• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Intersexed people be forced into a gender/sex at birth?

OldFatGuy said:
I'm not the one making a specious argument. I've read a few of the papers which made such claims, all hypothetical unproved nonsense. No respected biologist made any such claims, and those respected pointed out they were dealing with examples of freaks, never using the term intersexual, a fantasy.
Click to expand...

Please provide links to back up your claims.

Here's mine:

The Spectrum of Sex Development: Eric Vilain and the Intersex Controversy - Scientific American

Intersex - Wikipedia

WHO | Gender and Genetics

intersex | Definition & Facts | Britannica.com
 
Dick Tornado said:
That depends on your interpterion of what it means to be intersexed.

Many reproductive scientist, doctors an researchers hold a tighter definition and they use data that 2 out of 10,000 births are true intersexed births.

How common is intersex? | Leonard Sax MD PhD | Physician, Psychologist, and Author

That would be considered a rare occurrence.

Red haired (ginger) people are freaks, (LOL) I know because I married one and we just celebrated our 33rd anniversary on the 16th.

I tend to feel that reproductive doctors Interpretations of how many intersexed people are born into society is likely based on sound data and investigation.

With that said I want it known that intersexed individuals should be allowed to choose for themselves on which gender they want to be identified with, even if it is none of the above....
Click to expand...
Intersexed should include anyone whose DNA and/or genitalia do not match the normal sex makeup. More and more scientists and researchers are accepting this.

You have one researcher arguing that some forms of intersexed basically don't count, usually because they aren't found out. There are far more cases of chimerism being found now than even when that p as per was written, in 2002. They are expected to increase. Many would not be found out without DNA testing, but in a way, transgenderism could provide that link in how at least some cases of intersexed are more likely to be found, if not just to give then evidence that it could be genetic, biological, that gender can be based on certain genes, hormones.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
CLAX1911 said:
I don't remember ever having a Snickers bar for dinner. Since that's what I said I'll stick to my analogy.

Your faux psychoanalysis of me is just mental masturbation for you it's not argumentative. You have no clue what I take issue with. So when you say I have issues with something because you suck at arguing you are just attacking my person. That's called an ad hominem.

Argue your position don't worry about me.

This discussion isn't about intersexed people. If you want to talk about that go talk about that if you want to butt into conversation and try and bully everyone into talkin about what you want them to I am going to resist. I don't take kindly to domineering arrogant people.

Your last statement is still profoundly stupid. it was stupid the first time you said it will be stupid every subsequent time you said it.
Click to expand...

This thread is about intersexed people. I started the thread, I know what I started the thread on. You are free to argue other things elsewhere, but discussions in this thread should relate to intersexed in some way.

You were trying to compare something proven bad for you, eating junk for dinner with something you wish to limit to children of only one gender, female, wearing dresses.

You underestimate children. They aren't nearly as easily confused as some adults tend to be, especially if things are explained to them. No child is born thinking "only girls can wear dresses". That is taught.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
roguenuke said:
Intersexed should include anyone whose DNA and/or genitalia do not match the normal sex makeup. More and more scientists and researchers are accepting this.

You have one researcher arguing that some forms of intersexed basically don't count, usually because they aren't found out. There are far more cases of chimerism being found now than even when that p as per was written, in 2002. They are expected to increase. Many would not be found out without DNA testing, but in a way, transgenderism could provide that link in how at least some cases of intersexed are more likely to be found, if not just to give then evidence that it could be genetic, biological, that gender can be based on certain genes, hormones.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That is the same logic that created the broad swath known as cancer.

There are many forms of cancer that have nothing to do with each other except by the name cancer.

The effects are different, the causes are different, the treatments are different, the impacts are different, the life expectancies are different and so on.

I have a rare form of cancer that I had since I was born but took until I was past 50 before it showed.

Some cancers in people are relate to exposure to natural forces while others are caused by exposure to manmade products.

The chemical make-up of Roundup is considered to be responsible for all cases of Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma.

Some become connected to the nervous system some do not, some spread throughout the body, some again do not.

Some are related to issues in your DNA and others are not.

There are huge differences from beginning to end, but they all get labeled as cancer.
 
roguenuke said:
This thread is about intersexed people.
Click to expand...
As you have said multiple times. If you don't want to participate in a discussion about other related topics don't respond to me with regard to other related topics.

But conversations evolve and develop. I'm sorry you don't get through this thing with an iron fist.

I started the thread, I know what I started the thread on.
Click to expand...
and I responded to op, there was a little bit of discussion and then you became a language Nazi and I told you I wasn't interested in talking about that anymore.

You ended that conversation by the incessant need to be correct. So I started talking to other people. And you but it into another conversation that you are part of to be a topic Nazi.

You don't have any authority.

You are free to argue other things elsewhere, but discussions in this thread should relate to intersexed in some way.
Click to expand...
What I'm talkin about relates to gender and sex which were words in the ****ing title of this thread. If you don't want to talk about it with responding to my posts.

You were trying to compare something proven bad for you, eating junk for dinner with something you wish to limit to children of only one gender, female, wearing dresses.
Click to expand...
no I'm not candy is bad for you. Eating too much candy is bad for you. And that's the argument I'm making it's the extreme that makes it wrong.

You underestimate children. They aren't nearly as easily confused as some adults tend to be,
Click to expand...
you were applying to children something that they are not capable of. And you are under estimating adults. the reason why it gets confusing the more you learn about it with the older you get is the more nuanced it becomes. Children aren't aware of those nuances.

especially if things are explained to them. No child is born thinking "only girls can wear dresses". That is taught.
Click to expand...
yeah same with math what's your point.
 
roguenuke said:
Wrong again. This was simply a picture, not everyday. It was an open dress, sort of like a baptismal gown.

I happen to be a mother of two, and helped raise many, many other children, since I came from a Catholic family.
Click to expand...

Oh! Only catholics have raised children?

One photo is meaningless. Learn from history, from other cultures.

I raised 4, and I am actively involved with 16 grandchildren, and a recent first great granddaughter, a multitude of nieces and nephews and their children. Still with much more to learn, and they teach me constantly as I teach them.

It is easy to raise children and not have a clue what they are thinking and feeling. Look around you, and see what I mean.

The mother of one of the recent school mass shooters, "I had no idea, no suspicions, he was a normal boy."

Yeah.
 
OldFatGuy said:
Oh! Only catholics have raised children?

One photo is meaningless. Learn from history, from other cultures.

I raised 4, and I am actively involved with 16 grandchildren, and a recent first great granddaughter, a multitude of nieces and nephews and their children. Still with much more to learn, and they teach me constantly as I teach them.

It is easy to raise children and not have a clue what they are thinking and feeling. Look around you, and see what I mean.

The mother of one of the recent school mass shooters, "I had no idea, no suspicions, he was a normal boy."

Yeah.
Click to expand...
What are you going off about? I was sharing my experience, which you tried initially insisting must be none.

And that photo was not what you described but what was being discussed. It had nothing to do with swaddling, but was showing that at other times in history, boys did in fact wear dresses. Wearing any sort of clothing is cultural, not biological.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
CLAX1911 said:
As you have said multiple times. If you don't want to participate in a discussion about other related topics don't respond to me with regard to other related topics.

But conversations evolve and develop. I'm sorry you don't get through this thing with an iron fist.

and I responded to op, there was a little bit of discussion and then you became a language Nazi and I told you I wasn't interested in talking about that anymore.

You ended that conversation by the incessant need to be correct. So I started talking to other people. And you but it into another conversation that you are part of to be a topic Nazi.

You don't have any authority.


What I'm talkin about relates to gender and sex which were words in the ****ing title of this thread. If you don't want to talk about it with responding to my posts.

no I'm not candy is bad for you. Eating too much candy is bad for you. And that's the argument I'm making it's the extreme that makes it wrong.

you were applying to children something that they are not capable of. And you are under estimating adults. the reason why it gets confusing the more you learn about it with the older you get is the more nuanced it becomes. Children aren't aware of those nuances.

yeah same with math what's your point.
Click to expand...
Wearing a dress is not bad for any child, unless they are forced to it, despite their protests otherwise. There is no evidence that the majority of intersexed children or even transgendered children whom you would consider boys are being forced to wear dresses against their will, any more than 3 year old girls are being forced to wear dresses against their will or to the detriment of their mental health. Most children don't pick our their clothing at that age. But if there are specific requests, then generally good parents will try to allow it (when it comes to clothing) without regard to gender if they would allow a child of the opposite gender to also wear it. You have no evidence that such allowance in wear would cause any mental damage.

No. Children are much more open to change and acceptance of differences than adults are. This has been studied. It is especially true if they have good adults in their lives to guide them. Many schools are teaching acceptance of differences, diversity more and more.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
Wearing a dress is not bad for any child, unless they are forced to it, despite their protests otherwise. There is no evidence that the majority of intersexed children or even transgendered children whom you would consider boys are being forced to wear dresses against their will, any more than 3 year old girls are being forced to wear dresses against their will or to the detriment of their mental health.
Click to expand...
you can assert whatever you want you aren't an authority. So your assertions are meaningless.

Neat opinions though.

then generally good parents
Click to expand...
your opinion on what makes good parenting doesn't come from any authority. And it seems to align with kookie hedonistic values. So again I think it's adorable you have an opinion but what should I care?

t
You have no evidence that such allowance in wear would cause any mental damage.
Click to expand...
even if I did I wouldn't present it because of the dunning-kruger effect.

No matter what anyone says you're going to believe whatever you want. That's why I never present evidence in an open forum anymore. It's a lot of work for nothing.

No. Children are much more open to change and acceptance of differences than adults are.
Click to expand...
yes are you absolutely agree with you they are very much a lot easier to manipulate and brainwash. That's why so much on psychology focuses on the childhood.
This has been studied.
Click to expand...
yes you're not going to get argument for me it is much easier to manipulate a child than it is an adult.

It is especially true if they have good adults in their lives to guide them. Many schools are teaching acceptance of differences, diversity more and more.
Click to expand...
again when you say good parents that sends off a bunch of red flags. Good parenting under your new age hedonistic creepy morality doesn't strike me as good.

You can think of me as some sort of knuckle-dragging troglodyte or some bigot or whatever I think I would probably thank you for the compliment because I wouldn't want to be considered good in your standard.

Basically to sum that up I don't care what you think.
 
roguenuke said:
What are you going off about? I was sharing my experience, which you tried initially insisting must be none.

And that photo was not what you described but what was being discussed. It had nothing to do with swaddling, but was showing that at other times in history, boys did in fact wear dresses. Wearing any sort of clothing is cultural, not biological.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So what?
 
roguenuke said:
...Children are much more open to change and acceptance of differences than adults are. This has been studied. It is especially true if they have good adults in their lives to guide them. Many schools are teaching acceptance of differences, diversity more and more....
Click to expand...
CLAX1911 said:
...yes are you absolutely agree with you they are very much a lot easier to manipulate and brainwash. That's why so much on psychology focuses on the childhood. yes you're not going to get argument for me it is much easier to manipulate a child than it is an adult...
Click to expand...
The crux of your difference, it seems to me:
"Open to change and acceptance" vs. "very much a lot easier to manipulate and brainwash."
Which descriptor better captures the stakes?
 
Angel said:
The crux of your difference, it seems to me:
"Open to change and acceptance" vs. "very much a lot easier to manipulate and brainwash."
Which descriptor better captures the stakes?
Click to expand...
Since having children much more open to the idea of differences among people, including when it comes to sex or gender isnt a bad thing, seems my argument is definitely the better option.

How does letting kids know that there are people born intersexed who should not have to get unneeded surgeries or hormones just to fit in harm them?

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
AProudLefty said:
This is the real woman who identifies as a woman. Does she have to use men's bathroom?
View attachment 67264193
Click to expand...

That's going to depend on local standards and possibly genetic testing, but yes, a lot of women might have a problem with a "bearded lady" in the bathroom, and the law has to take their uncertainties into account, not just automatically take the side of the minority interest.
 
roguenuke said:
Not really. Our country actually has very few laws encoded that require use of certain restrooms.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

For a long time custom took the place of law, but as these sort of struggles assume importance, laws will take the place of customs.

If such laws are not on the books in some states as yet, the legal wrangling will assure that they will get there, whether for one side or the other.
 
roguenuke said:
And there are men who were raised as girls, have a vagina (even if surgically implanted). Did you even watch the video? What bathroom should Judy have used, since Judy had no clue that she was born intersexed? But she definitely looked like a guy. I bet she got harassed often about it. And later she found out she was born as both and changed at birth.
Click to expand...

None of that changes the fact that the law has to deal with the populace that isn't comfortable with intersex types. If they become the minority voice, then they will be overruled, just as previous minority voices were overruled. I'm not addressing the justice of the matter as yet; just the facts of the situation.
 
Wayne Jr said:
Believe it or not, there's no law saying what bathroom you can use. It's purely a social convention. Besides, your typical intersexed person would either look like a masculine woman in the ladies restroom or an eminent man in the men's restroom. They wouldn't stand out either way.
Click to expand...

But if you read the essay to which I linked, you may note that there are some transgender who don't think they have to conceal their difference. The guy in that case expected women to wax his genitalia, possibly so that they would refuse and he could sue them. The upshot of his pointless grandstand play was that this particular small business went out of business, and for no good reason.
 
roguenuke said:
Then it should not matter if boys wear dresses, whatever their reason is for doing so.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter to me, I don't care. His peers may have a different perspective, and make his life miserable. But you don't care, you have an agenda to promote.
 
Ouroboros said:
That's going to depend on local standards and possibly genetic testing, but yes, a lot of women might have a problem with a "bearded lady" in the bathroom, and the law has to take their uncertainties into account, not just automatically take the side of the minority interest.
Click to expand...

Do you speak for those women?
 
OldFatGuy said:
Impossible to relax. My wife went shopping for new winter clothes with the teen granddaughters yesterday, and my credit card.
Click to expand...

Lol I know the feeling. Never trust women with your credit card.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom