Comments 1 - 37 of 37 Search these comments
That would really be horrible for the many Americans who are born intersex. It would probably be unconstitutional to define them out of existence.
Anne Fausto-Sterling s suggestion that the prevalence of intersex might be as high as 1.7% has attracted wide attention in both the scholarly press and the popular media. Many reviewers are not aware that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia. If the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling s estimate of 1.7%.
So this is really a battle that Trump wants to pursue ? Making Kaitlyn legally a man ?
Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling s estimate of 1.7%.
I have seen really narrow definitions used for political purposes, but even if we accept 0.018%, that would still be more than 50,000 Americans. They exist, and they have a right to continue to exist.
They exist, and they have a right to continue to exist.
It would probably be unconstitutional to define them out of existence.
What's so hard about biological male, female and other sex based on facts where the other notated with an asterisk could be specified at the bottom of the document. Make a separate gender field if you want that is optional like a screen name and non binding to anyone. People can then fill it out with whatever they want.
The dems have gone off the rail with the 100+ genders crap.
Funny thing is that the left can't even tell you how many genders exist. The number changes on a daily basis.
I say there are basically 2.
A trans person is someone we allow to essentially change to the other one
Except they aren't really changing their gender.
A trans person is someone we allow to essentially change to the other one
So far. changing gender is beyond current medical science, just like restoring youth. Today's transgender woman is just a man in extreme drag.
The women won't want to participate and neither women nor men will want to watch.
mell saysWhat's so hard about biological male, female and other sex based on facts where the other notated with an asterisk could be specified at the bottom of the document. Make a separate gender field if you want that is optional like a screen name and non binding to anyone. People can then fill it out with whatever they want.
Because there isn't "other". Other would be a major birth defect and isn't common enough to warrant everyone in every society changes to accommodate their craziness. Changing laws to accomodate more than 2 would send all laws into weird shit territory. Who is entitled to child support, who is the mother, who is the father, etc... There is only one solution, keep it simple, and birth defects/retards just suck it up.
In my opinion, trans activism has gone a bit far with changing birth certificates. If you were born John Doe, and want to change your name to Jane Roe, then do a legal change of name and leave the historical record alone. With a legal change of name, you can use your new name for everything including your driver's license and passport. I see gender the same way. There can be rules about who is eligible for what, e.g. anatomical and whether people need surgery, but there are always people who don't fit neatly into male or female, so having a non-binary category is a good idea.
It is unfortunate that a small % of people get kicked around as an electoral football. Republicans are using non-binary persons to drive a wedge
And as we all know, sexual reproduction is a stale pale, white male imperialist capitalist myth; we must decolonize biology.