All Things LGBTQ+ (2 Viewers)

[Farb]

Didn't really see a place for this so I thought I would start a thread about all things LGBTQ since this is a pretty hot topic in our culture right now

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/sup...y-that-refuses-to-work-with-lgbt-couples.html

• The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a unanimous defeat to LGBT couples in a high-profile case over whether Philadelphia could refuse to contract with a Roman Catholic adoption agency that says its religious beliefs prevent it from working with same-sex foster parents.
• Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an opinion for a majority of the court that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment by refusing to contract with Catholic Social Services once it learned that the organization would not certify same-sex couples for adoption.

I will admit, I was hopeful for this decision by the SCOTUS but I was surprised by the unanimous decision.

While I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with same sex couples adopting and raising children (I actually think it is a good thing as it not an abortion) but I also did not want to see the state force a religious institution to bend to a societal norm.

 

[SystemShock]

You're asking me a question when an overly graphically detailed answer to your question is above in the discarded part of my post you carved up to set this stage to ask me your question.

I suggest you scroll back up there to where it is and read it there, because I'm not going to bother to type it out for you again.

Your "overly graphically detailed answer" is nothing but a mere 2 sentence speculation on your part as to what you think it could happen in the future.

Your claim that males of the species can transform into females of the species or vise versa is utterly false. That you even made this claim tells me you are not intellectually honest , or that you know very little of biology, which you already hinted by not knowing the actual definition of biology.

 

[SamAndreas]

Your "overly graphically detailed answer" is nothing but a mere 2 sentence speculation on your part as to what you think it could happen in the future.

Your claim that males of the species can transform into females of the species or vise versa is utterly false. That you even made this claim tells me you are not intellectually honest , or that you know very little of biology, which you already hinted by not knowing the actual definition of biology.

I'm not the one who's considered opinion is running counter to the prevailing opinion on this matter.

Saying "utterly false" isn't a better argument than saying "false".

To be entirely intellectually honest here the definition of "biology" wasn't the word being discussed at that time, it was "biologically" and I quoted the actual definition prior to my discussion about it.



Here's what I do, I avoid assigning gender to a person until I have gotten and indication from that person as to what gender they prefer to be regarded as. It's not hard to do it that way, and in doing it that way I've encountered no problems (or persons) I couldn't simply ignore.

I had to ignore someone the other day, but it was no big deal. I was referring to the shooter at that school as "she" and this fellow interrupted rudely and said to me with tone "what's wrong with you, that's a guy."

It wasn't his business, so I ignored him and that solved that.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Another post that made me start writing many responses. I can't believe you honestly cannot see the difference between ethnicity and speciation (using speciation a bit loosely here as shorthand).

Yet, I'll say, arguments rise or fall on their own merits, regardless of the subject of the argument. Sometimes parallels or equivalencies can be drawn, but that is going to depend on what is being argued. So, yes, I could make the same argument for white people if they were put in a situation where they were being unfairly put in a disadvantage.

The other disconnect in your post is that in the U.S., and generally speaking, white people are perceived as having an advantage over non-white ethnicities, whereas in the case of the trans vs cis athlete argument, specifically when referring to females of the species and trans women, the equivalency here would be the females would be the non-whites, and not that females are "the whites" and transwomen the "non-whites".

You didn't address what I said.

But isn't it that not being the same as so-called cis-people is part of who they are?


Can we agree that cis people should not be overlooked? Or to heck with them?

People shouldn't be labeled phobic either because they don't agree 100% with a hashtag.
What about the basic human dignity of cis-people?

If this argument were presented along racial lines with someone saying the same thing about white people that you are saying about cis people, you would rightly denounce it as some racist bullshirt.

But isn't it that not being the same as so-called white people is part of who they are?


Can we agree that white people should not be overlooked? Or to heck with them?

People shouldn't be labeled phobic either because they don't agree 100% with a hashtag.
What about the basic human dignity of white people?

There. That's the point I was making. Do you think this argument is some racist bullshirt?

 

[SystemShock]

You didn't address what I said.

Yes, I did.

There. That's the point I was making. Do you think this argument is some racist bullshirt?

Why would you say that is "some racist bullshirt"? Again, it is going to depend on what's being argued. Plastering "white" all over my words don't make them racist.

 

[SystemShock]

I'm not the one who's considered opinion is running counter to the prevailing opinion on this matter.

Whose ignorant/intellectually dishonest/ideology driven opinion is that males of the species can transform into females of the species and vise versa?

Saying "utterly false" isn't a better argument than saying "false".

It's not an argument. It's emphasizing how wrong you are.

To be entirely intellectually honest here the definition of "biology" wasn't the word being discussed at that time, it was "biologically" and I quoted the actual definition prior to my discussion about it.

Where the hell do you think the word "biological" comes from? I even pasted the definitions of it for you.

Here's what I do, I avoid assigning gender to a person until I have gotten and indication from that person as to what gender they prefer to be regarded as. It's not hard to do it that way, and in doing it that way I've encountered no problems (or persons) I couldn't simply ignore.

Good for you, but what does gender have to do with what we are discussing?

I had to ignore someone the other day, but it was no big deal. I was referring to the shooter at that school as "she" and this fellow interrupted rudely and said to me with tone "what's wrong with you, that's a guy."

It wasn't his business, so I ignored him and that solved that.

Again, good for you, but what does that have to do with what we are discussing?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Yes, I did.

You did? Let's check on that.

Why would you say that is "some racist bullshirt"? Again, it is going to depend on what's being argued. Plastering "white" all over my words don't make them racist.

Ah... seems you were mistaken. You've now failed to address it twice. Is the hypothetical argument, as presented, racist in your opinion?

 

[Huntn]

Yes, those are my words in English.

No, they cannot do that.
Do you understand what male and female of the species are?

Your "overly graphically detailed answer" is nothing but a mere 2 sentence speculation on your part as to what you think it could happen in the future.

Your claim that males of the species can transform into females of the species or vise versa is utterly false. That you even made this claim tells me you are not intellectually honest , or that you know very little of biology, which you already hinted by not knowing the actual definition of biology.

I am late to the discussion, not yet sure where the participants in this thread stand exactly on the topic, but based on your quotes, my observation.

While people don’t naturally transform from one sex to another after birth, there are cases of sexual ambiguity at birth where doctors have made a choice probably based on what was easiest (snip). So what makes the sexually ambiguous body male or female? It also appears to be well documented that sexual identity can be separate from biological sexuality and that modern medicine can transform sexual appearance of the body (other than reproductive capability) to align with the individual’s sexual identity. Do we argue for and defend the body or the brain? That takes us back to physical sexual ambiguity.

What is really disgusting is the poisonous antics displayed by knuckle dragger Tucker Carlson in this ploy to express and generate hate, violence, and gather ignorant, intolerant gutter power for himself.

 

[SamAndreas]

Whose ignorant/intellectually dishonest/ideology driven opinion is that males of the species can transform into females of the species and vise versa?


It's not an argument. It's emphasizing how wrong you are.


Where the hell do you think the word "biological" comes from? I even pasted the definitions of it for you.


Good for you, but what does gender have to do with what we are discussing?


Again, good for you, but what does that have to do with what we are discussing?

I'll refer to Lakota Man for any further discussion on this topic.

 

[SystemShock]

While people don’t naturally transform from one sex to another after birth,

... nor artificially.

there are cases of sexual ambiguity at birth where doctors have made a choice probably based on what was easiest (snip). So what makes the sexually ambiguous body male or female?

Is that transformation from one to the other, or choosing from two available options? Is that the norm, or an abnormality?

sexual identity

I am not talking about identity.

What is really disgusting is the poisonous antics displayed by knuckle dragger Tucker Carlson in this ploy to express and generate hate, violence, and gather ignorant, intolerant gutter power for himself.

Why are you bringing Tucker Carlson into a response to my post?

Yet again, a female of the species cannot transform into a male of the species or vise versa. Any attempt to rationalize otherwise is either intellectually dishonest or ignorant.

If you have any proof of a male/female of the species transforming into a female/male of the species, by all means, present it. Otherwise stop giving me the same run-around everyone else gives me because you cannot even bring yourself to agree with a fact which is demonstrably true.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

Some NHL players are refusing to wear ‘Pride’ jerseys. Marty Walsh says the LGBTQ community shouldn’t feel slighted. - The Boston Globe

The new NHLPA director said he thinks the refusal to wear rainbow-colored jerseys shouldn't be a sign players are "turning their back" on the LGBTQ community.

www.bostonglobe.com

​

​

Some NHL players are refusing to wear ‘Pride’ jerseys. Marty Walsh says the LGBTQ community shouldn’t feel slighted.​

By Andrew Mahoney Globe Staff,Updated March 31, 2023, 2:12 p.m.

The Chicago Blackhawks hosted a Pride night, but did not have players wear Pride-themed warmup jerseys, citing an anti-gay law in Russia.Nam Y. Huh/Associated Press

In his first press conference in his new role as executive director of the NHL Players’ Association, former Boston Mayor Marty Walsh was asked about the issue of NHL players opting out of wearing rainbow-colored jerseys for pregame warmups on team Pride nights.

“People have very different reasons, why players decided not to wear the jersey,” said Walsh. “I’m personally supportive of the LGBTQ community. I always will be. And the more I get an opportunity to talk to people about this and learn more about it, I will.

“I don’t think the LGBTQ community should feel that the NHL players are turning their back on their community. The majority of the players wore the jersey.”

Pride nights have been held by NHL teams for the last few years to show support for the LGBTQ+ community, with players wearing Pride-themed jerseys during pregame warmups. But this season some players have chosen not to participate.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

...............................

If you have any proof of a male/female of the species transforming into a female/male of the species, by all means, present it. ..........................

Happens every day 100s of thousands of times.

All human individuals—whether they have an XX, an XY, or an atypical sex chromosome combination—begin development from the same starting point. During early development the gonads of the fetus remain undifferentiated; that is, all fetal genitalia are the same and are phenotypically female.

 

[Huntn]

... nor artificially.

Is that transformation from one to the other, or choosing from two available options? Is that the norm, or an abnormality?


I am not talking about identity.


Why are you bringing Tucker Carlson into a response to my post?

Yet again, a female of the species cannot transform into a male of the species or vise versa. Any attempt to rationalize otherwise is either intellectually dishonest or ignorant.

If you have any proof of a male/female of the species transforming into a female/male of the species, by all means, present it. Otherwise stop giving me the same run-around everyone else gives me because you cannot even bring yourself to agree with a fact which is demonstrably true.

Based on your lack of counter arguments other than “biology rules”, you don’t seem to be open minded on this topic, you don’t appear to want to consider how sexual ambiguity could impact your 100% biology argument, your opinion appears set in concrete, based exclusively on physical biology, which as I have proven is not a viable argument in itself. Additionally your position is based on a binary premise which is fundamentally in error. I accept your disagreement in advance.

 

[SamAndreas]

... nor artificially.

Is that transformation from one to the other, or choosing from two available options? Is that the norm, or an abnormality?


I am not talking about identity.


Why are you bringing Tucker Carlson into a response to my post?

Yet again, a female of the species cannot transform into a male of the species or vise versa. Any attempt to rationalize otherwise is either intellectually dishonest or ignorant.

If you have any proof of a male/female of the species transforming into a female/male of the species, by all means, present it. Otherwise stop giving me the same run-around everyone else gives me because you cannot even bring yourself to agree with a fact which is demonstrably true.

You said "If you have any proof of a male/female of the species transforming into a female/male of the species, by all means, present it. Otherwise stop giving me the same run-around everyone else gives me because you cannot even bring yourself to agree with a fact which is demonstrably true."

Male Lactation is a fascinating topic which I looked up after having seen a drop of liquid kind of resembling milk ooze out of me in the middle of the night when my daughter was but an infant and my wife was too tired to be awakened yet again that night. I was feeling some anguish over the situation as I tried to comfort my daughter while protecting my wife who needed sleep so bad that she didn't wake up.

Charles Darwin "commented on it in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871):"

It is well known that in the males of all mammals, including man, rudimentary mammae exist. These in several instances have become well developed, and have yielded a copious supply of milk. Their essential identity in the two sexes is likewise shown by their occasional sympathetic enlargement in both during an attack of the measles.[2]

"Darwin later considered the nearly perfect function of male nipples in contrast to greatly reduced structures such as the vesicula prostatica, speculating that both sexes may have nursed young in early mammalian ancestors, and subsequently mammals evolved to inactivate them in males at an early age."

Male lactation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There are documented cases of men having provided for their children in a maternal sense when their wives were very sick or had died. Apparently strong emotions for the survival of their child can trigger hormones within a male which will activate the mammary glands they do possess.

Simply put a significant part of every man is a woman, and a significant part of every woman is a man. It is amazing what hormones can do to adjust that balance.

 

[Neworleansfan]

Ben Franklin High School students walk out to protest anti-LGBTQ+ bills

Vincent Jarand looked at the crowd of hundreds of Benjamin Franklin High School students gathered in front of the school Friday afternoon, many holding pride flags and signs that read

www.nola.com

Good job.

 

[SystemShock]

Based on your lack of counter arguments other than “biology rules”, you don’t seem to be open minded on this topic, you don’t appear to want to consider how sexual ambiguity could impact your 100% biology argument, your opinion appears set in concrete, based exclusively on physical biology, which as I have proven is not a viable argument in itself. Additionally your position is based on a binary premise which is fundamentally in error. I accept your disagreement in advance.

Since you continue to bring up sexuality, I am going to assume you didn't read the entire thread and just jumped in blind, so I'll clarify that I 've been discussing trans athletes, more specifically transwomen playing in female sports, and the biological/physiological differences between the males and females of the species, something in which sexuality doesn't factor in at all.

There is no other context to my comments.

 

[MT15]

This warms my heart

 

[Huntn]

Since you continue to bring up sexuality, I am going to assume you didn't read the entire thread and just jumped in blind, so I'll clarify that I 've been discussing trans athletes, more specifically transwomen playing in female sports, and the biological/physiological differences between the males and females of the species, something in which sexuality doesn't factor in at all.

There is no other context to my comments.

The thread is All Things LGBTQ+. My first post here I described myself as late to the discussion, and I did not review the entire thread. So apologies, if I misread your meaning or your intent.

However, sexuality is not a simple binary situation. This is my point. It can’t be said that all men are stronger than all women. But looking at professional football players I can say that at the top levels of pure brute physicality, men do hold the advantage.

However the situation Imo regarding trans athletes is not a simple binary situation. At the gym, I’ve seen small framed men, and large muscular women. I agree that some formerly male athlete (possible disagreement about this terminology acknowledged in advance) may have an unfair advantage in sporting events, but this might have to be on a case by case basis which complicates the issue.

I am not an expert on the topic, but my impression is that the process of converting involves hormones that have an effect on muscle mass. If the this process acts in a way to neutralize a gender advantage than I don’t have a problem with it. Happy to discuss counter arguments.

Some politicians have said that a sex conversation before puberty makes it ok, but then there are others who say a conversion before puberty should be illegal. It is a messy situation, but the crux of the matter coming from the conservative side of things is there is no tolerance to anything other than a binary view and solution.

 

[SystemShock]

However, sexuality is not a simple binary situation. This is my point.

Sure, but again, nothing to do with sports.

It can’t be said that all men are stronger than all women. But looking at professional football players I can say that at the top levels of pure brute physicality, men do hold the advantage.

However the situation Imo regarding trans athletes is not a simple binary situation. At the gym, I’ve seen small framed men, and large muscular women. I agree that some formerly male athlete (possible disagreement about this terminology acknowledged in advance) may have an unfair advantage in sporting events, but this might have to be on a case by case basis which complicates the issue.

Sure... Andrea Shaw is more muscular than probably 90% of the male population. But 90% of the male population don't compete in pro-body building or play sports that require a person to be muscular. 90% of the male population don't do 'roids either.

I am not an expert on the topic, but my impression is that the process of converting involves hormones that have an effect on muscle mass. If the this process acts in a way to neutralize a gender advantage than I don’t have a problem with it. Happy to discuss counter arguments.

Tell that to people like Hannah Arensman.

Some politicians have said that a sex conversation before puberty makes it ok, but then there are others who say a conversion before puberty should be illegal. It is a messy situation, but the crux of the matter coming from the conservative side of things is there is no tolerance to anything other than a binary view and solution.

I don't think politicians are the best source of information. Some politicians think transpeople are the devil's spawn too.

And no, it doesn't have to be a binary solution. The solution to me is simply trans divisions: male, female, trans male, trans female. Ironically, the people who champion 100% everything LGBTQ+ and gender spectrums insist on the binary model as well when it comes to sports.