This is why so many women voted Trump

[BabyLlamaZen]

I’m not saying it’s right, I’m not saying it’s worth the horrors of the Trump administration (and what other women’s rights will be abolished). However, I can also empathise. Books like this are everywhere in baby sections of bookshops in USA. My american friend is naturally more conservative than myself although hated Trump and didn’t vote for him previously (she abstained and then she went Biden although she says she seriously regrets) and this time she voted Trump. She said this stuff is now everywhere and it’s constant. She also showed me a baby’s ABC book which included B for bisexual (and literally then described it as people who are sexually attracted to either gender). For babies.

Right, so leaving aside the issue of DSDs for the purpose of discussion, where external genitalia absolutely correlates to gamete, do you accept that the term girl and boy will describe biological sex, and that it cannot be changed.

Neither can a human being not have a sex

Mary Harrington talks about how early feminism was a feminism centred on women's rights and needs as mothers and wives. She calls it a feminism of care.

There then developed a feminism of freedom. And the aim was to make women as free as possible from the 'burdens' of family responsibility and the burden of our body. In this movement pregnancy birth and child care came to be framed primarily as burdens women needed unshackling from.

The feminism of freedom won over the feminism of care in the culture and consequently we have unrestricted abortion framed as the highest value for women by modern feminists.
Only then can women be truly free from the burden of their bodies reproductive role.

Problem is in reality women don't only want 'freedom'.
There are many other things that women value possibly even more than freedom from our body.

Tandora

so just to be clear. In terms of homosexuality, let's say lesbian, because it's very clear that it is a female.

Could two people with the male sex, who like to wear dresses be described as lesbians?

And is this how you would teach children about sexualities?

Gender ideologists never fail to astound me.

"Girl / boy" are descriptions of a human baby's sex. That's it. There's nothing much else to it.

Also, there's no such thing as a "trans child".
Gender non-conforming children have existed since time immemorial. There's nothing wrong with them or that. These children are perfectly normal in their own way.

They don't need to be put on a lifetime of artificial drugs or surgery, have their reproductive function interfered with, being told they're an immediate suicide risk for being gender non-conforming. That is the ideology of a certain cohort of messed up adults being inflicted upon these children.

“Assigned” is doing some heavy lifting there, as usual.

Girl and boy are simply used (not assigned) to describe a child based on her or his genitals (which are a result of her or his chromosomal make up), and brick is the name of an object used in the construction of buildings of various sorts.

Exactly.

It's just rank sexism. If you want to be feminine, or wear feminine clothes, you've gotta say you're a woman.

Your last sentence there. That, to my mind, is a great illustration of why the Democrats lost.

People don't like to be told what their motivations are. It's rude, arrogant, and suggests a moral superiority that apart from anything else is generally inaccurate, because it's based on applying simplistic tribal assumptions rather than actual observation and insight.

I think it is imperative that children are taught that as female children, they should never simply accept someone's label for themselves when it comes to their privacy and safety. I think that telling a female child that 'girls' can have penises has to very clear potential to lower that female child's boundaries to allow safeguarding violations.

Because a female child will likely, in their school, have to change clothes in an open space. And telling any female child that some 'girls' have penises is telling that child that they have to accept a male person in that open changing space. And no, using the 'all children should change in cubicles' as a deflection tactic will not work either.

I’m not sure what you mean by this? By antenatal screening do you mean tests for chromosomes? These are still by no means a majority practice- usually only available privately I think (?) as a by-product of NIPT tests.

Furthermore, a person chromosomes do not always tell you whether it is appropriate to assign someone male or female. These are complex medical questions.

Used works just as well. I have no objection to that.

Why are people with medical conditions being used to wedge open and destabilise sex category labels?

I thought that this had stopped, and yet, we are seeing it again here.

(And external genitals still play an important role in that medical determination).

Someone seems to be rather invested in derailing a thread from discussing why voters in the US were turned away from voting for the Democrats.

I think it's because once you start asking questions, the only way you can continue to claim sex is ambiguous, is if the person has a DSD and needs further testing.

Once you accept that children are either male or female depending on their genitalia, there's nowhere else to go, other than if that genitalia hasn't formed properly.

Right, but other than disorders of sexual development, are you now accepting that humans are divided into two biological sexes and that cannot change?

(and that actually anyone with a DSD is also one sex or the other other. There is no third sex)

Pretty much every woman now has a 18-20 week USS. Where the technology is now good enough to do a fetal Echo and definitely good enough to clarify male vs female reproductive anatomy.

You’ve never had an antenatal USS, have you?

And even with DSDs there are only two sexes. There is no third gamete.

I thought we're supposed to believe that being a man or woman had nothing to do with anyone's genitals anyway, so what on earth disorders of sexual development have to do with it, is beyond me.

nolongersurprised

Sorry, I edited my post to exactly that before your comment. Just to stop the conversation going off in that bloody direction!

I think it’s the outdated term “intersex” some TRAs like. I’m not sure why.

Furthermore, a person chromosomes do not always tell you whether it is appropriate to assign someone male or female. These are complex medical questions

There's nothing complex about it, actually.

XX or XY chromosomes DO tell us if someone is female or male. It's very simple.

The incidence of DSDs is 0.05% of live births. So very, very uncommon. And even when they occur, the baby will have either XX or XY chromosomes.

Other than in cases where they don’t, external genitals correspond to what gametes a person has. (The latter is also the overwhelming norm).

I have never suggested otherwise.

I don’t know what you mean by “this can never change”?

With medical technologies you can alter the structure of a persons genitals. You can also remove a person’s gametes.

Hysterectomy and castration.....????

These are complex medical questions

To do with conditions of considerable rarity, and completely irrelevant in the vast majority of cases.

Yep.

You make assertions like celebrating Dylan Mulvaney for his achievement of bravely impersonating a 'girl' and you have just created a wall of cognitive dissonance that many will struggle to climb.

Not only is Mulvaney a man, he's a man who insults women with pathetic sexist stereotypes.