Does anyone in this thread support a child going through gender affirmation surgery? If so, do you also support the right for children to vote?
Transgender rights discussion
- Thread starter crappycraperson
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Again - these are all genetic abnormalities, or in utero complications / mutations. Fundamentally, most of these people that have such a condition will either be male or female anyway. There's a very small % that are intersex (Klinefelter's is not intersex).
I mentioned mammals because that's what we are. Mammalian physiology is binary.
Agree on your second and third sentence. The other poster mentioned intersex/abnormalities as a case for trans when it's entirely separate.
That was explained by Dr Dwayne above and is grand, I wasn't aware of the thread so wasn't aware of the title change.
Re your comment that it is rights related - what is? What is rights related about this thread? Specifically, what rights do I have that a trans person does not?
The conversation surely is more about - are rights enough? Is privilege required to achieve equality? I'd argue yes, it's a concept with legal backing re positive discrimination etc, and that's the part I find more interesting here in terms of how this develops.
I wasn't saying it was a case for or against trans, that is a gender discussion.
I was talking about biological sex, you yourself have admitted that there is intersex, which is neither biologically male or female, but refuse to count any of those people as their own biological sex.
If someone is born XXY, are they biologically male or female? They have two X chromosomes so female, but also a Y, so male. You can't just say there are only two biological sexes when you can have anything from XXXXY to XYYYY. How is that not a spectrum?
As for gender, pretty much only the western world only believes in 2 genders. Native Americans had 5 genders as the norm, India has at least 3.
I was talking about biological sex, you yourself have admitted that there is intersex, which is neither biologically male or female, but refuse to count any of those people as their own biological sex.
If someone is born XXY, are they biologically male or female? They have two X chromosomes so female, but also a Y, so male. You can't just say there are only two biological sexes when you can have anything from XXXXY to XYYYY. How is that not a spectrum?
As for gender, pretty much only the western world only believes in 2 genders. Native Americans had 5 genders as the norm, India has at least 3.
Are children going through gender affirmation surgery?
Any thoughts on expanding the thread to include all LGBTQ+ rights discussions?
I don't think so, the trans discussion is very different
No and no. Surely children aren’t actually going under the knife?
No doubt, just don't think I have seen a suitable thread to discuss the other letters. Perhaps I will start one soon after the next alight or marginalization of any of the groups. Shouldn't be that long of a wait, especially in this country.
I'd say that what rights trans people are or aren't given or entitled to touches just about every part of this discussion.
Because what you're describing is an abnormality. Mammalian physiology has 2 sexes. Anything that sits outside of that is if something has (developmentally) gone wrong. It doesn't mean sex is on a spectrum.
Even if you take Klinefelter's syndrome as an example - they're considered biologically male, so it wouldn't even sit outside of the male female binary despite them having an additional X chromosome.
Interesting my google search showed 1 in 1000 but also said they are still 100% male, according to the manchester centre for genomic medicine. They were classed as boys or men with an extra X
I would tend to agree with this, though I hope it is mostly and will remain an online thing. It certainly makes think twice about posting on sensitive hot topics like this one, and i wonder how many others are put off from doing so. Not healthy for debate, and probabaly whatever is the prevailing view online isn't a reflection of general opinion.
How is that something gone wrong? What does wrong even mean in a biological sense?
But, there is a spectrum of XY combinations, including men with XX combinations.
Basically, what are the parameters of a biological male or female and what do you call those who are outside those parameters? It's not trans, that's gender.
Is cancer an illness or is it a spectrum of wellness?
Biologically you're either XY or XX. If you have extra chromosomes, it's usually down to a mutation, or a genetic abnormality etc. which is where something in utero has happened that ordinarily shouldn't happen (i.e. wrong).
But isn’t this how literally every organism evolved, including mammals? So how can these mutations be wrong, especially in a biological sense? Couldn’t I apply the very same logic in order to say that mammals shouldn’t exist because they evolved from sexless one cell organisms?
When it comes to chromosomal abnormalities they’re “wrong” in a very specific sense in that there’s usually been an error during cell division. And those errors won’t ever evolve out of existence because no biological system is completely flawless.
But this is what I mean. Someone can be XXY, XYY XXXY, etc. What's more dominant, the Xs or the Ys? Is it any number of Ys makes you a man no matter how many Xs?
And what about those people who are born with male sexual organs but XX chromosomes?
It can't be massively detrimental, because even 1 in 1000 is a very high proportion, and the extra Xs and Ys must have some effect on biological sex.
And this is different from other forms of mutations? My understanding has always been, that evolution is just a bunch of mutations that happen to be advantageous for survival, thus they prevail. Just coincidence that basically works out in the organisms favour. Why would this be a different matter?
Why are you connecting those two at all? I assume you're aware that children do have rights, even before they're 18 and get to vote (or whatever arbitrary age they get to vote at in your country). Whether or not you think a 13 year old should be able to have gender affirmation surgery has no influence on - and is not influenced by - your feelings about 13 year olds voting in elections.
Not true at all. The vast majority of genetic/chromosomal abnormalities have negative consequences. Causing anything from death in utero to cancer. Some of them are survivable, many not. And only a very tiny proportion might theoretically have some sort of advantage.
The classic example that always gets mentioned is having a single copy of the gene that causes sickle cell anaemia is a survival benefit in regions where malaria is endemic (having both copies just causes sickle cell anaemia, a bad outcome). But this is very much an exception.
For optimal health you ideally don’t want any mistakes in the transcription of genes/chromosomes. That’s basically how radiation poisoning kills you. It increases the number of these errors. Using your logic exposure to high levels of radiation would give you super powers. Unfortunately that’s only true in comic books.
Last time I checked you didn't go through a string of assessments and consultations run by adults in order to vote.
A quick search suggests they would look at the individual's phenotype characteristics. Going back to my GCSE days the phenotype was the physical expression of your genes.
From what I have read recently there are many of differences between male and female (both genetic and phenotypic).
a quick "fun" list of some basic differences to look out for. https://askthescientists.com/men-women-different/
I imagine they would consider a range of characteristics to see whether you are male or female
I’m aware that it is not necessarily an advantage and can be deadly and so on. But that’s besides the point. My point is that someone called any mutation that would cause differences in chromosomes a mistake. Which I strongly disagree with. Especially from a biological point of view. My view is that there are no mistakes. Just coincidences. And, as you rightly pointed out, these coincidences can turn out rather badly for the organism, they can be irrelevant or they can be an advantage. But most of all mutations are necessary in order for evolution to actually happen. And these mutations caused us to exist, they caused sexual procreation to exist and so on.
And in order to get to my initial point, if we are to call mutations that cause variations of chromosomes a mistake, I fail to see why the very same logic can’t be used in order to call sexual procreation in itself a mistake. Because from my understanding, sexual procreation exists because of mutation.
Now I’m far from being an expert on the matter and what I’m trying to say could be lost in translation. But as far as my understanding of evolution goes, there simply aren’t mistakes. Or every mutation is a mistake. I just don’t really believe that biology makes mistakes. In order for mistakes to happen you need a form of consciousness and purpose.
You're being far too philosophical about this. A mistake is a mistake. Or an error, call it what you want. When cells divide they have mechanisms in place to ensure that their genetic material is accurately reproduced. Sometimes these fail. That isn't supposed to happen and almost invariably has damaging consequences for the organism concerned. Without the tight controls minimise these errors as much as possible the organism would go extinct within a generation or two.
What a strange world some people are living in where the far left is remotely as dangerous as the far right right now.
You just need to ask them about an example of these far left policies that are so dangerous and their arguments fall apart, but they keep repeating it. Absolute insanity.
You just need to ask them about an example of these far left policies that are so dangerous and their arguments fall apart, but they keep repeating it. Absolute insanity.
Downs syndrome is 1 in 1000 as well. Cancer is 1 in 2. Massively detrimental.
XX is female. XY is male. Any extra chromosomes will start from that basis (i.e. either XX or XY).
They're also equally dominant chromosomes, which is why we have an even distribution of male and female births.
What you've gone onto describe, again, is a very small % of abnormalities that can occur.
What makes a man a man or a woman a woman for those specific minutia of instances you've written (re. intersex), I don't know, but I'd say it'd be up to the individual on what they want to be considered as.
Below is an actual response to my comment. Do you think this is acceptable?
Well that post came after yours, so it can't have been what triggered your post. But of course I think that is acceptable. Do you think literally any opinion is valid?
And if pointing out an opinion and saying "it's wrong" is a sign of the intolerant left, then I think you might need to reconsider what tolerance means. That's about as mild as it comes.
You made your posts about the intolerance of the left right after a tweet about a Florida Lawmaker referring to transgender people, to their face, as imps and demons. Which is what @Dr. Dwayne was referencing, as a sarcastic response to your claim.
There's a very big difference in what the modern left lacks tolerance for and what the modern right lacks tolerance for, but for whatever reason you'll mainly find disaffected leftists turned centrists bemoaning the left.
Why not? Or do you want to restrict the posters right to free speech?
Why is it so hard for some people to accept that others can do whatever the hell they want with their own bodies? It's not your body, it's theirs. If they want to add two penises or two vaginas that's their right and they get to choose. If it's not on your body shut the hell up. I'm tired of people trying to analyze and justify someone else's choice. Only they need to know why it was necessary, and only they need to be comfortable with it. Period.
Opinion about your own body not other people's bodies. Questions.. why does it concern you if they're making choices that's only affecting THEIR bodies?
OK. You're getting hung up on the wrong part of my post, but let's indulge. Start with my question - if the thread is about rights, then what rights do the general population have that trans people do not?
I assumed you'd watched the video in that Tweet. Not suggesting you feel the same as that guy but I wanted to highlight how people in power use opinions to dehumanize groups they don't like to make it easier for the general population to accept their oppression under the law.