Now this was some interesting reading. With such excellent points that I so agree with. Seems the majority of society is unable to differentiate between psychological and medical necessity for our children. My opinions are strictly focused on our youth. My battle is only for Trans children. And I'm so glad that Jo said, "For some young people, could a desire for medical interventions be trying to find a simple solution to really complex problems—or even another form of self-harm?" This is exactly my point. In a nutshell! Thank you, Jo!
Jo's personal situation is only a small percentage of the population. My heart goes out to her because not being honest with a child, only leads to sad consequences. She is one brave woman in my book! Kudos to her for achieving an education in a field that she can help others with similar issues with. Not only with her book knowledge, but her real-life knowledge and experience and heartache. She will indeed be saving lives. Now may the rest of society take a closer look at these kids through the eyes of Jo. Take off our rose-colored glasses.
Trying to "fix" kids with surgery and/or chemicals is wrong on every level. Do not legally leave such permanent decisions up to a child. Personally, I feel it should be 25, when the human brain is done developing. But that's only my opinion. I cannot speak for others. I speak for children being given the ability to change their gender behind the parent's back. These kids are, in essence, being taught by society to keep secrets from their parents. To their own personal detriment that will be a cross they bear for the rest of their lives! Tragic.
Unnecessary surgeries was a problem I've had three. Although they were necessary in hindsight. Now we're dealing with a far worse problem and it started with a Trans "Rights" Movement co-opting dsd conditions and claiming they have intersex. Then the science articles started appropriating all sorts of conditions and twisting and calling these people between sex. Now we have a whole list of people who want to use the normal definition of sex development and apply that to abnormal development. These conditions have nothing to do with transgender and need to be left out. They need to be left to counselors and Physicians and specialized geneticists who understand the complicated neuro physical development Behind These rare conditions. Transgender people claim to have conditions where there was only 200 documented cases in the history of Medicine. Other conditions are like one in ten million. xxy and xxxxy come with health problems such as heart failure kidney failure learning disabilities development problems ect. TRA appropriate funds and spit out propaganda and leave us with our outrageous medical bills and whatever hormones are left because affirmative care has been sucking the supply dry.
Excellent comment! I appreciate your solid insight and agree with you. Thank you! Your words have encouraged my heart and soul. Stand your ground. I’m right beside you. Save our children!!
Thank you again for covering this. complete Androgen insensitivity syndrome (not to be confused with partial Androgen insensitivity) are female because they are phenotypically and genotypically female and there endocrine system exploits underdeveloped testicles as a source of estrogen. And they're not intersex they're not between sex. There's no intersex condition that's between sex. They're also XX males who are phenotypically males. These are rare conditions that can be explained medically not philosophically. We're having a fight with GC hardliners see https://jameslinehan.substack.com/p/save-womens-sports-is-intolerant?s=w
Those with intersex conditions clearly have had a tough break in the genetic lottery department. Though one might suggest that many others have it much worse - e.g., those with Huntington's disease and childhood cancers - even if that may not be much consolation.
However, that really shouldn't cut a lot of ice - "be kind!" 🙄 - when it comes to the biological definitions for the sexes. And they stipulate - they're stipulative definitions - that to be members of the male and female sex categories is to have functional gonads of either of two types:
And by those definitions, most of those with intersex conditions are, in fact, sexless - neither male nor female. Although "sexless" covers the prepubescent as well, along with the transgendered who "decide" to have, or who are tricked into having their gonads removed.
But the dogmatic insistence that everyone has to have a sex - except the intersex who are thought to be anomalous cases but who, somehow, by some magical prestidigitation or by sweeping the facts under the carpet, are still assumed to be male or female - is ubiquitous, and contributes substantially to the entire transgender clusterfuck. For instance, even Lisa contributes to that as with this from her essay on Walsh's "documentary":
"At the end of the film, when Walsh asks his wife to say what a woman is, she provides him with the dictionary definition [i.e., "adult human female"], which does apply more than 99% of the time."
While she is to be commended for defending the concept of gender (personalities and related stereotypes) and for differentiating it from the profoundly anti-scientific "gender identity" claptrap ("magico-spiritual undertone", the "merging of science, magic, and religion"), I don't think she quite understands the philosophical, logical, scientific, and epistemological principles which undergird the biological definitions for the sexes. And, sadly, she - and far too many others who should know better (*cough Kathleen Stock *cough) - seems unwilling to even grapple with those devils in the details.
More particularly, her insistence - and that of so many others - that that definition "applies more than 99% of the time" - is virtually the same as saying that the definition for "teenager" - i.e., being 13 to 19 inclusive - only applies "99% of the time".
By definition, to be a teenager is to be in that age range, and if they're not 13 to 19 then they're not teenagers; we are not likely - ever, even through billion dollar Manhattan projects, through exhaustive searching - to find any teenagers who are younger than 13 or older than 19.
Both being "13 to 19" and "adult human female" are what are called the "necessary and sufficient conditions for membership in the categories "teenager" and "woman":
And, by the standard biological definitions, the necessary and sufficient conditions for being male and female is to have functional gonads of either of two types. An essay at Aeon by Paul Griffiths - university of Sydney, philosophy of science, co-author of Genetics and Philosophy - has a "nice" and succinct summary of that argument:
"Nothing in the biological definition of sex requires that every organism be a member of one sex or the other. That might seem surprising, but it follows naturally from DEFINING each sex by the ability to do one thing: make eggs or make sperm. Some organisms can do both, while some can't do either [ergo, sexless]."
But those definitions are hardly ones he's cut from whole cloth; they're ubiquitous and the standard framework of biology endorsed by any number of journals, biologists, dictionaries, and encyclopedias:
"Female gametes are larger than male gametes. This is not an empirical observation, but a definition: in a system with two markedly different gamete sizes, we DEFINE females to be the sex that produces the larger gametes and vice-versa for males (Parker et al. 1972) ...."
That works in Normal development but this is abnormal development! You make a mistake. The argument you're making is called "reductio ad absurdum" Is like saying all humans have only one head and then a conjoined twin walks into the room with two. Understand the difference! There are 250 PubMed articles on this condition. There is no Medical Association no physician who will agree with you. They develop normal sexual function for a female they have a female skeleton. If you do an ultrasound they are female. If you dig them up a hundred years from now they will be female. It's a big gamete body with a small gamete gonads that can't produce sperm . realize they start "female" around 6 weeks into pregnancy and for the rest of their lives. Otherwise what do you do with XX males. There are "feminists" who right now want to throw these people into male prisons. Stop this fanaticism
🙄 What a bunch of ignorant, cretinous, and self-serving blathering.
What ARE the biological definitions for the sexes, the ones endorsed by most reputable biologists, biological journals, dictionaries, and encyclopedias?
Since you seem unwilling or incapable of reading the facts, the writing on the wall, here are three for "female":
"female: Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes."
"Female (symbol: ♀) is the sex of an organism that produces the large non-motile ova (egg cells), the type of gamete (sex cell) that fuses with the male gamete during sexual reproduction."
You haven't got an effen clue what you're talking about. You too are too pigheaded to even try thinking about the philosophical, logical, and scientific principles that undergird the definitions we create. And they ARE created, they are "socially constructed" - Moses didn't bring the first dictionary down from Mt. Sinai on tablets A through Z.
Skeltons themselves are neither male nor female: are bare skeltons, the ones hanging in doctor's offices, able to produce sperm or ova? 🙄 There are only differences in them that correlate strongly with the sexes of their previous "owners" - for example, those of females tend to have wider hips. Those correlations allow us to make inferences about the people who used to be attached to them. Those traits are "proxy variables" that allow us to make inferences about other ones under discussion:
"In statistics, a proxy or proxy variable is a variable that is not in itself directly relevant, but that serves in place of an unobservable or immeasurable variable."
Being bipedal is an "accidental property" of being human. But that someone has had a leg cut off doesn't put them outside the human category. The essential property is, generally, having compatible karyotypes.
Now this was some interesting reading. With such excellent points that I so agree with. Seems the majority of society is unable to differentiate between psychological and medical necessity for our children. My opinions are strictly focused on our youth. My battle is only for Trans children. And I'm so glad that Jo said, "For some young people, could a desire for medical interventions be trying to find a simple solution to really complex problems—or even another form of self-harm?" This is exactly my point. In a nutshell! Thank you, Jo!
Jo's personal situation is only a small percentage of the population. My heart goes out to her because not being honest with a child, only leads to sad consequences. She is one brave woman in my book! Kudos to her for achieving an education in a field that she can help others with similar issues with. Not only with her book knowledge, but her real-life knowledge and experience and heartache. She will indeed be saving lives. Now may the rest of society take a closer look at these kids through the eyes of Jo. Take off our rose-colored glasses.
Trying to "fix" kids with surgery and/or chemicals is wrong on every level. Do not legally leave such permanent decisions up to a child. Personally, I feel it should be 25, when the human brain is done developing. But that's only my opinion. I cannot speak for others. I speak for children being given the ability to change their gender behind the parent's back. These kids are, in essence, being taught by society to keep secrets from their parents. To their own personal detriment that will be a cross they bear for the rest of their lives! Tragic.
Unnecessary surgeries was a problem I've had three. Although they were necessary in hindsight. Now we're dealing with a far worse problem and it started with a Trans "Rights" Movement co-opting dsd conditions and claiming they have intersex. Then the science articles started appropriating all sorts of conditions and twisting and calling these people between sex. Now we have a whole list of people who want to use the normal definition of sex development and apply that to abnormal development. These conditions have nothing to do with transgender and need to be left out. They need to be left to counselors and Physicians and specialized geneticists who understand the complicated neuro physical development Behind These rare conditions. Transgender people claim to have conditions where there was only 200 documented cases in the history of Medicine. Other conditions are like one in ten million. xxy and xxxxy come with health problems such as heart failure kidney failure learning disabilities development problems ect. TRA appropriate funds and spit out propaganda and leave us with our outrageous medical bills and whatever hormones are left because affirmative care has been sucking the supply dry.
Excellent comment! I appreciate your solid insight and agree with you. Thank you! Your words have encouraged my heart and soul. Stand your ground. I’m right beside you. Save our children!!
Thank you again for covering this. complete Androgen insensitivity syndrome (not to be confused with partial Androgen insensitivity) are female because they are phenotypically and genotypically female and there endocrine system exploits underdeveloped testicles as a source of estrogen. And they're not intersex they're not between sex. There's no intersex condition that's between sex. They're also XX males who are phenotypically males. These are rare conditions that can be explained medically not philosophically. We're having a fight with GC hardliners see https://jameslinehan.substack.com/p/save-womens-sports-is-intolerant?s=w
My condition is called kallmann syndrome and it is induced when you give a child puberty blockers. see https://jameslinehan.substack.com/p/i-went-through-gender-affirming-care?s=w
Those with intersex conditions clearly have had a tough break in the genetic lottery department. Though one might suggest that many others have it much worse - e.g., those with Huntington's disease and childhood cancers - even if that may not be much consolation.
However, that really shouldn't cut a lot of ice - "be kind!" 🙄 - when it comes to the biological definitions for the sexes. And they stipulate - they're stipulative definitions - that to be members of the male and female sex categories is to have functional gonads of either of two types:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition
And by those definitions, most of those with intersex conditions are, in fact, sexless - neither male nor female. Although "sexless" covers the prepubescent as well, along with the transgendered who "decide" to have, or who are tricked into having their gonads removed.
But the dogmatic insistence that everyone has to have a sex - except the intersex who are thought to be anomalous cases but who, somehow, by some magical prestidigitation or by sweeping the facts under the carpet, are still assumed to be male or female - is ubiquitous, and contributes substantially to the entire transgender clusterfuck. For instance, even Lisa contributes to that as with this from her essay on Walsh's "documentary":
"At the end of the film, when Walsh asks his wife to say what a woman is, she provides him with the dictionary definition [i.e., "adult human female"], which does apply more than 99% of the time."
https://lisaselindavis.substack.com/p/i-know-what-a-woman-is?s=r
While she is to be commended for defending the concept of gender (personalities and related stereotypes) and for differentiating it from the profoundly anti-scientific "gender identity" claptrap ("magico-spiritual undertone", the "merging of science, magic, and religion"), I don't think she quite understands the philosophical, logical, scientific, and epistemological principles which undergird the biological definitions for the sexes. And, sadly, she - and far too many others who should know better (*cough Kathleen Stock *cough) - seems unwilling to even grapple with those devils in the details.
More particularly, her insistence - and that of so many others - that that definition "applies more than 99% of the time" - is virtually the same as saying that the definition for "teenager" - i.e., being 13 to 19 inclusive - only applies "99% of the time".
By definition, to be a teenager is to be in that age range, and if they're not 13 to 19 then they're not teenagers; we are not likely - ever, even through billion dollar Manhattan projects, through exhaustive searching - to find any teenagers who are younger than 13 or older than 19.
Both being "13 to 19" and "adult human female" are what are called the "necessary and sufficient conditions for membership in the categories "teenager" and "woman":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensional_and_intensional_definitions
And, by the standard biological definitions, the necessary and sufficient conditions for being male and female is to have functional gonads of either of two types. An essay at Aeon by Paul Griffiths - university of Sydney, philosophy of science, co-author of Genetics and Philosophy - has a "nice" and succinct summary of that argument:
"Nothing in the biological definition of sex requires that every organism be a member of one sex or the other. That might seem surprising, but it follows naturally from DEFINING each sex by the ability to do one thing: make eggs or make sperm. Some organisms can do both, while some can't do either [ergo, sexless]."
https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence-of-biological-sex-is-no-constraint-on-human-diversity
But those definitions are hardly ones he's cut from whole cloth; they're ubiquitous and the standard framework of biology endorsed by any number of journals, biologists, dictionaries, and encyclopedias:
"Female gametes are larger than male gametes. This is not an empirical observation, but a definition: in a system with two markedly different gamete sizes, we DEFINE females to be the sex that produces the larger gametes and vice-versa for males (Parker et al. 1972) ...."
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-3-319-16999-6_3063-1
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990 (See their Glossary for definitions for male & female)
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/female
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female
That works in Normal development but this is abnormal development! You make a mistake. The argument you're making is called "reductio ad absurdum" Is like saying all humans have only one head and then a conjoined twin walks into the room with two. Understand the difference! There are 250 PubMed articles on this condition. There is no Medical Association no physician who will agree with you. They develop normal sexual function for a female they have a female skeleton. If you do an ultrasound they are female. If you dig them up a hundred years from now they will be female. It's a big gamete body with a small gamete gonads that can't produce sperm . realize they start "female" around 6 weeks into pregnancy and for the rest of their lives. Otherwise what do you do with XX males. There are "feminists" who right now want to throw these people into male prisons. Stop this fanaticism
Here's my sources on this information and yes I hired a real scientist and a physician to verify. https://jameslinehan.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-complete-androgen?s=w
🙄 What a bunch of ignorant, cretinous, and self-serving blathering.
What ARE the biological definitions for the sexes, the ones endorsed by most reputable biologists, biological journals, dictionaries, and encyclopedias?
Since you seem unwilling or incapable of reading the facts, the writing on the wall, here are three for "female":
"female: Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes."
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/female
"Female (symbol: ♀) is the sex of an organism that produces the large non-motile ova (egg cells), the type of gamete (sex cell) that fuses with the male gamete during sexual reproduction."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems."
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990?login=false
Can CAIS people "produce the larger gametes" or not? Yes or no? Think you can manage to answer a simple question or two there, sport?
You haven't got an effen clue what you're talking about. You too are too pigheaded to even try thinking about the philosophical, logical, and scientific principles that undergird the definitions we create. And they ARE created, they are "socially constructed" - Moses didn't bring the first dictionary down from Mt. Sinai on tablets A through Z.
Skeltons themselves are neither male nor female: are bare skeltons, the ones hanging in doctor's offices, able to produce sperm or ova? 🙄 There are only differences in them that correlate strongly with the sexes of their previous "owners" - for example, those of females tend to have wider hips. Those correlations allow us to make inferences about the people who used to be attached to them. Those traits are "proxy variables" that allow us to make inferences about other ones under discussion:
"In statistics, a proxy or proxy variable is a variable that is not in itself directly relevant, but that serves in place of an unobservable or immeasurable variable."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(statistics)
As for "cojoined twins", you might try reading a philosophical article on the difference between accidental and essential properties:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/
Being bipedal is an "accidental property" of being human. But that someone has had a leg cut off doesn't put them outside the human category. The essential property is, generally, having compatible karyotypes.
Thank you Lisa.
Such a profound and simple message here.
Do no harm.
Do no harm.
Do no harm.
For some reason I wanted to write it three times. Maybe it’s a reaction after so much screaming and yelling on the Internet.
Thank you thank you thank you.