Why biological sex is binary--and why do smart people disagree?

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Sean Carroll is a really bright physicist. I like him. But he has a really bad habit of buying into woke thought and here he rightfully gets called out for it:

Sean Carroll, you don't need to pretend humans can change their sex to defend trans rights.

Sean Carroll does a "what about Intersex?" to reject the human sex binary

sknight.substack.com

Stephen Knight on Sean Carroll, Colin Wright, and the binary of sex

Sean Carroll, bless his physicist's soul, decided to respond to a tweet by Colin Wright (asserting the binary nature of sex) by giving his (Carroll's) own take in on the biological nature of sex. Sean

whyevolutionistrue.com

I find the two discussions above helpful regarding all this debate. The upshot:

(1) There are two biological sexes, based on gamete size. Gametes are reproductive cells. Humans have two--and only two--types: small and mobile (termed male) and large and immobile (termed female). That's it. There is no third type and there is no spectrum of this--your biological body is built around producing one or the other (and in history, one person produced both).

(2) Intersex people do not disprove this rule, are only 1 out of 5600 people in the world, and the vast majority do not identify as trans.

(3) Gender (social and cultural understandings of who can wear dresses or pants, make-up or hair extensions, and maybe secondary sex characteristics) might be fluid and on a spectrum, but sex--as defined above--is not.

(4) Trans-rights, crucially, do not depend on a spectrum of biological sex. If you believe in a classic liberal sense of individualism, you can easily defend the right of trans people to have all the same rights as the rest of society.

But this brings up a really interesting sociological and psychological question: why would someone as bright and usually thoughtful as Carroll fall for this? Is virtue signaling and political ideology really that strong for him?

Final thought: Emma Hilton is a babe.

https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Sean Carroll is a really bright physicist. I like him. But he has a really bad habit of buying into woke thought and here he rightfully gets called out for it:

Sean Carroll, you don't need to pretend humans can change their sex to defend trans rights.

Sean Carroll does a "what about Intersex?" to reject the human sex binary

sknight.substack.com

Stephen Knight on Sean Carroll, Colin Wright, and the binary of sex

Sean Carroll, bless his physicist's soul, decided to respond to a tweet by Colin Wright (asserting the binary nature of sex) by giving his (Carroll's) own take in on the biological nature of sex. Sean

whyevolutionistrue.com

I find the two discussions above helpful regarding all this debate. The upshot:

(1) There are two biological sexes, based on gamete size. Gametes are reproductive cells. Humans have two--and only two--types: small and mobile (termed male) and large and immobile (termed female). That's it. There is no third type and there is no spectrum of this--your biological body is built around producing one or the other (and in history, one person produced both).

(2) Intersex people do not disprove this rule, are only 1 out of 5600 people in the world, and the vast majority do not identify as trans.

(3) Gender (social and cultural understandings of who can wear dresses or pants, make-up or hair extensions, and maybe secondary sex characteristics) might be fluid and on a spectrum, but sex--as defined above--is not.

(4) Trans-rights, crucially, do not depend on a spectrum of biological sex. If you believe in a classic liberal sense of individualism, you can easily defend the right of trans people to have all the same rights as the rest of society.

But this brings up a really interesting sociological and psychological question: why would someone as bright and usually thoughtful as Carroll fall for this? Is virtue signaling and politically ideology really that strong for him?

Final though: Emma Hilton is a babe.

https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

I think it’s the fear of being cancelled or shouted down. The blue hairs are a fearsome bunch.

Luckily they’re about to get free money.

San Francisco launches new guaranteed income program for transgender community

The program, part of a larger city effort to offer temporary income as a way to address poverty and the first focused in transgender communities, is now accepting applications.

abc7news.com

 

[jet812]

Thank goodness there are people starting to push back on this nonsense. I’ve been surprised at the number of science deniers willing to embrace this non-binary sex malarkey from the left.

 

[snarlcakes]

Sean Carroll is a really bright physicist. I like him. But he has a really bad habit of buying into woke thought and here he rightfully gets called out for it:

Sean Carroll, you don't need to pretend humans can change their sex to defend trans rights.

Sean Carroll does a "what about Intersex?" to reject the human sex binary

sknight.substack.com

Stephen Knight on Sean Carroll, Colin Wright, and the binary of sex

Sean Carroll, bless his physicist's soul, decided to respond to a tweet by Colin Wright (asserting the binary nature of sex) by giving his (Carroll's) own take in on the biological nature of sex. Sean

whyevolutionistrue.com

I find the two discussions above helpful regarding all this debate. The upshot:

(1) There are two biological sexes, based on gamete size. Gametes are reproductive cells. Humans have two--and only two--types: small and mobile (termed male) and large and immobile (termed female). That's it. There is no third type and there is no spectrum of this--your biological body is built around producing one or the other (and in history, one person produced both).

(2) Intersex people do not disprove this rule, are only 1 out of 5600 people in the world, and the vast majority do not identify as trans.

(3) Gender (social and cultural understandings of who can wear dresses or pants, make-up or hair extensions, and maybe secondary sex characteristics) might be fluid and on a spectrum, but sex--as defined above--is not.

(4) Trans-rights, crucially, do not depend on a spectrum of biological sex. If you believe in a classic liberal sense of individualism, you can easily defend the right of trans people to have all the same rights as the rest of society.

But this brings up a really interesting sociological and psychological question: why would someone as bright and usually thoughtful as Carroll fall for this? Is virtue signaling and politically ideology really that strong for him?

Final though: Emma Hilton is a babe.

https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

In the end everyone has an ideology or god they adhere to.

 

[IU_Hickory]

Thank goodness there are people starting to push back on this nonsense. I’ve been surprised at the number of science deniers willing to embrace this non-binary sex malarkey from the left.

I didn't realize the left had a lot of science deniers. First the left controlled education and was mind controlling the students....now they are a bunch of science deniers. What will the false accusation be next week?

 

[Crayfish57]

I didn't realize the left had a lot of science deniers. First the left controlled education and was mind controlling the students....now they are a bunch of science deniers. What will the false accusation be next week?

That you really are a tree?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Sean Carroll is a really bright physicist. I like him. But he has a really bad habit of buying into woke thought and here he rightfully gets called out for it:

Sean Carroll, you don't need to pretend humans can change their sex to defend trans rights.

Sean Carroll does a "what about Intersex?" to reject the human sex binary

sknight.substack.com

Stephen Knight on Sean Carroll, Colin Wright, and the binary of sex

Sean Carroll, bless his physicist's soul, decided to respond to a tweet by Colin Wright (asserting the binary nature of sex) by giving his (Carroll's) own take in on the biological nature of sex. Sean

whyevolutionistrue.com

I find the two discussions above helpful regarding all this debate. The upshot:

(1) There are two biological sexes, based on gamete size. Gametes are reproductive cells. Humans have two--and only two--types: small and mobile (termed male) and large and immobile (termed female). That's it. There is no third type and there is no spectrum of this--your biological body is built around producing one or the other (and in history, one person produced both).

(2) Intersex people do not disprove this rule, are only 1 out of 5600 people in the world, and the vast majority do not identify as trans.

(3) Gender (social and cultural understandings of who can wear dresses or pants, make-up or hair extensions, and maybe secondary sex characteristics) might be fluid and on a spectrum, but sex--as defined above--is not.

(4) Trans-rights, crucially, do not depend on a spectrum of biological sex. If you believe in a classic liberal sense of individualism, you can easily defend the right of trans people to have all the same rights as the rest of society.

But this brings up a really interesting sociological and psychological question: why would someone as bright and usually thoughtful as Carroll fall for this? Is virtue signaling and political ideology really that strong for him?

Final thought: Emma Hilton is a babe.

https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

If I were a provider who provided “gender affirming” hormones or surgeries to children, I wouldn’t be sleeping very well. I think there will soon be significant litigation by these kids once they realize how screwed up their adult life has become.

 

[stollcpa]

If I were a provider who provided “gender affirming” hormones or surgeries to children, I wouldn’t be sleeping very well. I think there will soon be significant litigation by these kids once they realize how screwed up their adult life has become.

Hopefully those providers lose everything they own when they get sued. If only they could be put in prison too.

 

[Crayfish57]

Hopefully those providers lose everything they own when they get sued. If only they could be put in prison too.

Since tracking emojis seems to be the thing to do tonight look at the laugh you got. Very telling

 

[stollcpa]

Since tracking emojis seems to be the thing to do tonight look at the laugh you got. Very telling

Yea, a laugh from a science denier. I love it.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

If I were a provider who provided “gender affirming” hormones or surgeries to children, I wouldn’t be sleeping very well. I think there will soon be significant litigation by these kids once they realize how screwed up their adult life has become.

I think that's a separate question, not related to this one, which is: no matter where you stand on gender dysphoria and/or trans people and how it should be treated medically and psychiatrically or even societally, why are brilliant scientists falling for this obvious ideologically driven pseudo-science?

One of the many problems with this: it erodes public trust in science and scientists. Not a good thing.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I think that's a separate question, not related to this one, which is: no matter where you stand on gender dysphoria and/or trans people and how it should be treated medically and psychiatrically or even societally, why are brilliant scientists falling for this obvious ideologically driven pseudo-science?

One of the many problems with this: it erodes public trust in science and scientists. Not a good thing.

I can’t think of any justification to doing irreversible damage to youngsters for the sake of gender affirmation.

Ita a fad.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Sean Carroll is a really bright physicist. I like him. But he has a really bad habit of buying into woke thought and here he rightfully gets called out for it:

Sean Carroll, you don't need to pretend humans can change their sex to defend trans rights.

Sean Carroll does a "what about Intersex?" to reject the human sex binary

sknight.substack.com

Stephen Knight on Sean Carroll, Colin Wright, and the binary of sex

Sean Carroll, bless his physicist's soul, decided to respond to a tweet by Colin Wright (asserting the binary nature of sex) by giving his (Carroll's) own take in on the biological nature of sex. Sean

whyevolutionistrue.com

I find the two discussions above helpful regarding all this debate. The upshot:

(1) There are two biological sexes, based on gamete size. Gametes are reproductive cells. Humans have two--and only two--types: small and mobile (termed male) and large and immobile (termed female). That's it. There is no third type and there is no spectrum of this--your biological body is built around producing one or the other (and in history, one person produced both).

(2) Intersex people do not disprove this rule, are only 1 out of 5600 people in the world, and the vast majority do not identify as trans.

(3) Gender (social and cultural understandings of who can wear dresses or pants, make-up or hair extensions, and maybe secondary sex characteristics) might be fluid and on a spectrum, but sex--as defined above--is not.

(4) Trans-rights, crucially, do not depend on a spectrum of biological sex. If you believe in a classic liberal sense of individualism, you can easily defend the right of trans people to have all the same rights as the rest of society.

But this brings up a really interesting sociological and psychological question: why would someone as bright and usually thoughtful as Carroll fall for this? Is virtue signaling and political ideology really that strong for him?

Final thought: Emma Hilton is a babe.

https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

I don't know what Sean Carroll said, because you didn't link it, but I would point out that the argument about intersex people is something that's brought up here, and it's not about denying the underlying binary nature of normal sexual development - it's about rejecting the unscientific claims of some that sex is both binary and determined by genetics. Many people have claimed that your genes decide what sex you are, and you cannot change that, but that's what intersex people prove is messy. We are usually, but not always, XX or XY. When we are something else, the genetics argument for a binary system falls apart.

I wish the traditionalists would just be honest on this point. All they really care about is whether or not you were born with a dick. This is a simple and elegant solution that goes back many hundreds of years. The early Muslims dealt with sex/gender issues by urination. If you pissed standing up, you were a man. If you pissed crouching, you were a woman. End of story.

But whatever system you want to use to judge it, let's not pretend that 1) the messy nature of genetics is evidence of a binary sex system, or that 2) pointing this fact out is the same as denying the underlying binary nature of sex.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

I don't know what Sean Carroll said, because you didn't link it, but I would point out that the argument about intersex people is something that's brought up here, and it's not about denying the underlying binary nature of normal sexual development - it's about rejecting the unscientific claims of some that sex is both binary and determined by genetics. Many people have claimed that your genes decide what sex you are, and you cannot change that, but that's what intersex people prove is messy. We are usually, but not always, XX or XY. When we are something else, the genetics argument for a binary system falls apart.

I wish the traditionalists would just be honest on this point. All they really care about is whether or not you were born with a dick. This is a simple and elegant solution that goes back many hundreds of years. The early Muslims dealt with sex/gender issues by urination. If you pissed standing up, you were a man. If you pissed crouching, you were a woman. End of story.

But whatever system you want to use to judge it, let's not pretend that 1) the messy nature of genetics is evidence of a binary sex system, or that 2) pointing this fact out is the same as denying the underlying binary nature of sex.

You might learn something if you read the links (which both discuss what Sean Carroll said).

Jerry Coyne, for example, is not what you'd call a "traditionalist" or conservative or "unscientific." Nor are the biologists quoted and interviewed in the pieces.

After reading them, I'd like to hear why you think that sex is either (1) not binary, or (2) not determined by genetics. I'm not a biologist, but what they write seems pretty persuasive to me.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You might learn something if you read the links (which both discuss what Sean Carroll said).

Jerry Coyne, for example, is not what you'd call a "traditionalist" or conservative or "unscientific." Nor are the biologists quoted and interviewed in the pieces.

We've been over this before. I've been following Jerry since he was posting his thoughts on a blog read by twenty people a week. I chatted with him online many years ago, when MSN had chat rooms. He's a smart guy. I don't need the resumes.

I read your first link, which was supposed to be about what Sean Carroll said, but it wasn't. It was about why Sean Carroll was wrong. I was simply trying to add to the discussion by pointing out that this debate was not new here, and the framing in your OP did not accurately describe the debate as we've had it in the past.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

We've been over this before. I've been following Jerry since he was posting his thoughts on a blog read by twenty people a week. I chatted with him online many years ago, when MSN had chat rooms. He's a smart guy. I don't need the resumes.

I read your first link, which was supposed to be about what Sean Carroll said, but it wasn't. It was about why Sean Carroll was wrong. I was simply trying to add to the discussion by pointing out that this debate was not new here, and the framing in your OP did not accurately describe the debate as we've had it in the past

Do you mean "we" as in the two of us? I'm sorry, I'm old(er). I don't remember. (although I do remember discussing Coyne in the context of UMASS statement on the purpose of the university).

Could you humor me and tell me why Coyne or Wright are wrong? I find their writing persuasive (as is Hilton). Why are they wrong?

Edit: by the way, the entire first link is about what Sean Carroll said AND why it was wrong. It links the very tweet at the top and then puts it in context to what it was responding to.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Do you mean "we" as in the two of us? I'm sorry, I'm old(er). I don't remember. (although I do remember discussing Coyne in the context of UMASS statement on the purpose of the university).

Could you humor me and tell me why Coyne or Wright are wrong? I find their writing persuasive (as is Hilton). Why are they wrong?

Edit: by the way, the entire first link is about what Sean Carroll said AND why it was wrong. It links the very tweet at the top and then puts it in context to what it was responding to.

I'm sorry, I did a poor job explaining my context for that. I don't think Coyne is wrong on this point. I don't think he's right, either, but I don't think he's wrong. I think his understanding of biological sex (at least for most mammals, including humans) is correct, as far as I understand it, but I'm an amateur, so YMMV. I'm rarely respected here even on topics I supposedly have expertise on, so I certainly don't expect to be respected on topics I don't.

I only interjected to point out that the context of the debate was different than what was portrayed in your OP. It's not only the woke left that conflates sex and gender. It's the reactionary right, as well. It's the reactionary right that has claimed in the past that you must be XX or XY, and that determines not only your biological sex, but also what gender you must identify as, and if you don't, then there's something wrong with either you, or the teachers and parents that are grooming you.

Maybe I was getting ahead of myself, by anticipating how people would respond to your thread, but I think if I did, that anticipation was firmly rooted in what people have said in the past.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Sean Carroll is a really bright physicist. I like him. But he has a really bad habit of buying into woke thought and here he rightfully gets called out for it:

Sean Carroll, you don't need to pretend humans can change their sex to defend trans rights.

Sean Carroll does a "what about Intersex?" to reject the human sex binary

sknight.substack.com

Stephen Knight on Sean Carroll, Colin Wright, and the binary of sex

Sean Carroll, bless his physicist's soul, decided to respond to a tweet by Colin Wright (asserting the binary nature of sex) by giving his (Carroll's) own take in on the biological nature of sex. Sean

whyevolutionistrue.com

I find the two discussions above helpful regarding all this debate. The upshot:

(1) There are two biological sexes, based on gamete size. Gametes are reproductive cells. Humans have two--and only two--types: small and mobile (termed male) and large and immobile (termed female). That's it. There is no third type and there is no spectrum of this--your biological body is built around producing one or the other (and in history, one person produced both).

(2) Intersex people do not disprove this rule, are only 1 out of 5600 people in the world, and the vast majority do not identify as trans.

(3) Gender (social and cultural understandings of who can wear dresses or pants, make-up or hair extensions, and maybe secondary sex characteristics) might be fluid and on a spectrum, but sex--as defined above--is not.

(4) Trans-rights, crucially, do not depend on a spectrum of biological sex. If you believe in a classic liberal sense of individualism, you can easily defend the right of trans people to have all the same rights as the rest of society.

But this brings up a really interesting sociological and psychological question: why would someone as bright and usually thoughtful as Carroll fall for this? Is virtue signaling and political ideology really that strong for him?

Final thought: Emma Hilton is a babe.

https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I'm sorry, I did a poor job explaining my context for that. I don't think Coyne is wrong on this point. I don't think he's right, either, but I don't think he's wrong. I think his understanding of biological sex (at least for most mammals, including humans) is correct, as far as I understand it, but I'm an amateur, so YMMV. I'm rarely respected here even on topics I supposedly have expertise on, so I certainly don't expect to be respected on topics I don't.

I only interjected to point out that the context of the debate was different than what was portrayed in your OP. It's not only the woke left that conflates sex and gender. It's the reactionary right, as well. It's the reactionary right that has claimed in the past that you must be XX or XY, and that determines not only your biological sex, but also what gender you must identify as, and if you don't, then there's something wrong with either you, or the teachers and parents that are grooming you.

Maybe I was getting ahead of myself, by anticipating how people would respond to your thread, but I think if I did, that anticipation was firmly rooted in what people have said in the past.

Being a thing is not the same thing as identifying as a thing. The latter is total BS. The former is immutable genetics. There really are non-binary people, but they don’t get there through “identifying”. And there are very few.

Reality matters.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

I'm sorry, I did a poor job explaining my context for that. I don't think Coyne is wrong on this point. I don't think he's right, either, but I don't think he's wrong. I think his understanding of biological sex (at least for most mammals, including humans) is correct, as far as I understand it, but I'm an amateur, so YMMV. I'm rarely respected here even on topics I supposedly have expertise on, so I certainly don't expect to be respected on topics I don't.

I only interjected to point out that the context of the debate was different than what was portrayed in your OP. It's not only the woke left that conflates sex and gender. It's the reactionary right, as well. It's the reactionary right that has claimed in the past that you must be XX or XY, and that determines not only your biological sex, but also what gender you must identify as, and if you don't, then there's something wrong with either you, or the teachers and parents that are grooming you.

Maybe I was getting ahead of myself, by anticipating how people would respond to your thread, but I think if I did, that anticipation was firmly rooted in what people have said in the past.

OK. (although I'm not sure I understand why you think he is "not right.")

I'm only focusing on--and I think Coyne, Knight, Wright, and Hilton (oh my, this Hilton!)--are only focusing on the narrower biological sex issue.

The point they are trying to make here is that (1) what the trans-activists (and Carroll) here are doing is unscientific, and (2) NOT NEEDED to defend trans rights.

It hurts to link your social movement to bad science. And then to claim that you are doing the "actual science" is just a gut shot to science credibility in general. Not to mention the ridiculous moral attacks on the scientists who say "hey, wait, that's not right."

I know these topics seem esoteric, but I think they have wide-ranging effects on how the general populace view and trust science. And I am really concerned about that.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

OK. (although I'm not sure I understand why you think he is "not right.")

I'm only focusing on--and I think Coyne, Knight, Wright, and Hilton (oh my, this Hilton!)--are only focusing on the narrower biological sex issue.

The point they are trying to make here is that (1) what the trans-activists (and Carroll) here are doing is unscientific, and (2) NOT NEEDED to defend trans rights.

It hurts to link your social movement to bad science. And then to claim that you are doing the "actual science" is just a gut shot to science credibility in general. Not to mention the ridiculous moral attacks on the scientists who say "hey, wait, that's not right."

I know these topics seem esoteric, but I think they have wide-ranging effects on how the general populace view and trust science. And I am really concerned about that.

I didn't say he wasn't right. I said I didn't necessarily think he was right. I was reserving judgment, only because I don't know enough to make a final determination. But I said that, as far as everything I know, I agree with him, so isn't that enough moving forward?

I'm all about limiting this to the esoteric (or technical) question of biological sex. But look at CO.H's response to me again conflating sex and gender. I think he proves my point.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I didn't say he wasn't right. I said I didn't necessarily think he was right. I was reserving judgment, only because I don't know enough to make a final determination. But I said that, as far as everything I know, I agree with him, so isn't that enough moving forward?

I'm all about limiting this to the esoteric (or technical) question of biological sex. But look at CO.H's response to me again conflating sex and gender. I think he proves my point.

The problem is attaching real world consequences to gender. People get disciplined for “misgendering” people. That’s nuts. Legal and other consequences should attach to sex, not gender.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

I didn't say he wasn't right. I said I didn't necessarily think he was right. I was reserving judgment, only because I don't know enough to make a final determination. But I said that, as far as everything I know, I agree with him, so isn't that enough moving forward?

I'm all about limiting this to the esoteric (or technical) question of biological sex. But look at CO.H's response to me again conflating sex and gender. I think he proves my point.

Damn it, CoH. Stand back and stand by!

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Damn it, CoH. Stand back and stand by!

Okay. I’ll await further orders.

 

[DrHoops]

If I were a provider who provided “gender affirming” hormones or surgeries to children, I wouldn’t be sleeping very well. I think there will soon be significant litigation by these kids once they realize how screwed up their adult life has become.

I think there have been about 1,500 done over the last 5 years. Personally I don’t think it’s right, personally, but this isn’t some rampant problem destroying America like nutso right wingers yard telling us. Here are the real numbers.

 

[VanPastorMan]

In the end everyone has an ideology or god they adhere to.

As a pastor my heart grieves for the many confused and hurting people who think that changing the way they look will help them with what is going on the inside. I don't remember his name but a trans woman did a video where he admitted he missed his penis. He had gotten the bottom surgery and regretted it. What do you say to a person who did this? He can't get it back and has to live the rest of his life with the decision he made. I feel the same way for the women who get addicted to plastic surgery and end up looking hideous. Something is going on the inside of them and plastic surgery won't fix it and in fact could make it worse.

 

[stollcpa]

I can’t think of any justification to doing irreversible damage to youngsters for the sake of gender affirmation.

Ita a fad.

@zeke4ahs says it isn’t important and doesn’t happen.

 

[IU_Hickory]

As a pastor my heart grieves for the many confused and hurting people who think that changing the way they look will help them with what is going on the inside. I don't remember his name but a trans woman did a video where he admitted he missed his penis. He had gotten the bottom surgery and regretted it. What do you say to a person who did this? He can't get it back and has to live the rest of his life with the decision he made. I feel the same way for the women who get addicted to plastic surgery and end up looking hideous. Something is going on the inside of them and plastic surgery won't fix it and in fact could make it worse.

There are many people who make decisions that they end up regretting. It is their right to be able to make their decisions

 

[VanPastorMan]

There are many people who make decisions that they end up regretting. It is their right to be able to make their decisions

Nice heart there IU Hickory.

 

[stollcpa]

There are many people who make decisions that they end up regretting. It is their right to be able to make their decisions

Trans kids' treatment can start younger, new guidelines say

A leading transgender health association has lowered its recommended minimum age for gender transition treatment in teens, including starting sex hormones at age 14 and some surgeries at 15.

apnews.com

15-17 year olds doing these surgeries are just tuff luck when they figure out at 21 the adults in the room were f’d up?

 

[stollcpa]

More woke liberal stupidity.

Rantz: WA laws now allow teen gender reassignment surgery without parental consent

Washington state now appears to allow minors to undergo life-changing gender reassignment surgery without parental consent.

mynorthwest.com

 

[stollcpa]

More woke liberal stupidity.

Va. parents could face abuse charges for not affirming their LGBTQ child under new bill

wjla.com

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

More woke liberal stupidity.

Rantz: WA laws now allow teen gender reassignment surgery without parental consent

Washington state now appears to allow minors to undergo life-changing gender reassignment surgery without parental consent.

mynorthwest.com

Terrible law. Just awful.

 

[stollcpa]

Terrible law. Just awful.

The liberals want to say this is no big deal and we shouldn’t obsess about this stuff. The problem is they keep forcing more and more of this stuff on us and we’re supposed to be fine with it. Being tired of it isn’t obsessing over it.

 

[iuwclurker]

The NRA has no objections to sawed-off shotguns, but they draw the line at full amputation.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

I think there have been about 1,500 done over the last 5 years. Personally I don’t think it’s right, personally, but this isn’t some rampant problem destroying America like nutso right wingers yard telling us. Here are the real numbers.

View embedded media

And how many were done in the 5 years before that? I’m sure it was quite a few less.

Just because it isn’t a rampant problem now doesn’t mean that it isn’t a problem, or that it isn’t rapidly becoming more of a problem.

 

[IU_Hickory]

Nice heart there IU Hickory.

While I think 14 is bit young for life altering procedures, actual adults should be allowed to make whatever decision they want as long as it's not something illegal or that harms others.

That is not being heartless.

 

[IU_Hickory]

More woke liberal stupidity.

Va. parents could face abuse charges for not affirming their LGBTQ child under new bill

wjla.com

Are you capable of making a point or post without throwing out insults and accusations?

 

[stollcpa]

Are you capable of making a point or post without throwing out insults and accusations?

It’s woke liberal stupidity. It is what it is.

 

[IU_Hickory]

It’s woke liberal stupidity. It is what it is.

Sure it is.