All Things LGBTQ+ (13 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.

 

[MT15]

Most likely, if not surely. But again, I am just saying we should not grab bias-confirming click grabbers and run with them.

This is a distinction without a difference. I was the one who said a menopausal woman wouldn’t be allowed, not the tweet. It would still impact plenty of people.

Intersex people would be banned from women’s bathrooms. As would people who have no reproductive organs whether from removal or from birth. The man pictured in my previous post would be required to use the women’s bathroom.

These laws are idiotic full stop. They don’t actually protect women, and they’re not intended to do so. They are only intended to punish trans people. Believe me, Republicans are not only doing nothing to protect women, they are actively hurting women every day.

This isn’t a good law.

Added: reading that definition I’m not actually sure that your interpretation is what they mean. “Developed to produce ova” could actually be interpreted that ova must be produced. It’s not very clear.

 

[SystemShock]

This is a distinction without a difference. I was the one who said a menopausal woman wouldn’t be allowed, not the tweet. It would still impact plenty of people.

The tweet says "which means that infertile and intersex women are now banned from using womens’ bathrooms in the state."
Can we agree that, as the bill is written, infertile women will not be banned from bathrooms?

Intersex people would be banned from women’s bathrooms.

Are intersex people all the same? Or are there various conditions that define an individual as intersex?

These laws are idiotic full stop. They don’t actually protect women, and they’re not intended to do so. They are only intended to punish trans people. Believe me, Republicans are not only doing nothing to protect women, they are actively hurting women every day.

This isn’t a good law.

Be sure that I am not saying this is a good law or a smart law. I am just saying that we shouldn't take twitter click grabbers and run with them without reading the actual source.

IMO, part of it may be the intent to hurt trans people, but I think it is more that trans people are easy targets in the current culture war, and they are getting hurt in the process. For trans people, that really is, like you said, a distinction without difference, they get hurt regardless.

That said, I still hold my position that there need to be certain limitations in favor of females of the species around sports and centers for abused women.

Added: reading that definition I’m not actually sure that your interpretation is what they mean. “Developed to produce ova” could actually be interpreted that ova must be produced. It’s not very clear.

It is an incomplete/poor attempt at defining a female of the species, but "developed to produce ova" doesn't mean "produces ova".

 

[MT15]

Yes, I agree that a menopausal woman wouldn’t be banned. But one with a hysterectomy would, IMO. And I still think it’s a horrible law written poorly. And I cannot ever believe that the R party wants to protect women in any way. They want to control them, for sure, and punish them if they get out of bounds. And they want to punish trans people. That’s about it.

 

[RobF]

The tweet says "which means that infertile and intersex women are now banned from using womens’ bathrooms in the state."
Can we agree that, as the bill is written, infertile women will not be banned from bathrooms?
...
It is an incomplete/poor attempt at defining a female of the species, but "developed to produce ova" doesn't mean "produces ova".

But you're interpreting there. While "developed to produce ova" doesn't necessarily mean "produces ova", it could be taken to mean "produces ova now, or has produced, or can be presumed to produce ova in the future," on the basis that someone who has a body to which none of those apply does not have a "biological reproductive system" "developed to produce ova" - because their 'biological reproductive system' doesn't do that.

That would include some infertile women.

 

[MT15]

Yes, because there are certainly women who have the structures but have never produced ova. And I cannot believe we are even discussing this. Can you imagine if something as basic as going to the bathroom was being litigated like this FOR MEN? If their right to go into a men’s room depended on the status of their junk? Whether it functioned as a bunch of women defined it?

I cannot believe what men will do to women.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Nature does binary very well, especially when it comes to mammals. We wouldn't be without this binary model.
Intersex people, that sort of a spectrum. Not that I think proposers of such bills recognize birth defects.

I don't understand this -- on the one hand you say that nature is binary but then you acknowledge the existence of intersex people. That is obviously proof that sex is a spectrum. Every human has all the blueprints needed to be male or female, and different genes turn off or on functions. Some people have genes that turn on things that are typically associated with both men and women, and some people have genes that turn on neither of them, and you get all sorts of variations.

This is why you have some women who produce more testosterone, have denser muscles and bone structure than some men. It's why you have some women act more masculine than some men.... and so on. It's why the "wE CaN AlwAys TeLl" crowd are idiots - you can see all the examples of people showing a picture of Katie Ledecky and saying it's Lia Thomas and getting that crowd to say how they can tell Katie is really a male just by looking at her. She clearly got some of the benefits typically associated with male development (tall, broad shoulders, dense muscles) but is obviously a woman.

It's why Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome is a thing --- they have all the genetic and chromosomal makeup of men, but look like women - b/c the default is female and certain genes direct actions to make men develop, but in those with AIS, even though the genes dictate the production androgen, the rest of the body is resistant to it so the body develops phenotypically like a woman.

It's why scientist can manipulate the FOXL2 gene in mice to make male mice produce ova... the data is all there in both males and females, it just develops along a path determined by a complex set of genes -- and some people move along that spectrum more than others.

 

[coldseat]

I don't understand this -- on the one hand you say that nature is binary but then you acknowledge the existence of intersex people. That is obviously proof that sex is a spectrum. Every human has all the blueprints needed to be male or female, and different genes turn off or on functions. Some people have genes that turn on things that are typically associated with both men and women, and some people have genes that turn on neither of them, and you get all sorts of variations.

This is why you have some women who produce more testosterone, have denser muscles and bone structure than some men. It's why you have some women act more masculine than some men.... and so on. It's why the "wE CaN AlwAys TeLl" crowd are idiots - you can see all the examples of people showing a picture of Katie Ledecky and saying it's Lia Thomas and getting that crowd to say how they can tell Katie is really a male just by looking at her. She clearly got some of the benefits typically associated with male development (tall, broad shoulders, dense muscles) but is obviously a woman.

It's why Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome is a thing --- they have all the genetic and chromosomal makeup of men, but look like women - b/c the default is female and certain genes direct actions to make men develop, but in those with AIS, even though the genes dictate the production androgen, the rest of the body is resistant to it so the body develops phenotypically like a woman.

It's why scientist can manipulate the FOXL2 gene in mice to make male mice produce ovaries... the data is all there in both males and females, it just develops along a path determined by a complex set of genes -- and some people move along that spectrum more than others.

I'll help you out here. What he's saying is that anybody that isn't the binary XY with matching gender and hormonal profile is an anomaly (i.e. mistake) of nature.

It's the reductive view (and ironically the religious view) of nature instead of the expansive view of nature that you and I take that sees sex and gender as a spectrum and not anomalies.

 

[SystemShock]

I'll help you out here. What he's saying is that anybody that isn't the binary XY with matching gender and hormonal profile is an anomaly (i.e. mistake) of nature.
It's the reductive view (and ironically the religious view) of nature instead of the expansive view of nature that you and I take that sees sex and gender as a spectrum and not anomalies.

Oh, boy, you got me. Bravo.

 

[SystemShock]

But you're interpreting there. While "developed to produce ova" doesn't necessarily mean "produces ova", it could be taken to mean "produces ova now, or has produced, or can be presumed to produce ova in the future," on the basis that someone who has a body to which none of those apply does not have a "biological reproductive system" "developed to produce ova" - because their 'biological reproductive system' doesn't do that.

That would include some infertile women.

It could be taken to mean whatever you want it be, I guess, but it is evident that "developed to produce ova" doesn't mean "produces ova".

 

[SystemShock]

I don't understand this -- on the one hand you say that nature is binary but then you acknowledge the existence of intersex people. That is obviously proof that sex is a spectrum. Every human has all the blueprints needed to be male or female, and different genes turn off or on functions. Some people have genes that turn on things that are typically associated with both men and women, and some people have genes that turn on neither of them, and you get all sorts of variations.

This is why you have some women who produce more testosterone, have denser muscles and bone structure than some men. It's why you have some women act more masculine than some men.... and so on. It's why the "wE CaN AlwAys TeLl" crowd are idiots - you can see all the examples of people showing a picture of Katie Ledecky and saying it's Lia Thomas and getting that crowd to say how they can tell Katie is really a male just by looking at her. She clearly got some of the benefits typically associated with male development (tall, broad shoulders, dense muscles) but is obviously a woman.

It's why Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome is a thing --- they have all the genetic and chromosomal makeup of men, but look like women - b/c the default is female and certain genes direct actions to make men develop, but in those with AIS, even though the genes dictate the production androgen, the rest of the body is resistant to it so the body develops phenotypically like a woman.

It's why scientist can manipulate the FOXL2 gene in mice to make male mice produce ova... the data is all there in both males and females, it just develops along a path determined by a complex set of genes -- and some people move along that spectrum more than others.

I said nature does binary very well, not that nature is binary. And when I say nature, I mean all of nature, not just humans. In nature, you surely find plants that change sexes (like papayas) or animals that reproduce asexually, (like some lizards), but overwhelmingly, nature does binary very well.

The science you describe, you don't have to repeat it every time; at least not to me. I have to say, you and I aren't that far apart. I read your post on the Motherboard (SR) and you agree or tend to agree at some level with me, as much as I agree and tend to agree at some level with you. You are absolutely right when you say that transphobia is dictating a lot of the conversation, and to me, it seems that the part of the conversation that is not dominated by transphobia, is dominated by the other side of the spectrum, which really doesn't have a label, but to me is basically "you are 100% on this side or you are the phobic enemy"; look at the response from coldseat.

 

[Lapaz]

I don't understand this -- on the one hand you say that nature is binary but then you acknowledge the existence of intersex people. That is obviously proof that sex is a spectrum. Every human has all the blueprints needed to be male or female, and different genes turn off or on functions. Some people have genes that turn on things that are typically associated with both men and women, and some people have genes that turn on neither of them, and you get all sorts of variations.

This is why you have some women who produce more testosterone, have denser muscles and bone structure than some men. It's why you have some women act more masculine than some men.... and so on. It's why the "wE CaN AlwAys TeLl" crowd are idiots - you can see all the examples of people showing a picture of Katie Ledecky and saying it's Lia Thomas and getting that crowd to say how they can tell Katie is really a male just by looking at her. She clearly got some of the benefits typically associated with male development (tall, broad shoulders, dense muscles) but is obviously a woman.

It's why Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome is a thing --- they have all the genetic and chromosomal makeup of men, but look like women - b/c the default is female and certain genes direct actions to make men develop, but in those with AIS, even though the genes dictate the production androgen, the rest of the body is resistant to it so the body develops phenotypically like a woman.

It's why scientist can manipulate the FOXL2 gene in mice to make male mice produce ova... the data is all there in both males and females, it just develops along a path determined by a complex set of genes -- and some people move along that spectrum more than others.

Chromosomes are binary, except for rare genetic mutations which rarely survive. If you have 2 X chromosomes, you’re biologically a female.

 

[MT15]

Chromosomes are binary, except for rare genetic mutations which rarely survive. If you have 2 X chromosomes, you’re biologically a female.

It’s not that simple. Which is what UTJ is trying to explain.

 

[Lapaz]

It’s not that simple. Which is what UTJ is trying to explain.

I think it is that simple. Of course many genes come into play to determine how much of a hormone your body produces, but if you have 2 X chromosones, then you're a female. You may be a very masculine female, and you may believe that you should be a male, but you're still a female. Even if you have surgery to transition to a man, you're still genetically a female, because your 23rd chromosome has a matching chromosome, and vice versa. Until we develop gene therapy that would result in our chromosomes changing, we are genetically fixed.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I think it is that simple. Of course many genes come into play to determine how much of a hormone your body produces, but if you have 2 X chromosones, then you're a female. You may be a very masculine female, and you may believe that you should be a male, but you're still a female. Even if you have surgery to transition to a man, you're still genetically a female, because your 23rd chromosome has a matching chromosome, and vice versa. Until we develop gene therapy that would result in our chromosomes changing, we are genetically fixed.

What about men with Klinefelter syndrome? Hint these are men born with 2 x chromosomes. They also have the Y chromosome ... so they have XXY chromosomes.

Or men with XX syndrome - they have no Y chromosome but the SRY gene is on one of the X chromosomes.

You even have XX chromosome males with no SRY gene, but develop as males b/c of a mutation in the X chromosome.

So, quite frankly you're wrong. It isn't quite that simple.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I said nature does binary very well, not that nature is binary. And when I say nature, I mean all of nature, not just humans. In nature, you surely find plants that change sexes (like papayas) or animals that reproduce asexually, (like some lizards), but overwhelmingly, nature does binary very well.

So, I guess we can get into a debate about what you mean by binary -- usually in complex organisms you have a set of genes and processes that determine things, and they are rarely just one simple switch. Like what we're discussing, with human sex - there are chromosomes, genes, phenotypes and hormones to determine male/female. And there is a range of possible combinations. That seems to be the case across many things in nature.

The science you describe, you don't have to repeat it every time; at least not to me. I have to say, you and I aren't that far apart. I read your post on the Motherboard (SR) and you agree or tend to agree at some level with me, as much as I agree and tend to agree at some level with you. You are absolutely right when you say that transphobia is dictating a lot of the conversation, and to me, it seems that the part of the conversation that is not dominated by transphobia, is dominated by the other side of the spectrum, which really doesn't have a label, but to me is basically "you are 100% on this side or you are the phobic enemy"; look at the response from coldseat.

The issue of course comes with the context of the times -- these discussions aren't happening in a vacuum. And the overall national conversation is very much driven by transphobic bad actors, and those they are able to scare. It makes having an academic discussion about the subject nearly impossible.

 

[Lapaz]

What about men with Klinefelter syndrome? Hint these are men born with 2 x chromosomes. They also have the Y chromosome ... so they have XXY chromosomes.

Or men with XX syndrome - they have no Y chromosome but the SRY gene is on one of the X chromosomes.

You even have XX chromosome males with no SRY gene, but develop as males b/c of a mutation in the X chromosome.

So, quite frankly you're wrong. It isn't quite that simple.

I allowed for that by stating that there are rare exceptions of extra chromosomes, but the vast majority of people are binary, and that was the point, so you're wrong.

 

[MT15]

I allowed for that by stating that there are rare exceptions of extra chromosomes, but the vast majority of people are binary, and that was the point, so you're wrong.

You should do more reading — you’re bringing a sixth grade understanding of the science to a college level discussion. Sorry to be so blunt, but you are out of your depth here.

I don’t mean to be harsh Lapaz, I have a BS in Biology and I am out of my depth when UTJ starts talking.

 

[MT15]

So, I guess we can get into a debate about what you mean by binary -- usually in complex organisms you have a set of genes and processes that determine things, and they are rarely just one simple switch. Like what we're discussing, with human sex - there are chromosomes, genes, phenotypes and hormones to determine male/female. And there is a range of possible combinations. That seems to be the case across many things in nature.




The issue of course comes with the context of the times -- these discussions aren't happening in a vacuum. And the overall national conversation is very much driven by transphobic bad actors, and those they are able to scare. It makes having an academic discussion about the subject nearly impossible.

I have been told I am overly accusatory in these discussions. And that may be correct in some ways. It’s too much for me to take to see this dangerous transphobia taking its virulent form here. It’s a hate movement, no different than any other. To me, if a person is defending any part of the transphobia that is sweeping the GOP, then it’s useful to point that out.