• 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!

Genderless Babies- Good Thing or Bad?

Is California's new 'genderless' baby law a good or bad thing?

  • Total voters
    49
  • Poll closed .
truthatallcost said:
I just answered why it's necessary. What 'may' happen isn't exactly relevant to the discussion. Lots of things 'may' happen.



Look at it this way, is it really such a big deal to check the right gender box for your baby? If not checking the box results in some future medical mistake, or other problem, like not being able to get a scholarship to play women's sports, then you'll feel like a fool for making such a fuss over checking a box.
Click to expand...

Except for medical reasons, I see no reason why it 'needs' to be included.

You still claim societal reasons...so please justify them.

and if it has the potential to cause harm later...why enter it on the bc?
 
Lursa said:
Except for medical reasons, I see no reason why it 'needs' to be included.

You still claim societal reasons...so please justify them.

and if it has the potential to cause harm later...why enter it on the bc?
Click to expand...

You're trolling me now. You have to be.
 
truthatallcost said:
Maybe you know more than I do on this issue. How many genders are there?
Click to expand...

To be perfectly honest I am not sure. Two? Three? Multiple? I would accept compelling evidence either way.

You should know that sex =/= gender, however.
 
truthatallcost said:
You're trolling me now. You have to be.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not. Can you articulate about the non-medical needs or not?

Because most things I can think of? Even if they look at a birth cert with a M or F, they are still going to be going with whatever the kid or adult identifies with.
 
Lursa said:
No, I'm not. Can you articulate about the non-medical needs or not?
Click to expand...

I did already Lursa, this is why you're giving me the troll vibes. A girl who earns an athletic scholarship to a university needs to be an actual girl, not a boy identifying as a girl.

A female who applies for a passport needs to show a birth certificate that says Female on it. Other countries may not accept that an American thinks they don't have to prove who they are.

When registering a child for school, the school needs to know who the child is.

When registering for a green card, INS needs to know who a person is.

There are more examples.

Because most things I can think of? Even if they look at a birth cert with a M or F, they are still going to be going with whatever the kid or adult identifies with.
Click to expand...

Maybe in Seattle, but not in most places.
 
Phys251 said:
To be perfectly honest I am not sure. Two? Three? Multiple? I would accept compelling evidence either way.

You should know that sex =/= gender, however.
Click to expand...

Ah, ok I just wanted to clarify.
There are 2 genders.

Now I realize that human psychology experiences a vast array of difference, and if someone wants to be as fruity as a bowl of Fruity Pebbles, then that's up to them. Call yourself a unicorn, I don't care. But don't demand that people think you're a unicorn just because you do.
 
Northern Light said:
E pluribus unum. Maybe not all States will follow this but it's fine by me that a State wants to experiment with it, it strengthens our diversity and social knowledge.

Judging from the Californian perspective, why should the State be involved in telling a parent which gender their child is? As gender is a social construct, it's none of their business. Their sex however is easily discernible, except of course in the cases of the intersexed.
Click to expand...

Gender is no more a social construct than our eyes are two useless orbs in our head.
99.999% of all humans are born male or female...period.
If an adult male decides to wear makeup, a wig and a dress, then they are merely an adult MALE wearing makeup, a wig and a dress.
Matching shoes and handbag optional.

No amount of legislation or goofy thinking will ever change this biological and physical fact.
 
Last edited:
Phys251 said:
Please prove your position on gender with sufficient supporting documentation.
Click to expand...

Can you show me even one case on here where "sufficient supporting documents" has changed even one posters point of view?
It is an exercise in futility.
They are either discounted as a bad source, not read or examined, explained away by contrary "supporting documents", or just ignored completely by the other person.

I always roll my eyes when I hear people asking for them. Knowing darn well it is useless to do so. Even if you are trying to prove water is wet.
 
truthatallcost said:
A girl who earns an athletic scholarship to a university needs to be an actual girl, not a boy identifying as a girl.
Click to expand...

That kid's gender identity would have already factored into their participation in High School sports and universities and the Olympics, etc are already coming to terms with this issue.

A female who applies for a passport needs to show a birth certificate that says Female on it. Other countries may not accept that an American thinks they don't have to prove who they are.
Click to expand...

Why? How do you know? Have any countries objected so far? And since when do we give a crap about what other countries think about our choices? LOL That cracks me up completely since (mostly conservative) people defend Trump with that all the time. And defend lots of American things that way.

When registering a child for school, the school needs to know who the child is.
Click to expand...

They know who the kid is. And it's not an issue in the states that have already done this.

When registering for a green card, INS needs to know who a person is.
Click to expand...

They can know who someone is without gender. So again, they already know who the person is.

There are more examples.
Click to expand...
Nothing else substantial that I've seen.

Overall, if you are going with this discussion and you use the word "who," you have already lost...because *who* they are is the gender they identify with. It's not about Xs & Ys.

So as I wrote earlier, you dont have any substance behind your socially-based issues.
 
I don't like the govt. forcing me into doing anything, that said, if the child ever gets arrested and convicted they will declare that person male or female based on his/her plumbing.
 
Lursa said:
That kid's gender identity would have already factored into their participation in High School sports and universities and the Olympics, etc are already coming to terms with this issue.



Why? How do you know? Have any countries objected so far? And since when do we give a crap about what other countries think about our choices? LOL That cracks me up completely since (mostly conservative) people defend Trump with that all the time. And defend lots of American things that way.



They know who the kid is. And it's not an issue in the states that have already done this.



They can know who someone is without gender. So again, they already know who the person is.


Nothing else substantial that I've seen.

Overall, if you are going with this discussion and you use the word "who," you have already lost...because *who* they are is the gender they identify with. It's not about Xs & Ys.

So as I wrote earlier, you dont have any substance behind your socially-based issues.
Click to expand...

Have you bothered to look at the poll results at all during this conversation? Lol.
 
truthatallcost said:
Ah, ok I just wanted to clarify.
There are 2 genders.

Now I realize that human psychology experiences a vast array of difference, and if someone wants to be as fruity as a bowl of Fruity Pebbles, then that's up to them. Call yourself a unicorn, I don't care. But don't demand that people think you're a unicorn just because you do.
Click to expand...

Your insistence that there exist exactly two genders because you can't imagine otherwise is no different than a creationist's insisting that God created all life because they can't imagine otherwise. No different. I made clear my call for evidence from you, yet you, like the creationist, stubbornly refuse to produce that evidence. What's the holdup? If you're right, shouldn't there be evidence on your side that you can produce?
 
PleasantValley said:
Can you show me even one case on here where "sufficient supporting documents" has changed even one posters point of view?
It is an exercise in futility.
They are either discounted as a bad source, not read or examined, explained away by contrary "supporting documents", or just ignored completely by the other person.

I always roll my eyes when I hear people asking for them. Knowing darn well it is useless to do so. Even if you are trying to prove water is wet.
Click to expand...

But evidence is all we have. Even if some humans choose not to accept it, that is no excuse for withholding evidence.
 
I think it's unnecessary, but I can just hear some conversations now...

"But mommy, Barbie is a girls' name right?" "Well, yes dear". "Then why doesn't she have a 'gina or breasts?" :roll:
 
antiquity said:
How is gender confusing an improvement to society? Doesn't if create more confusion.
Click to expand...

It's a question of whether gender is something that has to be tightly defined, or if it can be vague, modifiable, or even differ from the biological structure of the person involved.

The former system is more authoritarian, since it disallows or punishes people for not fitting into the accepted slots.

The latter system has more freedom, but along with that freedom arises issues of interaction and roles in society. Determining roles based on gender is problematic in some ways as well, since it assumes the presence or lack of ability based on a variable which has no relation to those abilities (generally speaking).

tl;dr: "Traditional" gender roles are well-known and simpler, yet restrict freedom. The complex and as-yet not fully understood by most gender options are far more confusing and complex, but offer more freedom
 
The Mark said:
It's a question of whether gender is something that has to be tightly defined, or if it can be vague, modifiable, or even differ from the biological structure of the person involved.

The former system is more authoritarian, since it disallows or punishes people for not fitting into the accepted slots.

The latter system has more freedom, but along with that freedom arises issues of interaction and roles in society. Determining roles based on gender is problematic in some ways as well, since it assumes the presence or lack of ability based on a variable which has no relation to those abilities (generally speaking).

tl;dr: "Traditional" gender roles are well-known and simpler, yet restrict freedom. The complex and as-yet not fully understood by most gender options are far more confusing and complex, but offer more freedom
Click to expand...

So instead of little boys playing with dolls and everyone being ok with that we can just pretend they they are girls so they can play with the dolls... If gender/sex is fluid then so is race and age. Why not just let you son play with dolls if he wants to play with dolls? Its really not that complicated and should stop being injected with sexual preference in a backhanded way.
 
truthatallcost said:
One of the new laws taking effect this January in California, is one that states parents will no longer be required to state the gender of new borns when filling out the birth certificate:



I personally think all of our modern day adult neurosis concerning gender, race, sexism and other psycho-babble crap du jour issues should be kept out of the lives of children.
Click to expand...

Welp, this gives a whole new meaning to the country song, “A Boy Named Sue”.
 
Its one step closer to nutty parents subjecting their prepubescent children to surgery and hormone treatment and really screwing up their lives.

Oh wait. That's already started. :roll:

Cant' children just be children and decide for themselves when they become of age to make such a decision? I guess that'd just be too 'normal' for some.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom