What to call this thread?

PS
This may be the more useful definition:

cisgender​

adjective sis-ˈjen-dərd

of, relating to, or being a person whose gender identity corresponds with the sex the person was identified as having at birth
 

Ohio House passes 11th-hour bill forcing teachers and counselors to out LGBTQ+ students; now heads to governor

‘We’re again saving the very worst piece of legislation for the middle of the night where everyone has tuned out.’
By Ken Schneck (he/him), Editor

After midnight on the last day of Ohio’s two-year legislative session, the Ohio House voted to approve HB 8, the Parents’ Bill of Rights.

HB 8 will force teachers and school staff to out LGBTQ+ youth to their parents and will limit the mention of LGBTQ+ identity in school curricula.

“We’re again saving the very worst piece of legislation for the middle of the night where everyone has tuned out,” said House Minority Leader Allison Russo (D-Upper Arlington).

The bill requires that teachers and school staff – including school social workers, counselors and psychologists – notify a student’s parent of “any change in the student’s services, including counseling services, or monitoring related to the student’s mental, emotional or physical health or well-being.”

The legislation specifically calls out trans identity as necessitating parental notification, and previous testimony has affirmed that disclosures of sexual orientation would also trigger parental contact.

The bill further bans any mention of ...

CONTINUED
 
470585001_1045329754294333_2924451624815843988_n.jpg
 
"...changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure." U.S. President Bush (younger)
The biblical definition of marriage is a lot broader than "one man/one woman"

lgsazonawx4a1.jpg


Denying an adult the right of marriage is discrimination.

Absolutely - and the only way that allowing same sex marriage will impact someone else's marriage is if one (or both) or the partners in that marriage is gay or bi.

On a related note, Jesus spoke out against divorce on at least four separate occasions but "[a] Pew Research Center study in 2015 found that evangelical Protestants in the US were more likely to be divorced or separated than Catholics, Jews, Muslims or atheists."
 
470986551_1115285347275303_7413314485452567109_n.jpg

Besides, if it really was about the children they'd be lobbying to shut down Sunday Schools, Bible Camps, and the Boy Scouts. After all, children really have been assaulted in those places.
 
"Can I get some trans-woman-using-a-bathroom outrage about Matt Gaetz ...? elle_two #487
(y)
That's not the end of the story.
Detecting hypocrisy is relevant, but there's more to it than that. In Gaetz case it suggests that's not the issue. BUT !
If that's not the issue in Gaetz case, what was the issue when they said it was, for Democrats they opposed? If it wasn't what they said it was, then it was something else. Something else they were too ashamed of to admit? Principle?

"Besides, if it really was about the children they'd be lobbying to shut down Sunday Schools, Bible Camps, and the Boy Scouts. After all, children really have been assaulted in those places." S2 #487

I support the idea of Boy Scouts. Under ideal conditions I can easily imagine it to be a constructive presence in boy's journey to adulthood.
If we shut down every institution exploited by pedophilic perverts what institutions would we have left?
- Not Boy Scouts.
- Not public school.
- Not churches.
- Not even family.

We need a Silver bullet.
 
Homophobia: Not Only For MAGA

Russian man accused of running LGBTQ travel agency found dead in custody​

Dec. 29, 2024, 4:22 PM GMT-5 / By The Associated Press
A Russian man arrested and accused of running a travel agency for gay customers was found dead in custody in Moscow, rights group OVD-Info reported Sunday, amid a crackdown on LGBTQ rights in Russia.
According to OVD-Info, which tracks political arrests, Andrei Kotov — director of the “Men Travel” agency — faced charges of “organizing extremist activity and participating in it.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out...ing-lgbtq-travel-agency-found-dead-rcna185698


Love conquers all?
- nope -
Oh wouldn't that be lovely if it did?
 

Transgender trailblazer Sarah McBride heads to her debut in Congress, hoping for a touch of grace​

McBride's political ascension comes during a reckoning for transgender rights, when legislation in Republican-governed states around the country aims to curb their advance.
Dec. 31, 2024, 9:34 AM GMT-5 By The Associated Press
DOVER, Del. — It was her last day in session as a Delaware state senator, and Sarah McBride sat in her tiny office at the state Capitol, preparing farewell remarks.
She had made history here, as the first openly transgender state senator in the country. Now she was making history again, recently elected as the first openly transgender member of Congress.

Her political promotion has come during a reckoning for transgender rights, when legislation in Republican-governed states around the country aims to curb their advance. During an election where a deluge of campaign ads and politicians demeaned trans people, McBride still easily won her blue state’s only seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.
But even before she is sworn in on Friday, her reception from congressional Republicans has been tumultuous. Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina targeted her by proposing to ban transgender people from U.S. Capitol restrooms that correspond to their gender identity — a ban that House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., enacted.
For her part, McBride tried to defuse the situation, saying she would follow the rules. “I’m not here to fight about bathrooms,” the 34-year-old wrote in a statement.
While some activists want her to fight harder, to those who know her, the move was classic Sarah — a pragmatist with a reputation of bipartisanship, a person who values diplomacy over pugilism.

The
The *phobes will hold powerful influence over the news of this member of congress (MOC). If they convert it to a restroom issue, policy positions on domestic spending, national security, etc may be hushed, suppressed.
Hmmm, why would Republicans want to take -woke- MOC off message? ...
 
1735910493528.png

472236551_10164909287293858_7507204043308050225_n.jpg



Rebecca Helm, a biologist and an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina, Asheville US writes:

Friendly neighborhood biologist here. I see a lot of people are talking about biological sexes and gender right now. Lots of folks make biological sex sex seem really simple. Well, since it’s so simple, let’s find the biological roots, shall we? Let’s talk about sex...

If you know a bit about biology you will probably say that biological sex is caused by chromosomes, XX and you’re female, XY and you’re male. This is “chromosomal sex” but is it “biological sex”? Well...

Turns out there is only ONE GENE on the Y chromosome that really matters to sex. It’s called the SRY gene. During human embryonic development the SRY protein turns on male-associated genes. Having an SRY gene makes you “genetically male”. But is this “biological sex”?

Sometimes that SRY gene pops off the Y chromosome and over to an X chromosome. Surprise! So now you’ve got an X with an SRY and a Y without an SRY. What does this mean?

A Y with no SRY means physically you’re female, chromosomally you’re male (XY) and genetically you’re female (no SRY). An X with an SRY means you’re physically male, chromsomally female (XX) and genetically male (SRY). But biological sex is simple! There must be another answer...

Sex-related genes ultimately turn on hormones in specifics areas on the body, and reception of those hormones by cells throughout the body. Is this the root of “biological sex”??

“Hormonal male” means you produce ‘normal’ levels of male-associated hormones. Except some percentage of females will have higher levels of ‘male’ hormones than some percentage of males. Ditto ditto ‘female’ hormones. And...

...if you’re developing, your body may not produce enough hormones for your genetic sex. Leading you to be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally non-binary, and physically non-binary. Well, except cells have something to say about this...

Maybe cells are the answer to “biological sex”?? Right?? Cells have receptors that “hear” the signal from sex hormones. But sometimes those receptors don’t work. Like a mobile phone that’s on “do not disturb’. Call and cell, they will not answer.
What does this all mean?

It means you may be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally male/female/non-binary, with cells that may or may not hear the male/female/non-binary call, and all this leading to a body that can be male/non-binary/female.

Try out some combinations for yourself. Notice how confusing it gets? Can you point to what the absolute cause of biological sex is? Is it fair to judge people by it?
Of course you could try appealing to the numbers. “Most people are either male or female” you say. Except that as a biologist professor I will tell you...

The reason I don’t have my students look at their own chromosome in class is because people could learn that their chromosomal sex doesn’t match their physical sex, and learning that in the middle of a 10-point assignment is JUST NOT THE TIME.

Biological sex is complicated. Before you discriminate against someone on the basis of “biological sex” & identity, ask yourself: have you seen YOUR chromosomes? Do you know the genes of the people you love? The hormones of the people you work with? The state of their cells?

Since the answer will obviously be no, please be kind, respect people’s right to tell you who they are, and remember that you don’t have all the answers. Again: biology is complicated. Kindness and respect don’t have to be.

Note: Biological classifications exist. XX, XY, XXY XXYY and all manner of variation which is why sex isn't classified as binary. You can't have a binary classification system with more than two configurations even if two of those configurations are more common than others.

Biology is a shitshow. And we’ve not even discussed the gender side of things where the brain is not aligned with the assigned sex. Be kind to people.
 
#491 Rebecca Helm, a biologist and an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina, Asheville US writes:

Friendly neighborhood biologist here. I see a lot of people are talking about biological sexes and gender right now. Lots of folks make biological sex sex seem really simple. Well, since it’s so simple, let’s find the biological roots, shall we? Let’s talk about sex...

If you know a bit about biology you will probably say that biological sex is caused by chromosomes, XX and you’re female, XY and you’re male. This is “chromosomal sex” but is it “biological sex”? Well...

Turns out there is only ONE GENE on the Y chromosome that really matters to sex. It’s called the SRY gene. During human embryonic development the SRY protein turns on male-associated genes. Having an SRY gene makes you “genetically male”. But is this “biological sex”?

Sometimes that SRY gene pops off the Y chromosome and over to an X chromosome. Surprise! So now you’ve got an X with an SRY and a Y without an SRY. What does this mean?

A Y with no SRY means physically you’re female, chromosomally you’re male (XY) and genetically you’re female (no SRY). An X with an SRY means you’re physically male, chromsomally female (XX) and genetically male (SRY). But biological sex is simple! There must be another answer...

Sex-related genes ultimately turn on hormones in specifics areas on the body, and reception of those hormones by cells throughout the body. Is this the root of “biological sex”??

“Hormonal male” means you produce ‘normal’ levels of male-associated hormones. Except some percentage of females will have higher levels of ‘male’ hormones than some percentage of males. Ditto ditto ‘female’ hormones. And...

...if you’re developing, your body may not produce enough hormones for your genetic sex. Leading you to be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally non-binary, and physically non-binary. Well, except cells have something to say about this...

Maybe cells are the answer to “biological sex”?? Right?? Cells have receptors that “hear” the signal from sex hormones. But sometimes those receptors don’t work. Like a mobile phone that’s on “do not disturb’. Call and cell, they will not answer.
What does this all mean?

It means you may be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally male/female/non-binary, with cells that may or may not hear the male/female/non-binary call, and all this leading to a body that can be male/non-binary/female.

Try out some combinations for yourself. Notice how confusing it gets? Can you point to what the absolute cause of biological sex is? Is it fair to judge people by it?
Of course you could try appealing to the numbers. “Most people are either male or female” you say. Except that as a biologist professor I will tell you...

The reason I don’t have my students look at their own chromosome in class is because people could learn that their chromosomal sex doesn’t match their physical sex, and learning that in the middle of a 10-point assignment is JUST NOT THE TIME.

Biological sex is complicated. Before you discriminate against someone on the basis of “biological sex” & identity, ask yourself: have you seen YOUR chromosomes? Do you know the genes of the people you love? The hormones of the people you work with? The state of their cells?

Since the answer will obviously be no, please be kind, respect people’s right to tell you who they are, and remember that you don’t have all the answers. Again: biology is complicated. Kindness and respect don’t have to be.

Note: Biological classifications exist. XX, XY, XXY XXYY and all manner of variation which is why sex isn't classified as binary. You can't have a binary classification system with more than two configurations even if two of those configurations are more common than others.

Biology is a shitshow. And we’ve not even discussed the gender side of things where the brain is not aligned with the assigned sex. Be kind to people.
Well done Rebecca #491, & S2.

So with that elucidating primer, we now toe the starting line. Where do we go from here?

Let's reason this out from the porcelain perspective.
Large public access accommodations such as sports stadia designed for simultaneous occupation of tens of thousands of humans typically have two standards for toilet facilities.
One standard tailored for men. A separate different standard for women. Fine.

Would it make sense to expand such accommodations to include dedicated toilet facilities for each of the categories biologist Rebecca Helm includes above?
And if we are to do that at Wrigley Field and Madison Square Garden, would ticket revenues falter if the cost of such additional expenditure is reflected in ticket prices? Would ticket buyers prefer / approve this "improvement"?

And if at Wrigley Field and Madison Square, also at Taco Bell & KFC?

"Be kind to people." Rebecca Helm, a biologist #491

Rebecca,
For those that find "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." too complicated,
you have refined a viable philosophy down to four words. (y)
How do you propose to persuade 8 billion humans to live by it? Can you complete that task before dinner?
 
On the subject of public toilets we always come back to the proverbial "How will you know?" After all, washrooms have cubicles so, unless you're in the habit of peering over (or under) the dividers you're not going to know what the person in the next cubicle is doing.

1735920618699.png
 
"On the subject of public toilets we always come back to the proverbial "How will you know?"" #493
Indeed.
That corroborates the reductio ad absurdum reasoning disclosed in #492.

SO !!
If we are to embrace the status quo porcelain apportionment, what?
Expand our list of courtesy titles in the lexicon, from Miss, Mrs, & Mr.? Add what? MiX, inspired by Elon Musk?

Is there more to be done, in addition to living by Rebecca Helm's formula "Be kind to people"?
 
FIRST ON FOX: Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., is reintroducing a measure to prevent biological male participation in women's and girls' sports in the newly Republican-led Senate, and with the approval of leadership, it's expected to get a floor vote.
Ans knowing the attitude of the GOP it will probably pass.
 
Back
Top