is fake.

It's true, isn't it, moron, you ARE a fundie muslim!

How do you know it's not true? If you KNOW it's not, then you can say HOW you know, even if you can't point to something nonexistent.

Nice to see Wow doing his usual misrepresentation and making loads of stupid comments along the way.

Except that really, it's boring, irritating and way past its sell-by date.

Seriously Greg WTF are you playing at, letting this fool shit all over your blog?

"How about I prove true stories instead? "

Still waiting for the reference from the koran (you know what, a hadith would do as well) that tells men to protect their groin, or they will not be considered men when they come to 'paradise'.

I know you can find a very limited number of stories, so go ahead, list them all. Then consider the Underwear bomber and the guy who put the bomb in his behind to kill a Saudi prince. Try to argue how the latter two do NOT contradict your narrative. Go ahead, see if you can do so without any gratitious insults (I doubt it).

And while you are at it, please provide a reference from this thread where I complain about "westerners" and where I state that all bad things about islam are fake.
I'll start with the exact opposite:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2017/07/26/transgender-people-poised-…
"It’s content is bad enough – no reason to make stuff up"
I said that about the koran - no muslim would ever say that, as they must, by necessity, accept the infallibility of the koran (there's a challenge in the koran on this topic, which usually leads to circular reasoning of a muslim when someone points out the challenge's been met: can't be met, because the koran says it is infallible...).

" it’s boring, irritating"

To those who prefer not to be told they're wrong.

And checked your links in the 105 post. You were to show that they are medically different and it was very wrong to claim they are the same.

You did not manage to do that.

Sorry.

As suspected, your argument is such that it easily "proves" that *GENDER* is the correct term, since it does not mean "the act of copulation". And copulation can happen when no chance of reproduction can happen.

E.g. masturbation.

"Still waiting for the reference from the koran"

Go ahead. What you demanded was proof that the suicide bombers protect their genitals because without them intact, they don't get into heaven.

So, like your links, again the demand is not what reality shows it to be.

"no muslim would ever say that, as they must, by necessity, accept the infallibility of the koran"

Some do.

Do you even know what the schism between sufi and sunni/shia is?

Some take the hatith as necessary, because it proclaims that the quran has to be interpreted by imams, and some think that it is an abomination against the word of the quran (much like US evangelicals think about the Pope and his ex-catheta (deliberate pun) declaration devalue the bible), and that the quran is the literal word of god.

And, just like christians, there are those who insist they believe in their fairy tail and that it is the word of god, some insist it is merely inspired, others directed, and some that it was driven by the spirit of god.

I would suspect you would take the version that allows the hadith to overrule Mohammed's word (inspired or written directly by Allah through Mohammed), since that is what the suicide bombers who were involved in the twin towers attacks believed.

"Since I apparently forgot to give Wow the references"

Do you mean apparently as in "you clearly did not give the references", or do you mean "apparently wow is making this claim up to poison the well for me"?

from gender, which can refer to either social roles based on the sex of the person (gender role) or personal identification of one's own gender based on an internal awareness (gender identity).[1][2]

Well the social roles is "gender norms". Note you needed to modify the term gender. Please also note that this is not a medical term.

Gender identity is also not a medical term.

Reflect on sexuality. It's not what sex you have medically, but it IS what sex you WANT to have. But sexuality is not medical. However, if we're to expand outside the asserted "medical terms", we have to include sexuality which is really yet another item on gender identity and also an aspect of gender roles. Homosexuals do not take the "normal role" of their gender. Note again how the word "sex" is in the word homosexual, yet this is not a biological issue, but a desire or mental assertion, just as any other gender identity issue would be.

The sex and gender distinction is not universal

This blows your assertion out of the water. Please note this is still from the first link you gave, one which, being first, we would presuppose to contain the best arguments for your claim.

Apparently it refutes your absolutism and the false dichotomy you desire to insert.

In ordinary speech, sex and gender are often used interchangeably.

This too from the same very first link you gave to "prove me wrong", dumbass.

Here it explicitly says that it is often used interchangeably in ordinary speech. You know, like outside the medical profession and medical papers and instead on a generalist science blog.

Some dictionaries and academic disciplines give them different definitions while others do not.

And we're still in the first link. Still actually in the second paragraph of that wiki link.

Apparently it is not wrong to use them interchangeably. Unlike your claim.

And dumdum proclaimed agreement despite not bothering to check. Because dumdum is predisposed to believing it by butthurt and anger. Any claim supporting what his bigotries would prefer to be true is true, any claim against it is false.

Just like dick, with whom he gets apoplectic and angry at greg for allowing him to remain vocal.

"Do unto others, but don't do it to me" is dumdum's and many bigoted arsehole's golden rule.

You did go where I predicted you would, marco, and gish galloped. Presented a wiki link which as I showed proved me right when I posted information FROM that link where you could have done some effort to quote from that link to provide where you believe it shows me wrong. But linking to all of it doesn't require anywhere near as much effort to proclaim as to read the link and point out the places where it proclaims me right. Which is the point of the gish gallop: make the accusation easy and the refutation hard so as to make the debate about exhaustion not validity.

And you posted more links. I could go ahead and do the same, but either you will quote from the first link to try to show me where it says I'm wrong and present it as proof I'm wrong, a thing you could, AND SHOULD, have done first, making the effort doing the same with the other links rather pointless until you point to what bit you think proves me wrong, or you will just assert that I'm quote mining, which would be only exacerbated by me doing the same with those further links.

And, as I predicted (and this one wrote out rather than hide my prediction for my own S&Gs), you want to expand the meaning of gender beyond medical terms into sociological terms. However, this does not prove that gender in this context is not the same as sex. Nor that they mean different things "medically". If you move out of the descriptive words into the doing words, sex doesn't mean gender, therefore it is invalid to use it here.

If I were dumb enough to make such an asinine claim that just because it CAN be used in a different context to give a different *intended* meaning, it cannot mean the same thing.

In the first link it ascribes to medical terms about eggs and sperm. But when there are no more eggs, there is no more woman. So what sex are they? When a man is castrated, what sex is he? And when a boy becomes a man (a term you INSIST is gender only and irrelevant to sex) is when he produces sperm, the first link's description of what the male sex means, especially in humans. Before that he's a boy, which is not a gender or a sex, but a term for a male before sexual maturity. So what sex is a prepubescent boy?

Doubly problematical because "birth assigned sex" is what dick et al are whining about here, the place where girls have eggs therefore could be classed as girls, but boys have no sperm therefore are not men by this classification.

So trans men don't have an assigned sex at birth. Just a label of what we expect them to grow up into.

Or such a limitation as the small fragment of the definition of sex in your first link is far too limited to be anything more than horribly problematic and thereby useless as a definition.

In which case, we can't use it in a proof you are right and I am wrong.

Hell, if gender became the only term to use, it would make more sense. At least gender doesn't come with the baggage of copulation and strict (false) dichotomy. Leave sex out of organism description and leave it up to the organs of an organism. E.g. the penis is the male reproductive sex organ of most mammals. Stamens are the male reproductive sex organ of most plants.

Sex would be retired to body parts, a mix of which can appear in an organism and can be used to assign a gender to that organism.

Or just accept that sex and gender are the same thing.

Unless you're talking about something specific, in which case it's whatever you've decided to make specific is not the same as either sex or gender, and you need to make that specific difference explicit.

So if you're talking about gender norms, say gender norms. Just like if you wanted to be specific about the distaff sex, you'd use "woman" not the generic "man". We have, however, lost the masculine specific which used to be "Werman" (hence werewolf literally meant man-wolf, as did all lycanthropes from fiction in the germanic-based european language that was a basis for many english words).

Finland doesn't have different words for gender and sex, it's the same word. And we use man or male mostly depending on the context. You are "a man" or "male". If you're "a male" it's usually in the context of the clade or group of such a gendered population. Similarly (and again this is from the first link you gave), we use "which" for animals and inanimate and "who" for people. Indeed I find it easier to think of humans in imperial measures than in metric, but for the inanimate, I'm happy with either, and the bigger a thing is and the less I see it in everyday life, the more comfortable I am with the metric measure. Because empathy is stronger with things we more closely identify with.

" the place where girls have eggs therefore could be classed as girls, "

should be

" the place where girls have eggs therefore could be classed as women"

Wow, if you had really read the first link, you would have noticed that the FDA has clear and distinct definitions for sex and gender.
See here:
https://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidanc…
footnotes 5 and 6

You also may want to read up on sufism. It does not deny the infallibility of the koran (they do not doubt that it is the literal words of their god), but it actively searches for the hidden meanings (that shia and sunni accept exist, but do not actively search for - they rely more on the hadith for interpretations).

"Wow, if you had really read the first link,"

If you had read the first link you would have to ask yourself how I managed to get accurate quotes from a link that I had never read, dumbfuck.

"You also may want to read up on sufism"

And you may want to read up on the Hadith and how the scism forms around it.

"you would have noticed that the FDA ..."

Was not one of your first posts' links, despite having several links in it.

See what I mean about guacamole gish galloping from you, marco? And if it were not for the paucity of your proofs, you would not have to resort to such a fallacy. Moron.

So if I investigate that link, quote from it to show you are incorrect and I am within spec, you would just leap off to another link and proclamation to debunk, because the point isn't being right, it's finding some way I could be wrong and if that fails, punish me for not giving up.

Footnotes? They define the context of their meaning within the FDA document, not define the meanings for those things outside the context. Remember the "often" in the first link you provided? Remember "usually" being in there? you are asserting a false dichotomy.

Secondly,

5 Sex refers to the classification of living things, generally as male or female.

6 Gender is rooted in biology

So here sex is defined as the binary classification of gender. Tautological and not a definition. Both still mean male and female. Terms you insisted were not synonymous, let alone identical, to man and woman.

The terms sex and gender are often used interchangeably in the scientific literature and
popular press.

Hmmm.

For the purposes of this guidance document we use the term sex, with the understanding that for most medical device studies gender is used as a surrogate for sex

If you'd read the link, you would know where this quote comes from....

"Yes, eunuchs will not develop testicular cancer – because their testes have been removed. However, they most assuredly could, before they had their *operation*."

Because the testes are needed for testicular cancer, not being a male man.

Never mind transgender people, the (WoW) is poised to destroy the internet.

Ah, right. coulda guessed you'd have nothing sensible to add, craig. Meaningless is much easier than thinking and you're just plain lazy.

When you haven't got this autonomic bullshit reflex anymore, your burbleing will be of some value in considering.

With apologies to Reef:

Craig, has got nothing to say
But, he will post any way
After all of the things that he's said is true
He still has to talk poo

He is butthurted
He is butthurted
He is butthurted
He keeps whining every day.

Nah nah na na na
Nah na naa na na naaa na
Hey hey, all right.

Never mind transgender people, the (WoW) is poised to destroy the internet.

Always good to see you pop back Craig, just to let everyone know you still haven't learned anything.

Greg #11

Just for the record, people who are transgender have this thing … they are trans. gender.

Indeed, as is explained in this clip by one who is transgender, not fond of Piers Morgan but....

Lionel A #141:

Good clip.

The guest made it very clear that sex and gender are not the same thing and that gender is a "socially constructed concept".

I agree with this completely.

Yeah, but you're still wrong, in this context sex and gender are the same. The only way they're different if you're making it out of the same context.

And words meaning different things in different contexts does not make it mean different things in the same context.

Dumbass.

And funny how you're willing to listen to a trans who agrees with you but not anyone who does not given your dislike of their existence.

So far all you've supplied is "Nuh, they're different, right". Yet everything produced to prove that has shown that they're interchangeable words.

They can't do that if they don't mean the same thing.

"gender is a “socially constructed concept”."

And that's bollocks. Pun not intended.

"And funny how you’re willing to listen to a trans who agrees with you but not anyone who does not given your dislike of their existence."

What else would you expect from a bigot like rickA who just wishes people who aren't well off white men would just go away?

Another clip around the gender issue.

The comments show the lack of sense in "common sense":

Deltha: Penis = Male Vagina = Female
Trev L: I have a penis. Therefore, I am male. YAY!!!

Seems clear enough, right?

Dump Your TV: Trev, even if you have it removed, you'd still be a male.

Dang. Apparently not. Even if you don't have a penis, this moron insists you still have it.In a jar?!?!?. And DYTV probably thumbed up Deltha's comment...

Thank you for posting these clips Lionel A. They help point out how difficult this issue really is.

The biological sex of a person is not the same thing as gender, which is how a person wishes others to identify them (a socially constructed concept). A person's biological sex is objective and determined at birth and does not change with cosmetic surgery (again, there are very rare exceptions).

Meanwhile, you have Wow who bases his/her definition of "sex" only post surgery, and not pre-surgery. That's not confusing.

If the courts end up deciding that sex is different than gender (which I hope they do), than it will be difficult to see how it could be sex discrimination to make a woman use the women's room and a man the men's room. Rather the opposite I would say. But we will see. This issue has not yet been resolved.

They help point out how difficult this issue really is.

Yet still you try to make it a simple binary.

Because you identify as dumbass.

The biological sex of a person is not the same thing as gender

Yes it is.

which is how a person wishes others to identify them

Wrong.

How a person wishes others to identify them is the identity. And it doesn't make gender not the same as sex.

Meanwhile, you have Wow who bases his/her definition of “sex” only post surgery

Wrong. Again. And that you have to lie to try and fake support speaks volumes, moron.

That’s not confusing.

Indeed not. If it looks like a woman via whatever metric you decide on visual inspection at meeting, then they're a woman. Even if they're just a cross dresser. No need to delve into their underpants and doctors' notes to find out.

If the courts end up deciding that sex is different than gender

It can't be that it's the same thing today.

than it will be difficult to see how it could be sex discrimination to make a woman use the women’s room and a man the men’s room

And it won't be. A trans who is now woman will use the woman's room and a trans who is now a man will use the men's room.

Because they're now female or male.

This issue has not yet been resolved.

Then stop with the proclamations that it has.

"If the courts end up deciding that sex is different than gender"

It won;t actually support this law, since those two things now require asking "does a sex change operation change their sex?" instead of "does gender reassignment surgery change their gender?".

They could ask either question now, mind you.

Rather underlining the problem with your "arguments".

Every time I check up on Greg's blog, and think a topic might be interesting, it ends up being the usual junior high debate about definitions.

Seriously, you guys can't even pretend to act like this really is on "science blogs", which would mean describing categories and assigning neutral labels?

Type 1: Born with penis, wears long hair, lipstick and women's clothes...

...Type n: Born with penis, penis converted to vagina.

See, something like that. Now, you could make a rational argument about why someone would object to various interactions, like sharing a shower or bathroom.

Should type n shower with men?
Should type n use the male bathroom?
Why? What actual effect would there be? What about type 4, or type 7, and so on?

And so on for all the various in-between states. Applies to "born with a vagina" as well, obviously.

The point being that the State must have a compelling interest to discriminate against anyone based on sex, gender, whatever you want to call it. So, each type has to be evaluated with respect to that interest. Not this childish "no, male means what I want it to mean, nyah nyah nyah".

Sheesh.

Ah, so to clear up all this rubbish about defnitions, you want to define n types....

Not a smart idea...

Wow, that's what science does. It clearly categorizes things, and studies the interactions/relationships between and among those things. And avoiding emotive language in the labels whenever possible.

Anything else is propaganda/rhetoric.

Hell, you haven't even defined what value n is.

There aren't any necessary definitions other than those that make a difference. And for that in the case of the military who doesn't want hanky or panky going on or distracting nubility in the dorms, it's only the current external appearance that makes any difference at all.

Whether you used to have a prick or not doesn't make a single fucking difference as to whether you have one now.

And to make it so that the "man" with the tits and vagina showers in the mens' showers merely shames the woman for

a) having to shower with men looking at their naked breasts
b) having to have it known that they had reassignment
c) having the stigma of what will be less than the cream of the intellectual and level headed crop of young manhood in the USA reacting to the knowledge of both (a) and (b).

And why?

Because morons on the right do not like change and sex change scares the shit out of them, so the more pain and suffering that "those freaks" have to endure for making anyone know they exist, the better.

In the civilian world, it shouldn't matter a single fucking bit. There really shouldn't be "mens" and "womens" rooms. Organise so that it doesn't matter what gender of inhabitant it had before and that no other inhabitant is cohabitant. Then what the hell does it matter what gender goes where? And maybe eventually it will not matter a shit in unisex showers or toilets, because it really doesn't matter.

"Wow, that’s what science does. "

No. Science finds laws and theories. Definitions that help are kept ones that are worthless (cf Aether, the four elements, etc) are dropped. And you don't start making up half-assed definitions just to piss about.

"And avoiding emotive language in the labels whenever possible."

Well why if it's rational and avoiding emotive terms do you blabber on about your "idea" with the aim of:

"Now, you could make a rational argument about why someone would object to various interactions"

Given that your discomfort (and "you" for the label) has no bearing on whether they have to pretend to be other than they are to assuage your discomfort or objection.

How the hell does a trans who is now female make a difference to any rational being compared to a female at birth?

None.

Working ovaries? Maybe. You can make the argument that infertility is important. Either for or against.

But WHY? Meaningless.

You are right in that definitions need to be found and argued, but I've already pointed out pretty much right from the start (like post 14 or so) that we already have one, but it is being ignored. Your definitions are meaningless not because we don't need definitions, but that those definitions are of the wrong thing.

If we are talking about washrooms in the military barracks, then it matters not a whit about "they used to...". Does not matter.

If we posit that the logistics mean that at most we can manage two "gender segregations", then define that as the problem. Which leads to:

1) Is that right?
2) Could we do with just one, then?
3) If no segregation, would the ease of logistics be worth the "oddness" some would feel?
4) How much oddness and why would arise?
5) Can it be changed?
6) What benefit elsewhere would be worth the oddness that is there?

Note that NONE OF THESE even bother with the genders of anyone in the military.

Not a frigging one.

You're like a systems analyst claiming that it would be a good idea to use Rust and the Intel platform on Windows 8.1 with a Siemens logic board for I/O. When you haven't even been told what the problem is, only that a computer program may be a solution.

Use cases first.

One of the exceptions Rick mentions, in one area of the Dominican Republic, about 1% of girls end up as boys at puberty, growing penises.

Wow,

No argument from me that it shouldn't be an issue.

But, in the military, with all those immature youngsters, of course there has to be some initial accommodation and training/discipline to deal with it.

Clearly there is still racism and homophobia in the military, and it is a (slow) process to reduce that.

So, I think that discussing it in clear categories can be helpful. If someone is transitioning and has "female" breasts and a penis, that is going to be noticed in (either) shower, and may lead to disruption. The military is big on regulations and categories, so maybe they will have special rules to deal with it; that is one way to promote acceptance from the ranks.

But for the purpose of the discussion, I think you should be that specific in asking those you are debating to rationalize their objections. Would RickA object to taking a shower with a type n as I described?

"But, in the military, with all those immature youngsters, of course there has to be some initial accommodation and training/discipline to deal with it."

OK, but how does what USMC #32444218 had in their pants at 4 years old come into play there?

"Clearly there is still racism and homophobia in the military,"

And pointing out that Clive used to be called Claire is going to help how?

"So, I think that discussing it in clear categories can be helpful."

HOW?

Really. Not kidding. HOW?

"If someone is transitioning and has “female” breasts and a penis, that is going to be noticed in (either) shower, and may lead to disruption"

And this is completely different from when someone has transitioned and has female breasts and vagina.

But trying to work out your classes of people to out before you find out what the point of doing so is ridiculous. DOUBLY SO when you admit that the kids in training are liable to homophobia et al.

"Would RickA object to taking a shower with a type n as I described?"

N is not a number.

Moreover, why the hell should Participant B who is in "type n" be worried about what dick is objecting to?

ESPECIALLY when "penis converted to vagina" is meaningless unless you specifically out them.

How about telling dick to get the fuck out if the thought that someone with a dick that used to be a vagina worries him so. He has his own toilet and cleansing facilities. Just ban anyone outside his family and there's no way some icky "other" can be all not-one-gender in his toilet.

Christ, just ask someone in Basic Training (especially the US version) if they're feeling comfortable at what they're being made to do...

And if dick doesn't feel comfortable, he's free not to sign up for basic training.

"And this is completely different from when someone has transitioned and has female breasts and vagina."

That's why we call them "categories", wow.... ;^)

zebra #159:

Speaking only for myself I would not have a problem with showering with a type n person as you described.

In a communal shower situation (like in the military), I would segregate by sex (as they do now) - which means men shower with men and women with women.

As a male, I understand I will be showering with other males, whether they are straight or gay, or dress like women or men, or even have cosmetic surgery to look like a woman. The important distinction to me is are they male or not. That is the rule as it exists now, and I would keep it in place.

This takes care of the vast majority of situations (XX and XY). I understand there are some exceptions to the general rule of XX and XY. But even most of these sort themselves into the two sexes. For example XXX is the so called super female. For the other very difficult cases, they get to pick their sex and would be treated accordingly thereafter.

Personally, I think it is sex discrimination to force a male to shower with a female and visa versa. So I would object to being forced to shower (in a military setting for example) with an XX women, whether she had cosmetic surgery to look like a man or not.

Other people may go with the book cover and not its contents (YMMV).

"So I would object to being forced to shower (in a military setting for example) with an XX women,"

Of course, the obvious question is "How would you know?" to be followed by "What kind of an ass thinks it is his business to know?"

We have the answer to the second question.

RickA,

As wow points out, there would be no way for you to know the person is a type n, unless the person made it public. But, you still couldn't be sure, since it might be a "born with vagina" type pretending to be transgender.

So, how would you expect the state to deal with this? Why is it the burden of the state to deal with your paranoia?

zebra #165:

The state has to deal with it because transgenders want to serve in the military. Personally, I would let them serve.

As to pretending - that is not a problem, as the military gives everybody an exam and types their blood and can use the bloodtest to determine their sex (in case they lie on their paperwork - which would be rare).

No matter which rule you go with you have a problem.

Either you have a female who looks like a male showering with males (Wow's rule) or you have a female who looks like a male showering with females (my rule).

With my rule, everybody can rely on the rule and assume the same sex is showering together.

With Wow's rule, no one will know what is going on. Remember, many transgender's don't have surgery, but still identify as the opposite to their biological sex. With Wow's rule in that case, you would have a female who looks like a female showering with men (because she identifies as a man). With my rule, females shower with females no matter how they identify (or look) - because gender is not the same thing as biological sex and the military rule is based on biological sex.

I think my rule is much simpler in the long run and provides much more certainty, while the Wow rule will provide no certainty and I predict would lead to many more problems.

Just my personal opinion.

"With my rule, everybody can rely on the rule and assume the same sex is showering together."

See, that's where you're wrong, simply because of your science denial.

"That’s why we call them “categories”"

Wrong point, zebra, went straight over your head. Go read the rest of the post.

Ta.

I also think it would be illegal in most states to force men and women to shower together. It is probably on the order of 5th degree sexual assault (peeping tom or so level of offense). So all the states would have to change their laws to accommodate the Wow rule (as would the Federal government I would guess).

"So, how would you expect the state to deal with this? "

See, this is a better question. There's no need to even define a category. Just find out what the hell the issue IS.

Doesn't matter if they're Type 2, Type O+ or Type-ist. There's nothing dick can know about Clive in the showers than what he can see in the showers.

"I also think it would be illegal in most states to force men and women to shower together."

Weren't you bleating on about being a lawyer, dick?

And this has no meaning at all with this situation. All you know is Clive is in the shower. Everything else is meaningless unless you can explain why it is not.

"So all the states would have to change their laws"

Nope.

Wrong again.

"on the order of 5th degree sexual assault"

And you rightie-whities whine about leftists making up "genderfluid hypopotomous helicopter" as a gender... FFS you moron.

No.

Wrong again.

"The state has to deal with it because transgenders want to serve in the military. "

Wrong.

They already serve. You have to deal with it. Except you're not in the military, so you don't have to and have no say.

"As to pretending – that is not a problem"

There's no pretending.

"With Wow’s rule,"

Not my rule, moron. Just reality.

"no one will know what is going on"

Why won't they know, retard?

" Remember, many transgender’s don’t have surgery, but still identify as the opposite to their biological sex"

So this is not the same as Clive in the shower. It's Claire in the shower. Here, for showers, it's no different than if Claire were lesbian.

But if she becomes Clive, then he showers in the mensroom.

"With Wow’s rule in that case, you would have a female who looks like a female showering with men"

And lying again, shitstain.

"With my rule, females shower with females no matter how they identify"

That's my rule, fucknuckle. YOUR rule is that they can't.

"(or look) "

Why must someone who looks male shower with women? Should effeminate men shower with women too? Should heavyset lesbians shower with men?

Why do you care if they look like a man if they shower with you in the public changing rooms, retard?

Did I get it right when I pegged you as a closet homosexual?

"I think my rule is much simpler in the long run and provides much more certainty"

Wrong.

You won't know if the woman showering next to you is "really a man". All they have to do is just claim that they just look like a woman.

And if you can't categorise a man by either their identification or their looks, how the hell is it one? Toss a fucking coin?

RickA,

But you keep avoiding the question of why the state should care that you care about the birth type of the person with whom you are showering.

It makes sense for the military to care in the situation I described-- penis plus "female" breasts. But it doesn't make any sense for the military to care in the case where the people in the shower can't tell that someone is transgender.

Remember, the state must have a compelling interest. What would be the compelling interest?

Zebra #177:

Privacy.

In a public space?!?!?

Male soldier goes into female shower. Female in shower reports and man likely to face disciplinary action up to a dishonorable discharge.

Male soldier goes into female shower after declaring that he is female. Female in shower reports and woman is likely to face disciplinary action up to a disciplinary discharge.

Still BSing about this fake claim that gender and sex are not the same and your sex isn't changed in a *sex change operation*.

What about when a man is called by you or dick being a woman walks into the female showers?

Female soldier goes into female shower.

Nobody cares.

Male soldier goes into male showers.

Nobody cares.

Except you retards on the right, terrified of letting any dick get away from your sight...

"Of course, the obvious question is “How would you know?” to be followed by “What kind of an ass thinks it is his business to know?”"

And then "What about an XY woman?" Then "What about XXY?". Then "What about an XX man?"

Dick still wants to pretend that sex is whatever his pea brain can manage in complexity. An cannot be changed, because change is something he cannot handle, it must be quashed and repressed, just like his love for manlove.

The only question left is whether dick and mike here are worried that some cock will slip out of reach in the showers or whether they're scared they'll try it on in the showers with a woman who now has a penis and find that they really HATE being in that closet. Or possibly that this is going to be their only way to see naked breasts in the shower...

RickA,

The state has no compelling interest in "privacy". That makes no grammatical sense, even.

You could sue the government asserting that your right to privacy has been violated because you have to shower with someone who was born with a penis but is now no longer distinguishable from someone born with a vagina.

But that would make no sense, because, duh, you can't tell that the person is BWP. And, even if the military knows the person was BWP, it would be prohibited from letting people know because it would violate the person's right to privacy.

So, if you don't want to risk being seen in the shower by someone who was BWP, you would have to avoid group shower situations, like being in the military, altogether.

Again, the government has no compelling interest in dealing with your paranoia. It can't discriminate against the BWP person just because someone, sometime, might find out and be offended by her presence.

Remember, dick wants to shower with BWV people.

Perv.

Not a new thing for the right, though. Usually it's boys, in that case, however:

https://youtu.be/lWnHvEoPI6I

Remember, dick *does not want* to shower with BWV people. Wants women sharing the shower with them.

Perv.

Not a new thing for the right, though. Usually it's boys, in that case, however:

https://youtu.be/lWnHvEoPI6I

#185 was supposed to be BWP. Dick wants to shower with them. Apparently having "women" around disturbs his privacy when he showers with the other boys....

Wow,

I am using "you" generically. People can insert the appropriate category where it applies.

zebra:

The government does have a compelling interest in enforcing the peoples right to privacy.

The peoples desire for and right to privacy is all around you. It starts with clothing and extends to door locks, curtains, separate public restrooms for the sexes and many many laws.

The right against unreasonable search and seizure (4th amendment) is based on a privacy right. The right to an abortion is based on a privacy right. The right to have homosexual sex or even more broadly any type of sodemy between any two adults in your own home is based on a privacy right. The right not to be peeped on through your own window is based on a privacy right. The right not to have a person take a picture up your skirt is a based on a privacy right. The right of privacy is actually fairly fundamental and permeates and is the foundation for many many laws and regulations.

See Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003) for Supreme court law on the right of privacy (and Roe v. Wade also).

It is the right of privacy which is the very reason that the sexes have separate public bathrooms and public shower facilities. This is why high school girls don't have to shower with high school boys (not to mention adults of the opposite sex)(and even if they want to shower together are not permitted to).

Locks and curtains are based on our innate desire for privacy (lockers, cars and houses all have locks). Stalls in bathrooms are there for your privacy. I could go on and on. The right and desire for privacy are all around you.

So I very strongly disagree with you that the right of privacy is not a compelling government interest - because it is, both at the state and federal level.

Try to wander into a high school girls locker room and shower with the female students (I assume you are male) and you will quickly see the weight of the government come against you to charge and prosecute you with all sorts of laws which are based on the right of privacy.

I think you are focusing to much on the right of the transgender person and forgetting about the rights of the others in the shower or bathroom. As society battles with this newest civil rights issue, there will be a balancing of everyone's privacy rights and I suspect that lines will be drawn based on a person's biological sex, because those lines were drawn long ago and the reasons for those lines don't just disappear because a person wants to pretend that cosmetic surgery and hormone therapy changes their biological sex (it doesn't).

Women fought for the vote and got it - but they never sought nor wanted to share bathrooms or showers with men.

Blacks fought for integration and we got rid of separate bathrooms and drinking fountains. But we still kept separate public bathrooms and shower facilities for the sexes. Today, people who feel like they were born into the wrong sex are fighting to use the bathroom they feel they ought to use - but the problem is that feelings will not change their biological sex. If you are born a women, you remain a women and if you are born a man you remain a man - no matter if you change your name, dress differently or have surgery and hormone therapy. That is just a fact. That fact will be taken into account by the courts and it will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next 50 years.

For me personally, I do not consider it sex discrimination to maintain separation of public restroom and shower facilities based on biological sex. How can it be when we are treating all women the same and all men the same. When a women wants to use the men's room or visa versa, you run headlong into the right of privacy and custom, not to mention a myriad of laws. But that is only my personal opinion, and the courts will resolve this issue over many many years to come.

I really enjoy discussing issues with you zebra - because you are polite and stick to the issue. We may not agree on some issues - but at least we can discuss our differences in a civilised manner.

Thank you for engaging with me.

RickA,

I am now politely pointing out that you didn't address what I wrote at all.

"... but at least we can discuss our differences in a civilised manner."

Waaa, waaa, I don't like that people keep pointing out that I lie all the time. Waaa waaa.

Try being honest for a change rickA.

zebra:

I was addressing your point of view on privacy.

It doesn't matter if I know the person is BWP. What matters is does the person know what biological sex they are. You keep focussing on me, when the focus should be on the transgender person. They know if they are showering with people of the opposite sex. They know what is on their birth certificate. They know what kind of surgery they had. So what I know is not relevant.

There are already rules in the military against women showering with men (or visa versa). So they know they are breaking the rules (unless the rules change, which I would oppose). Also the military knows the biological sex of all of their enlisted. So the person knows and their bosses know - and that is all that matters.

"The government does have a compelling interest in enforcing the peoples right to privacy."

Not in a public shower, dumbass.

"I was addressing your point of view on privacy."

Nope. His point on privacy is that you were being incoherent, dick.

"the focus should be on the transgender person."

Whose privacy is not invaded when showering in the right shower. A trans male in the male showers, a trans female in the female showers.

And whose privacy is invaded if they're outed to explain why a woman is in the gents showers.

Your "argument" which is just as incoherent as always, would be best served by letting the trans man shower in the gents and the trans woman shower in the womens shower.

"There are already rules in the military against women showering with men"

Yes, but you want them ignored. You want trans men to show their privates to the privates and have their private personal information spread around the entire base.

"based on biological sex. "

Why?

"I am now politely pointing out that you didn’t address what I wrote at all."

Being polite has never made that asswipe change their mind or listen at all to you.

RickA,

The transgender person believes herself to be equivalent to BWV-- that's the whole point of going through all the medical interventions. So, you can't expect her to see a problem.

The military cannot, as I said, violate the person's privacy by telling you what operations she has had; that's private medical information.

The military has no reason to act unless there is some kind of negative effect on unit performance, which there isn't, because you don't know the person is BWP. That's what "compelling interest" means-- there has to be some essential governmental function being interfered with.

So again, your paranoia is exclusively your problem.

Ignoring your fallacious claim about biological sex, WHY should who showers with who in a public shower be based in what you claim to be biological sex, dumbfuck?

zebra #197:

Unless the military changes to unisex showering, I believe they do have a compelling reason to segregate showering by biological sex - or the rules wouldn't be in place.

Since the military does still have rules preventing unisex showering my "paranoia" is government policy.

Since the rules are in place that women are not allowed to shower with men and visa versa, the only issue is whether a transgender person changes biological sex - and I think the science is clear on that - they do not. That is why the term "gender" is used in transgender - and not transbiologicalsex. So the current rule is clearly being violated if a women showers with men (or visa versa) - even if they look like the people they are showering with.

I would venture to guess (based on the Lionel video above) that even most transgenders realize and accept they don't change sex with surgery and hormone therapy. That is why most say "I identify as male (or female)" or words to that effect - rather than "I am male (or female)".

We will have to see what the military does once transgenders are allowed to openly serve (again) - and what kind of notice they will have to provide to non-transgender soldiers. I don't think the issue was squarely address during the last year, and now we are back to zero as they are being booted out of the military.

So I don't think this is exclusively my problem.

Again, all I can do is offer my personal opinion - which is that if I were President (I am not) I would let Transgenders serve - but would segregate based on biological sex (as is currently the rule).

"Unless the military changes to unisex showering,"

Irrelevant. The problem goes away with unisex showering, but it doesn't make trans a problem without unisex showering, dumbass.

" my “paranoia” is government policy"

WRONG!

But it DOES explain why you bleat on "oh, it's my opinion", 'cos that cocksucker of an argument only appears when your opinion is, in your opininon, currently what is happening.

If your opinion were correct, then there's no fucking problem with what trumpalino is blithering on about here to keep you morons placated.

"but would segregate based on biological sex"

Why? Under your half-arsed definition, why is it based on "biological sex"?

Why?

Why, dumbfuck, WHY?

"they don’t change sex with surgery and hormone therapy"

Only because they admit they were always that sex.

YOU, however, do not.

Funny how you accept "their word" when you get to define what their word means. And only if they appear, under your special-needs version of meanings, to agree with your idiotic blowharding.

"and I think the science is clear on that"

And this would be based on ignorance, dick.

This bullshit from dick might as well get buried, just like this fuckwit's head is buried up his arse.

"Since the rules are in place that women are not allowed to shower with men and visa versa"

Irrelevant, since the same sex will shower with the same sex.

"That is why most say “I identify as male (or female)” or words to that effect – rather than “I am male (or female)”."

Bullshit.

Most will say they are male or female.

"and what kind of notice they will have to provide to non-transgender soldiers"

None of their fucking business. Weren't you retards the origin of the DADT dogma? Suddenly not good enough for you.

CLEARLY the problem is your privacy is invaded because you want some quality time with Nick and if Clive walks in, that special time together in the showers is voided if you are told Clive is a trans.

"So I don’t think this is exclusively my problem."

Nope, your paranoia is only your problem. That others share the same paranoid fear is not you sharing your mental problem.

"see what the military does once transgenders are allowed to openly serve"

If they don't serve, how can there be a problem with trans today???

"based on biological sex (as is currently the rule)."

Based on what?

You're ignorant. But loud.

"all I can do is offer my personal opinion"

Which is meaningless because you aren't the dictator for life.

"and now we are back to zero as they are being booted out of the military."

And you made that up. There is no booting yet.

Your ignorance is impenetrable.

Therefore your assertions meaningless.

And your posts deserve to be buried.

Only a monoglot would assert that gender and sex are the same thing.

And the definitions Zebra would like to see are a bit pointless, as this distribution illustrates:
https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-7ca1b9aeab2a1ef304aa5df52b2f9524

There are dozens of other characteristics that show a similar pattern between the sexes.
What's the point of defining any of that?

If we had toilets for tall people and toilets for short people, there's always going to be a population that falls right on the cusp of the two definitions. Segregation on the basis of whether a penis is present seems reasonably clear, although a heavily-bearded but penis-free person using the female toilets is inevitably going to raise eyebrows.

I was at a Cuban bar in Sydney last year. When I went to take a whizz, I sensed a presence at the washbasin behind me. After I had finished, I was taken aback to see that a female had been standing behind me while I was micturating, touching up her make up in the mirror.
Then I realised I was in a unisex toilet facility.
Problem solved.

"Only a monoglot would assert that gender and sex are the same thing."

Based on what? Fairy dust and hope? Nobody else has shown why they are different.

You didn't even try. Just blurted out the assertion because it's me.

Sad.

"If we had toilets for tall people and toilets for short people,"

Why?

Craig Thomas #216,

"what's the point of defining that?"

I thought the point was clearly stated.

Let's add the abbreviation Looks Like, LL, for brevity.

The military (following custom, and rationally considering the poor self-control and hormones of young recruits), can argue that segregating LLBWP from LLBWV in showers serves a purpose by avoiding disruptive interactions that could affect unit performance.

But the military has no reason to segregate LLBWV from those BWP but who LLBWV. As I explained previously.

So, by defining the categories, the military can make "graduated" rules that best serve its purpose, with minimum discrimination against individuals based on their physical characteristics at birth. They do this kind of thing all the time, as I said; people in the military are comfortable with (complicated) rules and regs.

So, for example, since many in the military do not shower in groups and have private rooms, someone in the intermediate stages of transition would be able to carry out duties dressed as he/she likes with no ill effects. Other situations would be dealt with as needed.

Craig, your cute little graph doesn't add anything to the discussion -- even if you understood it it wouldn't be useful.

zebra #219:

I agree that sounds very reasonable and if the military chooses to go with some intermediate plan I would be all in favor. Avoid the issue by allowing the person to shower alone seems like a reasonable compromise.

As I said, I would allow transgender people to serve (as opposed to Trump's recent action).

However, I would not violate the privacy of a bunch of men by forcing them to shower with a women, even if she looks like a man or violate the privacy of a bunch of women by forcing them to shower with a man, even if he looks like a women.

Clearly there are two ways to look at the issue.

You are going with the "looks like" view, while I am going with the "actually is" view. Obviously reasonable minds can differ, as we clearly do.

How would you handle the subset of transgender people who elect not to have surgery?

I recently saw a story about a transgender women, who elected not to have surgery, took hormone therapy and grew a beard, identified as male, but wanted to have a biological child. She stopped taking her hormones, got pregnant and gave birth to a child. If this person joined the military how would you classify them (assuming they had to shower jointly with either men or women)?

"Let’s add the abbreviation Looks Like, LL, for brevity."

I posit the problem here is that you're taking as read the idea that this problem is about something real. "looks like" is about WHY we segregate. We segregate because if it looks like a man is going into the ladies, we worry they're in there for sexual purposes. Women seeing what looks like a man get worried because they think the man is there for sexual purposes.

Which really does explain ever hangup and problem present.

But dick will refuse to bother saying WHY because he knows the why he really feels cannot be said and knows if he uses a fake why that is more socially palatable and defensibly, he cannot defend it, since he'd have to work out what someone who DOES think that would defend it with.

"looks like" inherently points to if it looks male, it is male and it showers with other males.

And dick cannot accept that.

Whether to grab "genuine cock", remove temptation of trying it on with "a woman with a cock", whether to punish those who do not fit in his preconceptions for scaring him or just push the bible idiocy, or several of the above, we can only guess.

Because he will not say why his claim "based on biological sex", even if his assertion of what that is is so much baloney, should take place.

And so dick will never answer your question, no matter how much you stroke his... ego.

"As I said, I would allow transgender people to serve"

As has been said many times before, you have no power to allow shit. And "allow" is an act, not an opinion.

And has also been pointed out as fallacious. If there were no trans serving, then there would be no expense for trans in the armed forces.

"You are going with the “looks like” view, while I am going with the “actually is” view. "

Why are they at all different?

They aren't is the simple, and true, response.

"However, I would not violate the privacy of a bunch of men by forcing them to shower with a women,"

Nobody is.

And HOW would it violate their privacy? IT'S A FUCKING PUBLIC SHOWER, RETARD.

However, I would not violate the privacy of a bunch of men by forcing them to shower with a women,”

The word in bold is the key to rickA's mindset: men matter and have rights, but nobody else does.

RickA,

The military would do what I suggest, using LL, for the reasons both I and wow have explained. It avoids disruption.

And remember, the US has a volunteer military. It can say to recruits:

1. "You may be ordered to give up your life for a mission that may accomplish nothing because of some incompetent general with political connections"

2. "Also, you may have to unknowingly take a shower with someone who LLBWP but was BWV."

"Still want to sign up?"

If someone says he is OK with #1 but not with #2, I sure as hell wouldn't want him in my platoon, and nor would any other leader. If you get all squirrely over ghost penises and ghost vaginas, you're hardly likely to hold up in a firefight.

And I have no idea what your story about stopping hormones and getting pregnant is supposed to suggest. If he stops taking hormones, wouldn't the beard go away?

Does dickhead here think that the typical US army jarhead is well up for getting down with the ladyboys?!?!?

'cos it's sure as shit that someone who identifies as a man won't be interested in banging other men enough to shag in the showers over it against the wishes of another man.

Single showers won't work in bootcamp. Soldiers are crafted by breaking them down until there is no individual there, then rebuilding them up as a unit because that is most effective.

It also helps because you need to deempathise them so that they can shoot another human being rather than aim to miss. Which rather ruins unit effectiveness.

Zebra #226:

The story about the transgender who didn't have surgery is to suggest that "looks like" won't always work. This transgender person who identifies as male looks like a bearded women. I was simply asking who you think that person "looks like" for the bootcamp shared shower situation. Your rule doesn't work for that situation, while mine does.

RickA 229,

You must be getting tired or drunk or something... didn't you just agree that having "intermediate" rules for people in different stages of transition made sense to you? I must be missing something. (I've been working in the hot sun, so that is possible.)

"The story about the transgender who didn’t have surgery is to suggest that “looks like” won’t always work."

And the only one demanding absolutes is you, dick.

Plus you don't get to cry off like that when you ignored XX males and XY females with "But practically nobody, so it doesn't coooouuuuunnnnttt!".

" Your rule doesn’t work for that situation, while mine does."

Nope, it doesn't.

But why must your situation decide things? Your rule doesn't work with XX males and XY females. Which is far more common and doesn't presume that squaddies will bang anything with a hole.

"I must be missing something."

You're missing that he'll only agree with you to the extent that he can continue with his assertions as-of-fact and assert your support of him.

zebra #230:

Yes I did say that.

But the military doesn't have to implement my opinion and in fact I don't think they do things the way you suggest (yet).

So the question I am asking you is, assuming a same sex shower arrangement of the type the military uses during boot camp, how would you apply your "looks like" rule to a person who doesn't elect surgery and looks like a bearded lady?

My rule would be to have all biological women shower together (assuming no accomodation was made as we both propose).

I want you to think through your rule and tell me how you think it should be applied.

"how would you apply your “looks like” rule to a person who doesn’t elect surgery and looks like a bearded lady?"

Given you say "looks like a bearded lady", it looks like a lady.

Duh.

But WHY should the be in the ladies' shower rooms? Why should they be in the men's shower rooms? YOU aren't going to be there at the entrance to every shower room going "You can go in, nope you gotta go in the other one".

So you have to give WHY so that the rules can be drawn up and got RIGHT.

Because you feel icky at ghost penii and vagii isn't a sane excuse.

If your JAQing off is answered, what is to stop just asking another one? Nothing.

Because you have no clue as to how to say why without looking like a pervert, a pimp or a psycho.

"My rule would be to have all biological women shower together"

WHY?

"My rule would be to have all biological women shower together"

So given that a trans woman is, post op, biologically a woman, they go in the womens shower.

RickA,

Yeah, you are clearly confused for some reason.

Having those who look alike shower together is a rule that only applies to the category of those who Look Like BWV or BWP. Duh. How do you not understand this?

I already gave a better example (than yours) of someone who doesn't look like either BWP or BWV, which is someone with a penis and "female" breasts. That case could be one where the person would not shower with either group.

So, I really don't get what you are getting at. The military would work out a set of categories, with the appropriate restrictions and accommodations, to minimize disruption. It's not up to me to figure that stuff out in detail for each category.

"The military would work out a set of categories"

First, however, they have to know WHY they need to have categories. Else they'll segregate on height.

"Why" is not something that dick seems capable of answering.

" looks like a bearded lady?"

It is highly unlikely a "bearded lady" -- or anyone else -- would be allowed to maintain a beard in boot camp.

zebra #238:

My point is that your are taking a transgender person who identifies as male, but looks female (because they elect not to have surgery). and forcing them to shower with females. You realize this will piss that person off (or some in this category anyway) and litigation will ensue. So you are dividing transgenders into two categories based on what they look like, but making one segment of transgender community unhappy (because of how they look).

My rule of treating people based on their biological sex forces both groups of biologically female soldiers (those who look female and those who look male) to shower with women, while your rule only forces one group of biologically female soldiers to shower with women.

On the other hand, your rule still forces people of the opposite sex to shower together which is in clear violation of the rules (as they exist now), in violation of state and federal laws, and violates the privacy of whichever sex is supposed to use that shower in the first place.

My rule seems the lesser of two evils - that is my point.

My rule is also legally defensible, because it is not sex discrimination to treat people based on their biological sex, while yours will not pass muster unless our society gets rid of all public biological sex based separate facilities. Unisex public restrooms and showers. Something I just don't see happening.

And sure - the military may provide separate but equal facilities for transgenders (if they adopt our suggestion) - but will transgenders accept that? Or sue to use the shared shower facility they believe they should be allowed to use? Are you kidding - of course some will sue - so the problem is not solved.

And lets extend this debate to high school showers, university showers and to all public restrooms and showers.

Far better to treat people as we have always treated them - based on biological sex - litigate it and get it over with.

Pretending people change sex is only creating more problems, not fewer.

Sixty years ago rickA would have been making the same types of arguments in favor of continuing segregation and everything that entailed.

"My point is that your are taking a transgender person who identifies as male, but looks female and forcing them to shower with females."

You're the only one forcing. YA transgender woman who looks female must shower with the men. Because "biology".

Why?

Nobody knows.

"My rule of treating people based on their biological sex forces both groups of biologically female soldiers (those who look female and those who look male) to shower with women"

Why?

And why are you forcing men to shower with women?

"Pretending people change sex"

Pretending that this is the case is why you keep getting reality wrong, dick.

A sex change operation changes your biology.

Why does this not change biological sex?

"Duh. How do you not understand this?"

By not listening.

Duh.

Oh look, another day, another 500 incoherent posts from WoW.

I'd like to nominate this one for the Einstein Award:

" IT’S A FUCKING PUBLIC SHOWER, RETARD."

The pure genius of the intellect displayed there just bowled me over.

And it still hasn't taken the hint that it doesn't understand the difference between sex and gender and so should perhaps just quickly look it up somewhere before delving even deeper into its store of foolishness.

"A sex change operation changes your biology.
Why does this not change biological sex?"

Duh. Seriously? I did no further biology after high school, but that was enough for me to know enough to not ask such an idiotic question.

"Oh look, another day, another 500 incoherent posts from WoW."

Ah, right. coulda guessed you’d have nothing sensible to add, craig. Meaningless is much easier than thinking and you’re just plain lazy.

When you haven’t got this autonomic bullshit reflex anymore, your burbleing will be of some value in considering.

With apologies to Reef:
Craig, has got nothing to say
But, he will post any way
After all of the things that he’s said is true
He still has to talk poo

He is butthurted
He is butthurted
He is butthurted
He keeps whining every day.

Nah nah na na na
Nah na naa na na naaa na

"“A sex change operation changes your biology.
Why does this not change biological sex?”

Duh. Seriously?"

Yes. Seriously. Why does it not change your biological sex?

I don't care what they taught you in school. It likely was the same bollocks I was taught in school too. And isn't anywhere near reality.

"” IT’S A FUCKING PUBLIC SHOWER, RETARD.”

The pure genius of the intellect displayed there just bowled me over."

Nobody could ever know why it would when the shout was in response to someone whining about privacy.

In a public shower.

I'll save my reply for after it has completed the standard WoW sequence of 28 repetitively pointless posts.

Getting back to the world of coherence, facts, and reason, which RickA seems to have left completely with 242. (It sounded like some kind of Gay Panic outburst except about transgender.)

Anyway, it turns out there were transgender people serving in the military all along, "in the closet", as it were. And, some are now suing because they "came out" after the Obama administration said it would be OK, and now they are being told it isn't OK.

So, it really is like gays in the military often used to be, where fellow soldiers didn't know, or they knew/suspected and didn't care. No harm, no foul.

And probably, if the trans people were doing a good job, their CO would react the way I suggested earlier: If someone came to me and complained because they thought their fellow soldier had been BWP but now LLBWV, I would be worried that the complainant had psych issues, and get them transferred at least.

Just sayin', Rick. Most people care that their unit does its job, just like any business, (except sometimes it's life and death), and they can have a successful career and promotions, if they are in for the long haul. Ghost penises and ghost vaginas, not so much.

"I’ll save my reply"

Which will be a content free whinge at someone to whom you have an abiding hatred for because, well, I've disagreed with you a few times and occasionally handed you your ass. That content free whinge from you will be the same caterwaul you always prattle out "STOP USING UP ALL THE SPEECH!!!!".

Grow up, retard, or you'll remain an ignorant spanked little boy crying at the unfairness of it all.

PS I note you've picked up on batshit betty's favourite alternative to me. Just like you've picked up the tree pruning idiot's other "debate" techniques.

"It sounded like some kind of Gay Panic outburst except about transgender."

It IS Gay Panic. They're weird "others" whose existence he can handle as long as he doesn't know they exist and wants them punished not for existing ('cos that#s unchristian) but punished for letting people know they exist.

It's Gay Panic. A trans woman is *clearly* no different from a gay person and even more extreme, because gays aren't willing to rip their dicks off to get in the showers with men. CLEARLY they are a great danger to the Moral Fibre Uf Today's Youth (tm).

And they must be harshly punished for letting dick know they exist.

'curse he also has a dollop of envy because he'd like to shower in the womens' room too. Especially when there are very young girls in there. After all, the market for little boys is quite heavily contested with other rightwingers and priests.

"Try being honest for a change rickA."

That would be devastating to his case, however, dean.

AND it removes a guaranteed way to salve his ego bruise by using his persecution complex to convince himself he MUST be right, else people would not be mean to him.

PLUS a meaningless accusation to fire off when all else fails, dragging everyone down to the slime pit so he doesn't feel like he's bad. Pure crab bucket.

Zebra, perhaps I have misunderstood the military policy or elsewhere, but I am under the impression people can simply declare which gender they are, with no surgery or hormone treatments, and this selection dictates the behavior of others towards this person. Thus my example in 180.

" am under the impression people can simply declare which gender they are"

And so what? Is that the only way trans people are trans? If not, you're missing a whole slew of people.

"and this selection dictates the behavior of others towards this person"

So does appearance. Therefore your point was..?

Saying nothing doesn't generate any wrong claims, but it's still saying nothing. Any idiot can do that. Just ask craig.

But your post 180 doesn't have a woman going into the woman's shower, it has a man going into the woman's showers.

So quite what you're latest post has to do with it is, as usual for you, absent from all existence.

MikeN 259,

Perhaps you can give a reference for where you got your "impression"?

(Other than the opinion of some right-wing blogger, Fakes News, and other disreputable sources.)

zebra #255:

I agree with you that if there is a way that the military can accommodate transgender people without violating the rights of other people, than they should do that. If that involves a single person unisex bathroom and/or shower, I am all for it.

I would let transgender people serve.

But we have to protect everybody's rights in the process.

Including the right of privacy and (for a few) a religious issue with showering with people of the opposite sex. Other than the bathroom/shower issue, which can be handled with separate accommodations for transgender people, there are no rights violated by how people dress, so I think it is totally doable.

I don't think the military can force people of the opposite sex to shower together. But the courts will ultimately decide that issue.

"Including the right of privacy"

Which isn't relevant here.

"a religious issue"

cf 'thou shall not kill'.

"showering with people of the opposite sex"

They aren't.

"I don’t think the military can force people of the opposite sex to shower together"

Yes they can. And sometimes have to.

But it's not the case here, so what.

Mike #259:

Here is a link: https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/features/2016/0616_policy/DoDTGHandbo…

I took a look at this and it looks to me like the gender is only changed in the database once gender transition is complete (i.e. surgery and hormone treating). Once gender transition is complete than the military takes the position that the persons sex has changed and alters the sex in their database.

Of course, this is biologically wrong and that will be what is litigated. Surgery doesn't change a persons biological sex, it merely changes their outer appearance.

We will have to wait for the Supreme Court to weigh in on this issue.

I do note that according to this policy, a person who doesn't have surgery will have to shower with their own biological sex, whether they declare they are transgender or not.

A person who has completed gender transition surgery is permitted to shower with people of the opposite sex.

"Once gender transition is complete than the military takes the position that the persons sex has changed and alters the sex in their database."

Good grief. Do you mean you were wrong all along and that the military don't say that their sex hasn't changed?

"Of course, this is biologically wrong"

Ah, of course. You disagree therefore the military are wrong.

But, hey, your opinion has no bearing on them or their rules.

" Surgery doesn’t change a persons biological sex,"

Wrong.

A sex change operation, the surgery you're talking about, DOES change someone's biological sex. By changing their biology.

" a person who doesn’t have surgery will have to shower with their own biological sex,"

You mean that if they look like a man, they shower in the mens' showers and if they look like a woman, they shower in the womens' showers?

Whodathunkit.

And why on earth would the supreme court get to rule the military wrong? It's not a judicial issue. Either medical or operational, and neither of those make it the court's business.

Who'd'a guessed. Dick demanding government overreach!!!

test test

My previous attempt to post this got stuck; trying again:

I want to congratulate RickA for providing the reference in #265 that completely supports everything I have said so far, and completely invalidates everything RickA has said.

This is required reading for anyone who seriously wants to discuss the topic. If you can't reference this to make your point, you don't have a point.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff have told Trump that they're not doing it. Because it's not through the correct legal channels for such a demand from the president.

Doesn't look like dick is gonna get to complain that we have to wait for the courts to decide.

Aawww. He has to thank the transgendered for keeping him and his safe. It must be heartbreaking for him.