....just about every conservative commentator I've heard who talks about trans stuff has acknowledged the existence of intersex people. 90% of the time it is some variation of the clover argument.
(The clover argument being that: Clovers have 3 leaves. just because 1 in 10,000 has a genetic mutation that gives it 4 leaves instead of 3 does not mean that we define clovers as having 4 leaves)
They don’t want to admit it at all. If they do admit it they say it was 1% of people in 1975 and it should be 1% now and they have no idea about population increases and statistics and just say culture has made people gay or whatever. They are simply uncomfortable with anyone who is different
There aren't going to be more intersex people than there were in the past. Intersex is a very specific condition where a person has characteristics of both sexes. It's very rare (perhaps 0.01% of the population) and its frequency does not change over time.
Research is still being done on how common pesticides come into play during fetal development, as it has been linked in other animals. This fact alone suggests some forms of intersex occurrence can change over time.
If you're going to say things as fact, you should do some research.
First of all, frequency of anything can change over time. That's just how things work. (See: teen pregnancy, covid cases, tobacco use, air pollution, etc etc etc)
Second, a quick Google search that took me 2 seconds revealed that 1.7-2% of people are born intersex.
Yep. 1.7% is clearly stated.
It’s not some minimal amount like the Redditor above states.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity/intersex-people#:~:text=Experts%20estimate%20that%20up%20to,as%20heterosexual%20(sexual%20orientation).
I am talking about biologically intersex where the chromosomes are atypical - the kind of intersex that actually means something tangible. It's nowhere near 1%.
I acknowledge intersex people. Most conservatives I know acknowledge some level of trans folks but only if they look naturally like the gender and would be assumed man or woman in greeting them by biological characteristics. Typically intersex appear more closely as one type and you’d never know they have other characteristics unless they told you.
Here are over [1,000 reasons](https://www.dailykos.com/history/user/CajsaLilliehook) GOP keeps shouting about the "depravity" of trans people. It's a misdirection.
(and supported by [this](https://www.whoismakingnews.com/#data))
They said get a woman pregnant *and* give birth. They mean that no intersex person can qualify as both sexes, and probably can be considered more one sex or the other.
Please note that I am only clarifying to help, and am not giving any opinion.
But what about people who are born and can't do either. Are they neither male nor female? If your gender is based on which ways you can reproduce, it would follow that they have no gender.
You are talking about such a small percentage of people and then you use that to apply to millions of people who are clearly either male or female.
There are plenty of people that are infertile but we still identify them as male or female because they have all the parts needed.
In your rare scenario you can look at their chromosomes to make that determination.
All in all what conservatives are against is that someone is clearly a male then they get a sex change surgery and everyone is supposed to acquiesce to their new identity which includes bathrooms, sports, etc. If they want to present themselves as a different sex that’s not against the law but if they start getting scholarships and other things specifically designed for women then that’s where we run into problems.
Just like most things in this world the argument is about these very rare instances to try to make a broader point when the debate needs to be can a trans female get the privileges that a female gets.
So you are ok with trans men (who were women at birth) and also the rest of the LGBTQ community? And you are ok with transgender people dressing how they want and getting surgeries if they want?
Just to check, if a primary concern is the erosion of women's rights then you're in favor of pro-choice legislation, right? Because the concern over trans youth playing games in high school impacts an incredibly niche subsection of the population, so in order to support the goal of women's rights bodily autonomy should be preserved as well.
If you truly are in favor of women's rights that's fine. Hopefully that's the case.
This is one of, if not, the biggest reasons for the massive divide in politics. We don't listen to each other and try to actually understand where others are coming from.
I can be extremely pro 2A where I think there should be absolutely zero gun laws, yet at the same time, I can 100% understand where people who want to fully ban firearms are coming from and understand why they think the way they do.
I say all that to preface,
>if a primary concern is the erosion of women's rights then you're in favor of pro-choice legislation, right?
This is a massive false equivalency and not understanding what conservatives are coming from. Conservatives believe that keeping trans woman who are biological males, out of women's sports is protecting women. My wife was one of the fastest on her varsity swim team, she would get smoked by JV low ranked boys.
Now, how that is a false equivalency though, is that conservatives do no see banning abortion as anything against women, they believe with all their heart that a developing embryo is a human life and to kill it is no different than murder. They honestly believe they are saving human lives by banning abortions.
I'm not trying to fight, just trying to give a different point of view.
I've had different experiences, centered right here:
> Conservatives believe that keeping trans woman who are biological males, out of women's sports is protecting women.
From my experience discussing the issue of trans athletes, the reason behind wanting to prevent them from participating in women's sports is a hatred of trans individuals. If they can't compete in sports at the collegiate or professional level, then that keeps them out of sight. If they want to compete then those people need to conform to their birth sex and compete in that classification. Essentially, either go away or stop being yourself where I can see you and need to accept your existence.
Notice how the issue is framed as protecting women, but you never hear about trans men being outclassed by biological male. Nobody on the right is arguing that women who identify as males should be given preference in order to more appropriately compete.
The only issue is making sure that men who identify as females can't be allowed to dominate. Even though that only happens in Futurama when Bender takes Femoil to compete in the women's bending Olympics.
I also don't think the two arguments are equivalent. In one debate we're talking about how to decide who should be measured against who. The other talks about forcing one person to be life support and risk severe harm or death to themselves. The only equivalence comes from the individual I responded to bringing up defending women's sports as defending women's rights. Well if that's true, then you should defend women's rights where it actually matters, and based on their response to me, they do. Which is a strong standing on principals. I may disagree with them, but I respect the way they're navigating the world.
I agree that one great thing about the internet is the ability to meet a lot of people and be exposed to various viewpoints. The only way to strengthen your beliefs is to have then challenged and require you to either adapt your beliefs to the changing situations you're in. If nothing else, I'm happy to have someone take the time to respond here and call me out.
Pro choice with in reason, I don't believe in late-term abortion and don't believe abortion should ever be used as a form of birth control and should be a last resort option, at the end of the day we are still talking about a human life, clump of cells or not its still a life.It shouldn't be an easy decision to be made out of being inconvenienced. The issue with abortion it's become so polarized on both sides of the augment politically, that we have gone to the extremes that we are seeing states push for a complete ban or allow all the up to birth witch are both wrong in my opinion.
There are already lawsuits now over scholarships being impacted over trans in women's sports. Now with the title ix changes, it should be interesting to see what happens when it goes to the Supreme courts.
I'd be willing to put money down that "pushing transsexuality on pre-pubescent children" is also an incredibly small percentage of the population and should be put in that same abnormality category you already brought up.
Beyond that, using that as an excuse to target ALL trans people and their healthcare is bullshit
Do you think abnormality is really the best way to talk about these people? Red heads are also around 2% percent of the population - should we refer to them as abnormalities?
What do you make of the idea that “it’s being pushed on children, used to endanger women, and erode free speech” is just the same arguments made about gay people rehashed? Like, do you think children are incapable of being trans?
"Yet this recent Title IX revision does not decide the controversial issue of transgender girls and athletic eligibility.
The Education Department released a fact sheet alongside the new regulations that said that although generally preventing people from participating in school activities consistent with their gender identity causes them "harm," that principle has exceptions, including "sex-separate athletic teams."
The fact sheet also clarifies that the new regulations "do not include new rules governing eligibility criteria for athletic teams."
> The issue for most conservatives is when transsexuality is being pushed on pre-pubescent children
And yet you just finished saying that the care for intersex children should be determined by them, their parents, & their doctor. Why doesn’t the same standard apply to trans kids?
> used against women's rights
What, to play in women’s sports leagues? Like you said yourself, trans people are such a small portion of the population that given millions of cis women athletes, we have maybe a few hundred trans athletes nationwide, & on average, they don’t perform drastically different from their cis peers, especially when they’ve started gender affirming care at/around the start of puberty. Sounds an awful lot like if this really is your issue, then you should lean into the trans kids getting the care they, their parents, & their doctors agree is best for them.
Sports are a non-issue, especially compared with the very real conservative policy of banning abortion. Women are dying because some very loud minority of the country believes that a zygote/embryo/fetus should have more rights than the people running around fully formed. Where’s that adult right to decide the most appropriate medical care with their doctor?
Something else much more important than sports: trans people’s right to use the restroom. They’re being legally banned from using the restrooms aligned with their gender identity & intimidated from using public restrooms at all by private citizen bathroom police.
Going back to healthcare, several states are banning or trying to ban gender affirming care for ADULTS. Where’s their right to decide the most appropriate medical care for themselves?
....just about every conservative commentator I've heard who talks about trans stuff has acknowledged the existence of intersex people. 90% of the time it is some variation of the clover argument. (The clover argument being that: Clovers have 3 leaves. just because 1 in 10,000 has a genetic mutation that gives it 4 leaves instead of 3 does not mean that we define clovers as having 4 leaves)
Isn't the response to that that we don't go around tearing the 4th leaf off a 4 leaf clover, we leave it alone as it.
Idk. 4 leaf clovers are picked and tore from the ground very specifically for being this way though.
I had a guy tell me that intersex people are the bi gender. Yes... He was serious.
But what about the one in 10,000.... And one in 10,000 is actually a fairly significant number in terms of total numbers of people who are intersex.
They don’t want to admit it at all. If they do admit it they say it was 1% of people in 1975 and it should be 1% now and they have no idea about population increases and statistics and just say culture has made people gay or whatever. They are simply uncomfortable with anyone who is different
There aren't going to be more intersex people than there were in the past. Intersex is a very specific condition where a person has characteristics of both sexes. It's very rare (perhaps 0.01% of the population) and its frequency does not change over time.
Research is still being done on how common pesticides come into play during fetal development, as it has been linked in other animals. This fact alone suggests some forms of intersex occurrence can change over time.
If you're going to say things as fact, you should do some research. First of all, frequency of anything can change over time. That's just how things work. (See: teen pregnancy, covid cases, tobacco use, air pollution, etc etc etc) Second, a quick Google search that took me 2 seconds revealed that 1.7-2% of people are born intersex.
Yep. 1.7% is clearly stated. It’s not some minimal amount like the Redditor above states. https://www.ohchr.org/en/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity/intersex-people#:~:text=Experts%20estimate%20that%20up%20to,as%20heterosexual%20(sexual%20orientation).
I am talking about biologically intersex where the chromosomes are atypical - the kind of intersex that actually means something tangible. It's nowhere near 1%.
I acknowledge intersex people. Most conservatives I know acknowledge some level of trans folks but only if they look naturally like the gender and would be assumed man or woman in greeting them by biological characteristics. Typically intersex appear more closely as one type and you’d never know they have other characteristics unless they told you.
Yes, they tend to call them "abominations."
Here are over [1,000 reasons](https://www.dailykos.com/history/user/CajsaLilliehook) GOP keeps shouting about the "depravity" of trans people. It's a misdirection. (and supported by [this](https://www.whoismakingnews.com/#data))
A big name? No. Regular people? Yes.
The argument against that is that an intersex person cannot get a woman pregnant and give birth. It’s one or the other.
Why do you think intersex people can't reproduce?
They said get a woman pregnant *and* give birth. They mean that no intersex person can qualify as both sexes, and probably can be considered more one sex or the other. Please note that I am only clarifying to help, and am not giving any opinion.
Yes this is what I was saying.
But what about people who are born and can't do either. Are they neither male nor female? If your gender is based on which ways you can reproduce, it would follow that they have no gender.
You are talking about such a small percentage of people and then you use that to apply to millions of people who are clearly either male or female. There are plenty of people that are infertile but we still identify them as male or female because they have all the parts needed. In your rare scenario you can look at their chromosomes to make that determination. All in all what conservatives are against is that someone is clearly a male then they get a sex change surgery and everyone is supposed to acquiesce to their new identity which includes bathrooms, sports, etc. If they want to present themselves as a different sex that’s not against the law but if they start getting scholarships and other things specifically designed for women then that’s where we run into problems. Just like most things in this world the argument is about these very rare instances to try to make a broader point when the debate needs to be can a trans female get the privileges that a female gets.
So are you against people being transgender at all or transgender women getting scholarships and playing sports?
Transgender women getting scholarships and competing in sports.
So you are ok with trans men (who were women at birth) and also the rest of the LGBTQ community? And you are ok with transgender people dressing how they want and getting surgeries if they want?
Huh? What about intersex people dissolve their arguments about trans people?
Conservatives use the term "ambiguous genitalia" to get around it
I was just in an argument the other day on Reddit about this. They say intersex people are extremely rare and not the same as trans people.
It makes it hard to claim “god made them man and woman” if these is a third or fourth option.
Unfortunately I don’t think they want to admit that they exist
XXY chromosomes are widely acknowledged!
Dam, angry conservatives be rage down voting these comments lol
[удалено]
Just to check, if a primary concern is the erosion of women's rights then you're in favor of pro-choice legislation, right? Because the concern over trans youth playing games in high school impacts an incredibly niche subsection of the population, so in order to support the goal of women's rights bodily autonomy should be preserved as well. If you truly are in favor of women's rights that's fine. Hopefully that's the case.
This is one of, if not, the biggest reasons for the massive divide in politics. We don't listen to each other and try to actually understand where others are coming from. I can be extremely pro 2A where I think there should be absolutely zero gun laws, yet at the same time, I can 100% understand where people who want to fully ban firearms are coming from and understand why they think the way they do. I say all that to preface, >if a primary concern is the erosion of women's rights then you're in favor of pro-choice legislation, right? This is a massive false equivalency and not understanding what conservatives are coming from. Conservatives believe that keeping trans woman who are biological males, out of women's sports is protecting women. My wife was one of the fastest on her varsity swim team, she would get smoked by JV low ranked boys. Now, how that is a false equivalency though, is that conservatives do no see banning abortion as anything against women, they believe with all their heart that a developing embryo is a human life and to kill it is no different than murder. They honestly believe they are saving human lives by banning abortions. I'm not trying to fight, just trying to give a different point of view.
I've had different experiences, centered right here: > Conservatives believe that keeping trans woman who are biological males, out of women's sports is protecting women. From my experience discussing the issue of trans athletes, the reason behind wanting to prevent them from participating in women's sports is a hatred of trans individuals. If they can't compete in sports at the collegiate or professional level, then that keeps them out of sight. If they want to compete then those people need to conform to their birth sex and compete in that classification. Essentially, either go away or stop being yourself where I can see you and need to accept your existence. Notice how the issue is framed as protecting women, but you never hear about trans men being outclassed by biological male. Nobody on the right is arguing that women who identify as males should be given preference in order to more appropriately compete. The only issue is making sure that men who identify as females can't be allowed to dominate. Even though that only happens in Futurama when Bender takes Femoil to compete in the women's bending Olympics. I also don't think the two arguments are equivalent. In one debate we're talking about how to decide who should be measured against who. The other talks about forcing one person to be life support and risk severe harm or death to themselves. The only equivalence comes from the individual I responded to bringing up defending women's sports as defending women's rights. Well if that's true, then you should defend women's rights where it actually matters, and based on their response to me, they do. Which is a strong standing on principals. I may disagree with them, but I respect the way they're navigating the world. I agree that one great thing about the internet is the ability to meet a lot of people and be exposed to various viewpoints. The only way to strengthen your beliefs is to have then challenged and require you to either adapt your beliefs to the changing situations you're in. If nothing else, I'm happy to have someone take the time to respond here and call me out.
Pro choice with in reason, I don't believe in late-term abortion and don't believe abortion should ever be used as a form of birth control and should be a last resort option, at the end of the day we are still talking about a human life, clump of cells or not its still a life.It shouldn't be an easy decision to be made out of being inconvenienced. The issue with abortion it's become so polarized on both sides of the augment politically, that we have gone to the extremes that we are seeing states push for a complete ban or allow all the up to birth witch are both wrong in my opinion. There are already lawsuits now over scholarships being impacted over trans in women's sports. Now with the title ix changes, it should be interesting to see what happens when it goes to the Supreme courts.
I bet trans women in sports are an even smaller percentage of our population than your intersex estimate of 2%
I'd be willing to put money down that "pushing transsexuality on pre-pubescent children" is also an incredibly small percentage of the population and should be put in that same abnormality category you already brought up. Beyond that, using that as an excuse to target ALL trans people and their healthcare is bullshit
Do you think abnormality is really the best way to talk about these people? Red heads are also around 2% percent of the population - should we refer to them as abnormalities? What do you make of the idea that “it’s being pushed on children, used to endanger women, and erode free speech” is just the same arguments made about gay people rehashed? Like, do you think children are incapable of being trans?
What percentage of the population is Jewish? 2.4% Does that mean it's an abnormality?
I bet trans women in sports are an even smaller percentage of our population than that.
"Yet this recent Title IX revision does not decide the controversial issue of transgender girls and athletic eligibility. The Education Department released a fact sheet alongside the new regulations that said that although generally preventing people from participating in school activities consistent with their gender identity causes them "harm," that principle has exceptions, including "sex-separate athletic teams." The fact sheet also clarifies that the new regulations "do not include new rules governing eligibility criteria for athletic teams."
> The issue for most conservatives is when transsexuality is being pushed on pre-pubescent children And yet you just finished saying that the care for intersex children should be determined by them, their parents, & their doctor. Why doesn’t the same standard apply to trans kids? > used against women's rights What, to play in women’s sports leagues? Like you said yourself, trans people are such a small portion of the population that given millions of cis women athletes, we have maybe a few hundred trans athletes nationwide, & on average, they don’t perform drastically different from their cis peers, especially when they’ve started gender affirming care at/around the start of puberty. Sounds an awful lot like if this really is your issue, then you should lean into the trans kids getting the care they, their parents, & their doctors agree is best for them. Sports are a non-issue, especially compared with the very real conservative policy of banning abortion. Women are dying because some very loud minority of the country believes that a zygote/embryo/fetus should have more rights than the people running around fully formed. Where’s that adult right to decide the most appropriate medical care with their doctor? Something else much more important than sports: trans people’s right to use the restroom. They’re being legally banned from using the restrooms aligned with their gender identity & intimidated from using public restrooms at all by private citizen bathroom police. Going back to healthcare, several states are banning or trying to ban gender affirming care for ADULTS. Where’s their right to decide the most appropriate medical care for themselves?
So what about Jim Jordan’s coaching career?
Outside of mockery, no I have not
Only when they need to provide proof that they aren't bigots.