Gender roles in America

[wufan]

If you don't see the potential damages I'm outlining, I'm not the one with a lack of sympathy. I'll give a hypothetical example.

Jane Doe is a middle school girl in Idaho. She wants to play volleyball. However, unlike other girls her age, she was violently raped and now has pretty significant genital scarring. This has led to a variety of issues she would rather keep private, but another girl noticed that she refused to change for gym class in front of others and pulled down her pants to try to figure out if she was secretly one of the transgender kids she's been warned about. Her classmate sees the scarring, and tells the school counselor that she thinks Jane Doe is a boy who has had surgery because of the scars. Now Jane Doe is forced to have her hormones and genetic information tested, and her sexual anatomy made public to the state. Or she declined, and is forced to compete as a 'boy' if at all.

I don't think that is fair or right. And sadly, I don't think this situation is particularly uncommon; I expect the number sexually abused ten year girls is higher than the number of MTF ten year olds. The solution can't be worse than the problem for the people it is trying to protect.

No! You ask for a birth certificate.

[wufan]

Yes, it is a very uncommon issue, to the point that it is has never been necessary to make specific laws restricting transgender athletes and requiring examinations. The issue is that several states have made specific laws targeting transgender athletes, and inadvertently forced cisgender students to take the tests I'm referring to. The issue is exactly that the status quo is not harmful, and the change under the laws is.

I'm not looking for a problem with what is done currently (except in Idaho), I'm just seeing a problematic lack of concern for how these proposed bills will effect the cisgender females they are supposed to protect. I would expect this to be a primary concern, not a secondary one. I have a cynical opinion of that.

These bills are currently under debate in several states. Kansas is not one of them. The states that have bills similar to that passed in Idaho are: Arizona, Connecticut, Iowa, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas.

STOP EXAMINING KIDS!

[CBB_Fan]

No. No mandatory sex testing. That’s the solution. If someone commits fraud, well then they’re a cheater. Trans athletes aren’t that common. Cheating ones would be less so. We let kids play in age groups based on birth certificate. Sometimes they cheat.

The people proposing these bills wouldn't be comfortable if their daughter played with any person with an XY chromosome or excessive testosterone. That would include people with Disorders of Sexual Development, i.e., intersex individuals. This even smaller subgroup is the reason why every form of gender screening in elite athletics and the current laws for school age children requires such test. These are people assigned female at birth, a prominent example would by Erik Schinegger (google them).

The Idaho requires sex testing. From what I can tell, the current proposed legislation in various states is largely copied of the Idaho law. Even if you personally believe that merely requiring a birth certificate, that is not what is being proposed or adopted. And where they do have a birth certificate requirement, the law currently allows for that birth certificate to be amended to reflect a transitioned gender (this is how it works in Texas), negating the point and just providing a costly barrier to entry.

As I stated, this is devil's advocacy position. I haven't see anyone criticize the effects the bills as proposed would have on the primary population they are supposed to affect, and I think that requires a critical look. If you agree that the solution currently found is unacceptable, you have found a reason to want these bills amended or recalled even if you agree with the gist of what they are trying to do.

[Shockm]

I think the commonality of the issue is not the point and is irrelevant to the overall issue.

I think that you misunderstood the point. It wasn't the commonality of the issue, it was that this has never been a problem before, and gynecological testing was never necessary. For the few, who gum up the works, it can be a much simpler solution than that. Meaning that one is either biologically a boy or girl, and there are simple non-evasive ways to determine which is true.

[wufan]

The people proposing these bills wouldn't be comfortable if their daughter played with any person with an XY chromosome or excessive testosterone. That would include people with Disorders of Sexual Development, i.e., intersex individuals. This even smaller subgroup is the reason why every form of gender screening in elite athletics and the current laws for school age children requires such test. These are people assigned female at birth, a prominent example would by Erik Schinegger (google them).

The Idaho requires sex testing. From what I can tell, the current proposed legislation in various states is largely copied of the Idaho law. Even if you personally believe that merely requiring a birth certificate, that is not what is being proposed or adopted. And where they do have a birth certificate requirement, the law currently allows for that birth certificate to be amended to reflect a transitioned gender (this is how it works in Texas), negating the point and just providing a costly barrier to entry.

As I stated, this is devil's advocacy position. I haven't see anyone criticize the effects the bills as proposed would have on the primary population they are supposed to affect, and I think that requires a critical look. If you agree that the solution currently found is unacceptable, you have found a reason to want these bills amended or recalled even if you agree with the gist of what they are trying to do.

Sex testing is a bad idea and they shouldn’t do that. Birth certificate.

[Shockm]

By the way, there is a bill in the state of Kansas that has been proposed on this issue. I believe that it is at the Committee level at this time. There are proponents of the bill as well as opponents. Some of the opponents think that this isn't a problem in Kansas yet, so why make it one.

[CBB_Fan]

I hadn't seen the Kansas law. It is based off the Idaho law:

The healthcare provider may verify the student's biological sex as part of a routine sports physical examination relying only on one or more of the following:
(A) The student's reproductive anatomy;
(B) genetic makeup; or
(C) normal endogenously produced testosterone levels

So now that it might affect our state, I will redouble my criticism. This bill will be discussed on 2-23-2021, four days from now. If you believe that this is not an appropriate response (IE, if they should simply require a birth certificate), contact state representatives and let them know your opinion.

[wufan]

I hadn't seen the Kansas law. It is based off the Idaho law:



So now that it might affect our state, I will redouble my criticism. This bill will be discussed on 2-23-2021, four days from now. If you believe that this is not an appropriate response (IE, if they should simply require a birth certificate), contact state representatives and let them know your opinion.

Do you have a link?

[MikeKennedyRulZ]

I think that you misunderstood the point. It wasn't the commonality of the issue, it was that this has never been a problem before, and gynecological testing was never necessary. For the few, who gum up the works, it can be a much simpler solution than that. Meaning that one is either biologically a boy or girl, and there are simple non-evasive ways to determine which is true.

I think you missed my point as well. I agree with you.

[Shockm]

Logic isn't always in vogue when the media becomes involved in a topic like transgenderism, that is a part of liberal modern culture/orthodoxy. This can be a complex, and emotional issue but also sometimes liberals make it out to be complex when there are simple human laws in effect.

Her is a small excerpt from Ryan Anderson's book on transgenderism, "When Sally Became Harry" that uses no opinions, but instead, only Science, biology, and logic.

Sex isn't assigned and surgery can't change it. Surgery doesn't reassign sex. That is impossible because it isn't assigned to begin with. Sex is a bodily reality of how an organism is organized with respect to sexual reproduction. That reality isn't assigned at birth or even afterward. Sex is established at conception. Sex can be visually observed well before birth at earliest stages of embryological development by using ultrasound imaging. People who undergo sex reassignment procedures do not become the opposite sex. They merely masculinize or feminize their outward appearance.

[CBB_Fan]

Ryan Anderson is a conservative political philosopher, not a doctor or scientist. He is best known for his work against gay marriage, with a previous book being cited in a dissenting opinion on United States v. Windsor. Anderson's primary argument in either case is that sex is purely concerned with reproduction, which is an opinion for better or worse.

As far as his scientific and biology credits are concerned, from the quoted snippet I do not believe he has done his research. There are a few genes we now understand that are responsible for sexual development in humans: SRY, SOX9, RSPO1/WNT4, FOXL2, and so on. Some of these are on sex chromosomes, while others are on other chromosomes but only activate in response to genes that should be present in the appropriate sex.

SRY is the primary driver of 'masculine' development and is initiated by SOX9, which isn't on a sex chromosome. Usually, a positive feedback loop happens when both are expressed which drives the development of testes and other masculine features in embryonic development. SOX9 is also noted for being a driver of metastatic cancer in adults. Several major disorders of sexual development occur when SRY doesn't function normally, namely Swyer Syndrome when it fails to function in XY individuals and XX Male syndrome when it translocates to the X chromosome.

RSPO1 and WNT4 help drive female embryonic development on the other hand. An absence of WNT4 is also required for male development. If an XY individual has WNT4 and no FGC9, a full sex reversal occurs. WNT4 is found on chromosome 1 and has many other functions outside female sexual development. RSPO1 is also found on chromosome 1, and genetic disorders involving it can result in the masculinization of female individuals even without SRY issues.

I bring this up because from a scientific standpoint the only 'real' differentiator between male and female are the sex chromosomes, the genes involved in sexual development, and the gonads. But none of those is a total binary. Moreover, it isn't as simple as saying that changes merely affect outward appearance. Gonadal tissues can spontaneously shift from ovary to teste when a single gene stops functioning (FOXL2), long after embryonic development; this can be artificially done in a lab. Similarly, there are many factors involved that can go awry in embryonic development after conception.

This has little to do with transgender individuals, but I think it is important to address whether or not Ryan Anderson has the proper understanding of the scientific principles behind the subject. At the very least, it does not appear that he incorporated modern research in embryonic development into his book.

[wufan]

Ryan Anderson is a conservative political philosopher, not a doctor or scientist. He is best known for his work against gay marriage, with a previous book being cited in a dissenting opinion on United States v. Windsor. Anderson's primary argument in either case is that sex is purely concerned with reproduction, which is an opinion for better or worse.

As far as his scientific and biology credits are concerned, from the quoted snippet I do not believe he has done his research. There are a few genes we now understand that are responsible for sexual development in humans: SRY, SOX9, RSPO1/WNT4, FOXL2, and so on. Some of these are on sex chromosomes, while others are on other chromosomes but only activate in response to genes that should be present in the appropriate sex.

SRY is the primary driver of 'masculine' development and is initiated by SOX9, which isn't on a sex chromosome. Usually, a positive feedback loop happens when both are expressed which drives the development of testes and other masculine features in embryonic development. SOX9 is also noted for being a driver of metastatic cancer in adults. Several major disorders of sexual development occur when SRY doesn't function normally, namely Swyer Syndrome when it fails to function in XY individuals and XX Male syndrome when it translocates to the X chromosome.

RSPO1 and WNT4 help drive female embryonic development on the other hand. An absence of WNT4 is also required for male development. If an XY individual has WNT4 and no FGC9, a full sex reversal occurs. WNT4 is found on chromosome 1 and has many other functions outside female sexual development. RSPO1 is also found on chromosome 1, and genetic disorders involving it can result in the masculinization of female individuals even without SRY issues.

I bring this up because from a scientific standpoint the only 'real' differentiator between male and female are the sex chromosomes, the genes involved in sexual development, and the gonads. But none of those is a total binary. Moreover, it isn't as simple as saying that changes merely affect outward appearance. Gonadal tissues can spontaneously shift from ovary to teste when a single gene stops functioning (FOXL2), long after embryonic development; this can be artificially done in a lab. Similarly, there are many factors involved that can go awry in embryonic development after conception.

This has little to do with transgender individuals, but I think it is important to address whether or not Ryan Anderson has the proper understanding of the scientific principles behind the subject. At the very least, it does not appear that he incorporated modern research in embryonic development into his book.

I don’t know or care who Ryan Anderson is, but if males and females are the same, **** title IX.

[wufan]

BTW, sex is absolutely a binary. Those people that “don’t fit the binary” are called outliers. The reason you see gender as a spectrum is due to phenotype. Genotype still exists. Your regurgitation of bullshit demonstrates your inability to live in reality.

[Shockm]

Ryan Anderson is a conservative political philosopher, not a doctor or scientist. He is best known for his work against gay marriage, with a previous book being cited in a dissenting opinion on United States v. Windsor. Anderson's primary argument in either case is that sex is purely concerned with reproduction, which is an opinion for better or worse.

As far as his scientific and biology credits are concerned, from the quoted snippet I do not believe he has done his research. There are a few genes we now understand that are responsible for sexual development in humans: SRY, SOX9, RSPO1/WNT4, FOXL2, and so on. Some of these are on sex chromosomes, while others are on other chromosomes but only activate in response to genes that should be present in the appropriate sex.

SRY is the primary driver of 'masculine' development and is initiated by SOX9, which isn't on a sex chromosome. Usually, a positive feedback loop happens when both are expressed which drives the development of testes and other masculine features in embryonic development. SOX9 is also noted for being a driver of metastatic cancer in adults. Several major disorders of sexual development occur when SRY doesn't function normally, namely Swyer Syndrome when it fails to function in XY individuals and XX Male syndrome when it translocates to the X chromosome.

RSPO1 and WNT4 help drive female embryonic development on the other hand. An absence of WNT4 is also required for male development. If an XY individual has WNT4 and no FGC9, a full sex reversal occurs. WNT4 is found on chromosome 1 and has many other functions outside female sexual development. RSPO1 is also found on chromosome 1, and genetic disorders involving it can result in the masculinization of female individuals even without SRY issues.

I bring this up because from a scientific standpoint the only 'real' differentiator between male and female are the sex chromosomes, the genes involved in sexual development, and the gonads. But none of those is a total binary. Moreover, it isn't as simple as saying that changes merely affect outward appearance. Gonadal tissues can spontaneously shift from ovary to teste when a single gene stops functioning (FOXL2), long after embryonic development; this can be artificially done in a lab. Similarly, there are many factors involved that can go awry in embryonic development after conception.

This has little to do with transgender individuals, but I think it is important to address whether or not Ryan Anderson has the proper understanding of the scientific principles behind the subject. At the very least, it does not appear that he incorporated modern research in embryonic development into his book.

You know all about the book from one paragraph? You are a judgemental, arrogant person. and I know this from reading your 5-6 paragraphs. :)

[CBB_Fan]

The reason you see gender as a spectrum is due to phenotype. Genotype still exists.

I know genotype exists, which is why my entire post was about genetics. In specific, I was responding to the sentiment of Ryan Anderson that "sex is established at conception" by discussing how a person's sexual development is determined by genes that can malfunction, rather than just by the presence of X and Y chromosomes.