Colorado signs law allowing abortion at ANY POINT in PREGNANCY

[Asita]

If you'd like to make the argument that if a person has their penis removed it makes them no longer a man, that's an argument made by lots of people with various intended meanings. "Manhood" is a term for male genitals for a reason.

But that's not really the point of contention, is it? Extraordinarily few people care about the things people claim not to be, the argument is largely about being something else. A trans-woman not being a man isn't really the argument, it's being a woman that's the sticking point.

Bluntly, if you stop to think about it for more than five seconds, that argument is incredibly inconsistent.

For virtually all practical purposes, sex relates to physical characteristics, specifically the presence of [external] primary and secondary sexual characteristics. The sex you're assigned at birth isn't based on some comprehensive dna scan, chromosome analysis, or anything so complex. It's literally decided with little more than a glance between your legs. If you have a penis, you're a boy. If you have a vagina, you're a girl. Simple as that. Hell, in the case of the intersex, SOP is basically summed up as "close enough" based on what their...equipment most resembles. "I think that mostly resembles a vagina...so congratulations, it's a girl! Don't worry, we can make that look more like a normal vagina."

But when we talk about trans individuals, suddenly the rules change. Sex is suddenly has nothing to do with their morphological characteristics, but instead is entirely about whether they have the right chromosomes, or whether they have functional ovaries or testes (which comes packed with a backhand to those who are infertile or have had a vasectomy or hysterectomy). Let's not kid ourselves here, we change the rules for little purpose other than to...well, 'other' them and claim that they are not and indeed can never be that sex as a matter of definition...a definition we don't otherwise apply.

In effect, we're saying that the standard rules don't count for them. Everyone is assigned a sex in the delivery room purely because of their morphological characteristics and the expectation that those reflect their future morphological characteristics. But after they transition? Those same morphological characteristics are suddenly irrelevant, and it's instead all about the chromosomes that nobody ever bothers to check unless testing for congenital issues. Don't believe me? Do you know when Klinefelter Syndrome is diagnosed? You know, when they realize that the kid had an extra X chromosome and was XXY instead of XY? Puberty, after they realize that the testicles have failed to grow. Similarly XX male syndrome (Morphologically male from birth despite having XX chromosomes) is typically recognized in late adolescence with the smoking gun that leads to the chromosomal test being - again - small testes or infertility. Let me reemphasize that: the first time they learn that they don't have the typical XY chromosomes is during puberty when the doctors suspect that the root cause of visible issues is a chromosomal abnormality. And that rather neatly illustrates how chromosomal testing is the exception, not the rule.

You weren't assigned male because the doctors performed a chromosomal analysis on you in neonatal (in fact, the balance of probability is that they didn't perform such an analysis at all). You were assigned male because the doctors saw that you had a pee-pee. Neither would it have mattered if you had turned out to be infertile or had otherwise lost function in your testes. You would still be considered male, because lacking reproductive ability does not disqualify you under the normally used definition.

There's no scanner at the entrance to the men's room that checks your sperm count or verifies your Y chromosome and testosterone levels. You don't have to submit a government issued ID to prove that you're male, society operates off a "you know one when you see one" system. If you're joining the men's swim team, they don't force you to prove your maleness with genetic testing. Hell, maybe it was different for you, but I certainly didn't have to provide a doctor's note or drop trou in the DMV to get "Sex: M" on my driver's license, nor did they insist that I submit to a genetic test to prove my sex when I checked that box on the form. So why do we insist that genetic profiling and reproductive capacity are the only relevant factors when talking about trans individuals?

It's equivocation, pure and simple. We use one definition most of the time, then swap to another to create a pretext to exclude a group that we don't think should qualify but couldn't exclude when utilizing the usual definition.

 

[tstorm823]

So, it legit did not matter what Silvanus said

Correct. It was a rhetorical question aimed at someone who set themselves up in an internal contradiction.

I can see the cheap 'gotcha' that you're aiming for, but it falls flat. Because the definition I gave isn't anywhere near as pointlessly exclusionary as yours.

There is no sense in arguing degrees of exclusionary. Do you really see a morally distinction between excluding a larger group vs a smaller group?

My stance here is that distinguishing between groups is not necessarily exclusionary to begin with. You're arguing that my distinguishing between groups is dismissing people's identities, but any definition of sex is going to do that. By writing a definition of sex, you have done the same thing, regardless of how many qualifiers you include to soften the blow. Since you did put down a definition, you obviously don't believe that any definition is bigoted by virtue of existing, but maintaining any definition will require you to dismiss people who disagree with you. So maybe stop trying to find ways to rationalize how I'm an evil villain and consider the argument without all the moralizing.

Bluntly, if you stop to think about it for more than five seconds, that argument is incredibly inconsistent.

It's inconsistent if you pretend I've made any of the following arguments.

For virtually all practical purposes, sex relates to physical characteristics, specifically the presence of [external] primary and secondary sexual characteristics. The sex you're assigned at birth isn't based on some comprehensive dna scan, chromosome analysis, or anything so complex. It's literally decided with little more than a glance between your legs. If you have a penis, you're a boy. If you have a vagina, you're a girl. Simple as that. Hell, in the case of the intersex, SOP is basically summed up as "close enough" based on what their...equipment most resembles. "I think that mostly resembles a vagina...so congratulations, it's a girl! Don't worry, we can make that look more like a normal vagina."

But when we talk about trans individuals, suddenly the rules change. Sex is suddenly has nothing to do with their morphological characteristics, but instead is entirely about whether they have the right chromosomes, or whether they have functional ovaries or testes (which comes packed with a backhand to those who are infertile or have had a vasectomy or hysterectomy). Let's not kid ourselves here, we change the rules for little purpose other than to...well, 'other' them and claim that they are not and indeed can never be that sex as a matter of definition...a definition we don't otherwise apply.

In effect, we're saying that the standard rules don't count for them. Everyone is assigned a sex in the delivery room purely because of their morphological characteristics and the expectation that those reflect their future morphological characteristics. But after they transition? Those same morphological characteristics are suddenly irrelevant, and it's instead all about the chromosomes that nobody ever bothers to check unless testing for congenital issues. Don't believe me? Do you know when Klinefelter Syndrome is diagnosed? You know, when they realize that the kid had an extra X chromosome and was XXY instead of XY? Puberty, after they realize that the testicles have failed to grow. Similarly XX male syndrome (Morphologically male from birth despite having XX chromosomes) is typically recognized in late adolescence with the smoking gun that leads to the chromosomal test being - again - small testes or infertility. Let me reemphasize that: the first time they learn that they don't have the typical XY chromosomes is during puberty when the doctors suspect that the root cause of visible issues is a chromosomal abnormality. And that rather neatly illustrates how chromosomal testing is the exception, not the rule.

You weren't assigned male because the doctors performed a chromosomal analysis on you in neonatal (in fact, the balance of probability is that they didn't perform such an analysis at all). You were assigned male because the doctors saw that you had a pee-pee. Neither would it have mattered if you had turned out to be infertile or had otherwise lost function in your testes. You would still be considered male, because lacking reproductive ability does not disqualify you under the normally used definition.

There's no scanner at the entrance to the men's room that checks your sperm count or verifies your Y chromosome and testosterone levels. You don't have to submit a government issued ID to prove that you're male, society operates off a "you know one when you see one" system. If you're joining the men's swim team, they don't force you to prove your maleness with genetic testing. Hell, maybe it was different for you, but I certainly didn't have to provide a doctor's note or drop trou in the DMV to get "Sex: M" on my driver's license, nor did they insist that I submit to a genetic test to prove my sex when I checked that box on the form. So why do we insist that genetic profiling and reproductive capacity are the only relevant factors when talking about trans individuals?

It's equivocation, pure and simple. We use one definition most of the time, then swap to another to create a pretext to exclude a group that we don't think should qualify but couldn't exclude when utilizing the usual definition.

For practical purposes, you are correct. We make reasonable assumptions about a persons biology based on external physical characteristics, and they are reasonable because there's like a 99% correlation. But 99% correlation is not 100%, and if a doctor gets it wrong, it is unreasonable to try and lock the individual into an identity based on a mistaken assessment. If you are intersex, whether recognized at birth or decades later, I see no problem with normalizing that. I'd prefer to not have to argue with people that someone being neither really male nor female isn't taking away their humanity. You can be neither a man nor a woman and still be a person, that's fine. And if trans people were just those whose overall physical biology was misidentified at birth due to mismatched or ambiguous genitalia, it wouldn't even be an argument. Go for it.

But that's none of the actual argument. Like, I understand the double standard you see, that someone might see the shape of a penis and call a baby a boy, so if that person alters their appearance to have the shape of a vagina, they ought to be fairly seen as a woman by that standard. But I really think most of you are just still applying an inverted double standard: if a doctor can misidentify a persons sex based on a shallow assessment of physical characteristics, why would you then consider changing those physical characteristics to be a sex change? If the current standards can be right or wrong, and you take the exact inverse position, you've still taken a position that can be right or wrong. I'm offering a consistent definition of sex that doesn't lock people into what their crotch looks like and allows for people to exist outside of the binary and being called a bigot for doing so.

 

[Silvanus]

There is no sense in arguing degrees of exclusionary. Do you really see a morally distinction between excluding a larger group vs a smaller group?

It's not a question of degree; it's a question of classification. Your definition excludes people who are, according to all modern cultural and medical standards, male or female. Mine doesn't.

My stance here is that distinguishing between groups is not necessarily exclusionary to begin with. You're arguing that my distinguishing between groups is dismissing people's identities, but any definition of sex is going to do that. By writing a definition of sex, you have done the same thing, regardless of how many qualifiers you include to soften the blow. Since you did put down a definition, you obviously don't believe that any definition is bigoted by virtue of existing, but maintaining any definition will require you to dismiss people who disagree with you. So maybe stop trying to find ways to rationalize how I'm an evil villain and consider the argument without all the moralizing.

This is a really weak attempt to craft a false equivalence.

Firstly, you're inaccurately describing my position (I suspect intentionally). Merely distinguishing between groups is not exclusionary, and I didn't say it was. Demography is necessary. Your definition, which cuts out swathes of people who are included according to all cultural and medical definitions, is exclusionary. Mine simply does not do that; Mine recognises that the weight attributes to different characteristics varies, and makes no proscriptive value judgement.

And yeah, if you insist on coming up with some tortured, anti-scientific definition in order to exclude infertile or trans people from the terms 'male' and 'female', I'm going to point out how that's an arrogant and prejudicial thing to do, and how it flies in the face of medical science. That's not "moralising". You're misusing science to try to justify a personal prejudice.

 

[tstorm823]

It's not a question of degree; it's a question of classification. Your definition excludes people who are, according to all modern cultural and medical standards, male or female. Mine doesn't.

Sooooo, you're the conservative now? Are you paying attention to the rest of this thread (and others) where people are tearing apart the flaws and weaknesses of modern cultural and medical standards? You don't believe in the standard where chopping up intersex babies to make them look normal is reasonable, do you? I don't imagine that's the case. Are you defending a status quo just to rebel against it?

You're misusing science to try to justify a personal prejudice.

I'm neither using science nor justifying prejudice. I'm attempting to describe reality in a consistent way. And I'm doing so in as ambitiously unprejudiced a way as possible. I'm saying the only things that are inherently male and female are reproductive functions, and nothing else need be used to draw a line between the sexes. How do you possibly find that to be prejudiced?

 

[Trunkage]

Correct. It was a rhetorical question aimed at someone who set themselves up in an internal contradiction.

So, just following your logic that you've outlined here.

You decided that the only sex that is important is biological sex. You've stated that some people dont fall into either category of thus are out side this binary. This is fine.

But... that's not how society has set things up. Eg. Using biological sex, you've making sure that a third of women cant use the women bathroom. They can't use the men's one either. They have no sex. They fail at either criteria

It's almost like biological sex is an important category for certain times but utterly fails in others. You know, like an internal contradiction when a term is applied to places it shouldnt

 

[Silvanus]

Sooooo, you're the conservative now? Are you paying attention to the rest of this thread (and others) where people are tearing apart the flaws and weaknesses of modern cultural and medical standards? You don't believe in the standard where chopping up intersex babies to make them look normal is reasonable, do you? I don't imagine that's the case. Are you defending a status quo just to rebel against it?

You're trying veeeery hard to make this into a gotcha moment, which is something of a pity.

Modern cultural and medical standards often are quite weak and flawed in ways. But my definition doesn't rely on any specific standard being accurate or true. It contains the caveat that weighting varies: its a very mutable, open definition. Intentionally so.

I'm neither using science nor justifying prejudice. I'm attempting to describe reality in a consistent way. And I'm doing so in as ambitiously unprejudiced a way as possible. I'm saying the only things that are inherently male and female are reproductive functions, and nothing else need be used to draw a line between the sexes. How do you possibly find that to be prejudiced?

It's 'consistent' in the same way as saying that humans have four limbs, and thus amputees aren't human. As in: it's consistent... and also inexhaustive and ends up pointlessly exclusive, not to mention degrading.

I find it prejudiced because I think you've got a bugbear about certain kinds of people, and you're modelling your definitions around an effort to 'other' them.

 

[tstorm823]

So, just following your logic that you've outlined here.

You decided that the only sex that is important is biological sex. You've stated that some people dont fall into either category of thus are out side this binary. This is fine.

But... that's not how society has set things up. Eg. Using biological sex, you've making sure that a third of women cant use the women bathroom. They can't use the men's one either. They have no sex. They fail at either criteria

It's almost like biological sex is an important category for certain times but utterly fails in others. You know, like an internal contradiction when a term is applied to places it shouldnt

Excluding the questionable attempt at a turnabout at the end, yeah, you've got it. Segregated communal bathrooms are kind of a silly thing, if my conception of sex would require restructuring of that sort of thing, good. You're rejecting me on the grounds that I would undo things you already don't like.

It's 'consistent' in the same way as saying that humans have four limbs, and thus amputees aren't human. As in: it's consistent... and also inexhaustive and ends up pointlessly exclusive, not to mention degrading.

Having four limbs is not what makes someone human. It is a general rule that has exceptions. Having lots of testosterone is not what makes one male, it is a general rule with exceptions. We are arguing, effectively, about what makes a person male (or female), what is the defining characteristic rather than secondary characteristics downstream of that.

But besides that, and I will say this as many times as needed, there's nothing degrading about not being specifically male or female. That's not an insult, it's not degrading, it's not dehumanizing, you are choosing to interpret it that way.

I find it prejudiced because I think you've got a bugbear about certain kinds of people, and you're modelling your definitions around an effort to 'other' them.

I'm aware. You believe that independent of this conversation and are working backwards from that conclusion.

 

[Trunkage]

Excluding the questionable attempt at a turnabout at the end, yeah, you've got it. Segregated communal bathrooms are kind of a silly thing, if my conception of sex would require restructuring of that sort of thing, good. You're rejecting me on the grounds that I would undo things you already don't like.

Im trying to point out that there are multiple definitions of sex and each one is useful in certain context. And each definitions has contradictions because we're trying put 7 billion people into 2 to 3 categories

To be clear, I have unisex bathrooms at work. I'm all for it

We're not there yet as a society so what will we do til then. Using biological sex doesn't suit bathrooms because no one is going to check your gamate production just to use a toilet

Sport performance is more related to hormones than gamate production. But, as the IOC found out, there are some assumption we make that dont fit what we pretended was 'normal levels of hormone production.'

I understand why doctor talk about people with menstrual cycles instead of women because their using a different understanding of sex. Same with people who give birth because, even excluding transpeople, some people with penis give birth. Doesnt mean this understanding of sex suits all situations

 

[Silvanus]

Having four limbs is not what makes someone human. It is a general rule that has exceptions. Having lots of testosterone is not what makes one male, it is a general rule with exceptions. We are arguing, effectively, about what makes a person male (or female), what is the defining characteristic rather than secondary characteristics downstream of that.

Yes, that would be the point I'm making. The ability to reproduce is a general rule with exceptions. It is not considered the sole deciding factor by... well, actually you're legitimately the first person I've ever spoken to who has considered it such.

But besides that, and I will say this as many times as needed, there's nothing degrading about not being specifically male or female. That's not an insult, it's not degrading, it's not dehumanizing, you are choosing to interpret it that way.

"There's nothing insulting about not being human, so it's not insulting to exclude people who lose an arm".

 

[tstorm823]

"There's nothing insulting about not being human, so it's not insulting to exclude people who lose an arm".

It is insulting to say someone isn't human though. It's only insulting to say you're not a man if you're a sexist who puts men categorically above non-men.

 

[Piscian]

I think it should be legal to abort at any time between the first date, conception, first, second, and third trimester and up to the point they get a job and move out. There should also an exemption if they come back and ask to borrow grocery money because they spent all their money on anime pillows.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

It is insulting to say someone isn't human though. It's only insulting to say you're not a man if you're a sexist who puts men categorically above non-men.

What's it like to have zero pride about who you are?

 

[tstorm823]

What's it like to have zero pride about who you are?

Joyful. Humility is truly joyful.

 

[Silvanus]

It is insulting to say someone isn't human though. It's only insulting to say you're not a man if you're a sexist who puts men categorically above non-men.

You may not have noticed, but calling a man a woman and calling a woman a man is very often insulting. It's nothing to do with a belief that either one is inherently inferior. I genuinely don't know how you've missed this.

 

[tstorm823]

You may not have noticed, but calling a man a woman and calling a woman a man is very often insulting. It's nothing to do with a belief that either one is inherently inferior. I genuinely don't know how you've missed this.

And that's a good thing? That is a culture you seek to maintain and cultivate?

 

[Cheetodust]

And that's a good thing? That is a culture you seek to maintain and cultivate?

It's weird that you think this is a gotcha when Silvanus is just pointing out nobody likes to be misgendered whether they're cis or trans. I think you think you're smarter than you are.

 

[Silvanus]

And that's a good thing? That is a culture you seek to maintain and cultivate?

No, which is why nothing I did or said maintained or cultivated it.

I don't want to maintain a culture of denigrating low intelligence, either, but I recognise that in the society we actually live in, its fucking rude and insulting to call people stupid.

 

[tstorm823]

It's weird that you think this is a gotcha when Silvanus is just pointing out nobody likes to be misgendered whether they're cis or trans. I think you think you're smarter than you are.

I'm not trying to "gotcha" anyone. I would like you all to see which side of the argument is actually defending the status quo, and is pushing people into stereotyped gender norms.

I don't want to maintain a culture of denigrating low intelligence, either, but I recognise that in the society we actually live in, its fucking rude and insulting to call people stupid.

Because people consider intelligence to be part of what determines a persons worth, and they shouldn't, and you shouldn't want any part of a conception of humanity that plays those games. I can't help but get pulled back toward the abortion argument, where people often try and use intelligence to define personhood, and they shouldn't, because that is the pathway to eugenics.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I'm not trying to "gotcha" anyone. I would like you all to see which side of the argument is actually defending the status quo, and is pushing people into stereotyped gender norms.

The ones banning hormone therapy and LGBT knowledge, obviously. Not even a real question, considering all the pushback from conservatives on the very notion of having a non-binary identity.

Because people consider intelligence to be part of what determines a persons worth, and they shouldn't, and you shouldn't want any part of a conception of humanity that plays those games. I can't help but get pulled back toward the abortion argument, where people often try and use intelligence to define personhood, and they shouldn't, because that is the pathway to eugenics.

Mate, you're part of the "it's better to let people die than get the government to try and help them" party. A million people died in two years and you argued that the number should've been higher to protect The Line

Miss us with that bullshit. Glad you finally circled back around to abortion in a thread about abortion rights though, where your very compassionate stance involves the government forcing rape victims to permanently change their bodies and risk death to birth their rapist's babies in a healthcare system where they're on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars on top of it.

 

[Asita]

But that's none of the actual argument. Like, I understand the double standard you see, that someone might see the shape of a penis and call a baby a boy, so if that person alters their appearance to have the shape of a vagina, they ought to be fairly seen as a woman by that standard. But I really think most of you are just still applying an inverted double standard: if a doctor can misidentify a persons sex based on a shallow assessment of physical characteristics, why would you then consider changing those physical characteristics to be a sex change? If the current standards can be right or wrong, and you take the exact inverse position, you've still taken a position that can be right or wrong. I'm offering a consistent definition of sex that doesn't lock people into what their crotch looks like and allows for people to exist outside of the binary and being called a bigot for doing so.

You're making the mistake of superimposing your own perspective over that of others and are bastardizing the latter as a consequence. The idea is not that "the doctors were wrong", despite that being the premise you assume the opposing position is based in. It is that the person's gender doesn't match up with their sex, and they are changing their sex to better match their gender.

This is actually the root of the prefixes "cis-" and "trans-", "this side" and "other side", respectively. If you are cisgender then your gender is - figuratively speaking - on the same side of the aisle as your sex; they're a match. If you are transgender, then your gender is on the other side of the aisle from your sex; they're not a match. So this makes it quite perplexing that you evidently think you're being clever by arguing that "sex change" is some kind of misnomer or contradiction in terms. You aren't being clever. Rather you're showcasing your ignorance on the subject and arrogance in assuming a level of expertise far beyond what you demonstrate.

Bluntly, you have not understood the position you are arguing against and I don't think you realize that it's functionally a strawman painting the opposing position as simply being transgressive out of raw spite for what you perceive to be the status quo.

And cut the bullshit. You are not offering "a consistent definition of sex". You are offering a hamfisted definition that requires special pleading to not exclude the people you evidently had no intention of precluding, such as the infertile or the intersex, the latter of whom you evidently make an exception for only because you see them as what trans should be. You tipped your hand on that point when you out and said "if trans people were just those whose overall physical biology was misidentified at birth due to mismatched or ambiguous genitalia, it wouldn't even be an argument", both in how it misrepresents intersex as "misidentified as birth" and how it belies your contempt towards the trans demographic as - in your mind - transitioning for the 'wrong' reasons. It reeks of the same "well it's not their fault this time, so I guess I can excuse it" mentality that we see at the heart of so many pro-lifers' rape/incest exception in the case of abortion.

Indeed, your surrounding comments suggest that your position is ultimately rooted in the old "just a phase/rebelling for the sake of it" prejudice, the presumption that trans is more a counterculture joined to 'stick it to the man' - so to speak - than an aspect of who they are. For fuck's sake, you even tried to spin the position opposed to you as exactly the same: nothing more than mindlessly inverting the extant position! Heck, unless I'm very much mistaken, in the past you've even suggested that their very existence is fundamentally wrong and that anyone supporting the efforts of the transgender to transition were the real bigots and were in fact championing gender stereotypes, with distinct overtones of "they wouldn't be trans if it weren't for people like you enabling them".

You do not understand this topic, and your pretensions to the contrary are downright insulting.