Hate Halts Cartoonist from visiting Halifax

[Wrex Brogan]

Well that sucks. Hopefully she doesn't lose too much business on this; dealing with the usual level of online harassment an openly trans person receives sucks enough, having it affect your life like this is way worse.

Even Canada has right-wing bigoted idiots who dont understand anything. That this is a problem only in the US is short sighted.

I hope you'll understand why I just laughed incredibly loud while reading your post, given... present thread company.

Read this just today, the creator of the comic Assigned Male was planning a stop in Nova Scotia as part of her latest book launch, received a ton of threats, and subsequently decided not to visit Halifax.

Although I don't really like the comic, I just wanted to say that I'm pretty disgusted by this behavior. Halifax has always seemed far more inclusive to me than other places I've been (which, admittedly, has been relatively few).

I don't want to think of this as online harassment necessarily from locals here... nonetheless, it's still deplorable, and a shame as well.

Locals as in 'physical area' or locals as in 'people on this website'? Because the thread is still young, give it time. We've already got some delightful misgendering and we haven't even hit page 2 yet.

 

[shrekfan246]

*reads "Halifax"*

*thinks "hey, that's where I'm living right now"*

*clicks*

*reads link in OP*

Many of the messages include alt-right memes, including some suggesting Labelle?a trans woman herself?should be gassed in a concentration camp.

*sees the usual alt-rights suspects who have already posted in this thread*

*somehow isn't surprised*

 

[Thaluikhain]

Firstly, "she".

Secondly, again? We've been over this a zillion times before.

Thirdly, Zontar and inu-kun don't seem to be trying this time.

snip

Careful, you can get modded for that.

 

[shrekfan246]

Thirdly, Zontar and inu-kun don't seem to be trying this time.

It's not like they need to. The pretense has only ever fooled themselves.

 

[Saelune]

Literally none of that is anti-science.

"Reproduction happens without the help of heterosexuality"

I'm sorry, I must have missed the breakthrough in reproduction where humans suddenly stopped needing a man and a woman to accomplish it.

Well, is your argument the requirement of a male sex and a female sex, or heterosexuality? Sure, we may still need both sexes currently, but heterosexually we can survive without.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilisation

 

[BreakfastMan]

Literally none of that is anti-science.

"Reproduction happens without the help of heterosexuality"

I'm sorry, I must have missed the breakthrough in reproduction where humans suddenly stopped needing a man and a woman to accomplish it.

You do know artificial insemination and test tube babies are a thing, right?

 

[Callate]

(Yeah, because this is an argument I really want to get embroiled in...)

In vitro fertilization has a success rate of around 20-35% per cycle, at a cost of between $12,000 and $15,000 per attempt. There is also research suggesting that children born through IVF may have health problems later in life no shared by their non-IVF peers.

IVF is not about to replace reproduction between biological males and biological females. It is an option available only to relatively well-off people, mostly in first-world countries with elaborate health-care systems that have moved beyond things like treating dysentery and insuring the survival of women and children going through the rigors of regular, everyday biological birth.

Can reproduction without a heterosexual union happen? Yes. But if the argument is that nature isn't a factor in reproduction as a species, that's utter nonsense.

It's unfortunate that terms like "normal" and "natural" are being used as though they were commendations, and their opposites as pejoratives. Not being "normal" or "natural" doesn't mean being wrong or lesser or evil.

But that also doesn't excuse people stretching to ridiculous contortions to imagine an outlier is the norm.

 

[Zontar]

Literally none of that is anti-science.

"Reproduction happens without the help of heterosexuality"

I'm sorry, I must have missed the breakthrough in reproduction where humans suddenly stopped needing a man and a woman to accomplish it.

You do know artificial insemination and test tube babies are a thing, right?

Yes, there is a way to artificially reproduce using genetic material from a man and a woman.

Doesn't change the fact that you require the genetic material of someone with an XX chromosome and an XY, XYY, or XYYY one.

 

[Saelune]

Literally none of that is anti-science.

"Reproduction happens without the help of heterosexuality"

I'm sorry, I must have missed the breakthrough in reproduction where humans suddenly stopped needing a man and a woman to accomplish it.

You do know artificial insemination and test tube babies are a thing, right?

Yes, there is a way to artificially reproduce using genetic material from a man and a woman.

Doesn't change the fact that you require the genetic material of someone with an XX chromosome and an XY, XYY, or XYYY one.

Your point?

 

[BreakfastMan]

Literally none of that is anti-science.

"Reproduction happens without the help of heterosexuality"

I'm sorry, I must have missed the breakthrough in reproduction where humans suddenly stopped needing a man and a woman to accomplish it.

You do know artificial insemination and test tube babies are a thing, right?

Yes, there is a way to artificially reproduce using genetic material from a man and a woman.

Doesn't change the fact that you require the genetic material of someone with an XX chromosome and an XY, XYY, or XYYY one.

And... ? Why does that make reproduction inherently heterosexual? And how does that make the statement "Reproduction happens without the help of heterosexuality" anti-science?

 

[Zontar]

Literally none of that is anti-science.

"Reproduction happens without the help of heterosexuality"

I'm sorry, I must have missed the breakthrough in reproduction where humans suddenly stopped needing a man and a woman to accomplish it.

You do know artificial insemination and test tube babies are a thing, right?

Yes, there is a way to artificially reproduce using genetic material from a man and a woman.

Doesn't change the fact that you require the genetic material of someone with an XX chromosome and an XY, XYY, or XYYY one.

And... ? Why does that make reproduction inherently heterosexual? And how does that make the statement "Reproduction happens without the help of heterosexuality" anti-science?

Because it's the only combination that works, meaning non-heterosexual couples are reliant on someone else being involved either for adoption or to assist in an artificial means of doing so. It doesn't "just happen" as I've seen more and more of as of late, but given how I've also seen people unironically state that biology is a social construct and that objective reality doesn't exist, or that there's more then one form of reality, that isn't surprising.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Literally none of that is anti-science.

"Reproduction happens without the help of heterosexuality"

I'm sorry, I must have missed the breakthrough in reproduction where humans suddenly stopped needing a man and a woman to accomplish it.

You do know artificial insemination and test tube babies are a thing, right?

Yes, there is a way to artificially reproduce using genetic material from a man and a woman.

Doesn't change the fact that you require the genetic material of someone with an XX chromosome and an XY, XYY, or XYYY one.

And... ? Why does that make reproduction inherently heterosexual? And how does that make the statement "Reproduction happens without the help of heterosexuality" anti-science?

Because it's the only combination that works, meaning non-heterosexual couples are reliant on someone else being involved either for adoption or to assist in an artificial means of doing so.

So? You are just repeating the same point. How do we get from "reproduction is an act that requires a man and a women" to "reproduction is an inherently heterosexual act"? And how does that make the statement "Reproduction happens without the help of heterosexuality" anti-science?

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Also both are anti science:
http://assignedmale.tumblr.com/page/5

No. Gender is a sociological concept, which roughly breaks down to "which sex (if any) you identify with". Sex is the biological concept of which set of genitals you were born with. If you want to accuse someone of being anti scientific it is a good idea to make sure you understand the science in play.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Yes, there is a way to artificially reproduce using genetic material from a man and a woman.

Doesn't change the fact that you require the genetic material of someone with an XX chromosome and an XY, XYY, or XYYY one.

Not anymore. Rats with two "mothers" [http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/2004/04/23/fatherless.php] have been born. So, you are wrong. Does that mean that you are the anti-science person now, since you don't know what actually happens in the field?

 

[09philj]

Looking at a few strips, it's kinda like religeous zealots being hated back. A person who's sole act is to make moralizing bad points facing shit and the only real option is to feel neutral about it.

Also both are anti science:
http://assignedmale.tumblr.com/page/5

The linked strip isn't anti-science at all.

Unless you commit the age-old conflation between sex and gender and ignore people who are intersex/ hermaphrodites (who always seem to get ignored in this topic for some reason) and ignore people who have changed their sex so that their genitals match with their gender (but obviously haven't changed their genetics)

The overall comic and author may well be anti-science as far as I know (literally never heard about it before today) but you have to stretch a bit to make that conclusion based on just this strip. If there are more and better examples then feel free to post them.

... I have a feeling this thread is going to go well.

I thought about that but this just means that rather than answer in the strips that the strawmen conflates between sex and gender it answers that XX XY definition does not exist. Granted there are mutations, but they are statistically one in thousands of birth, thus no real reason to change the definition (otherwise saying "humans are born 2 arms/lungs/parts of the brain" is also wrong despite being extremely rare and just muddies the definition to "humans are born a blob of meat") and regardless is definitely not the point of the comics.

Having two X chromosomes or an X chromosome and Y chromosome generally causes the development of female or male sexual characteristics. This doesn't always happen though. The development of female or male sexual characteristics generally causes changes in the brain that, in broad terms, decide what gender one identifies as. (Obviously, it's more complicated than that and nobody actually understands it fully) Again, this doesn't always happen. In idealised, theoretical terms, there should be a direct causative relationship between your DNA and your gender. In the real world, with a population of billions for things to go wrong in, the relationship is significantly less reliable to the point where it's not really a helpful idea to work with.

 

[Kreett]

(Yeah, because this is an argument I really want to get embroiled in...)

In vitro fertilization has a success rate of around 20-35% per cycle, at a cost of between $12,000 and $15,000 per attempt. There is also research suggesting that children born through IVF may have health problems later in life no shared by their non-IVF peers.

IVF is not about to replace reproduction between biological males and biological females. It is an option available only to relatively well-off people, mostly in first-world countries with elaborate health-care systems that have moved beyond things like treating dysentery and insuring the survival of women and children going through the rigors of regular, everyday biological birth.

Can reproduction without a heterosexual union happen? Yes. But if the argument is that nature isn't a factor in reproduction as a species, that's utter nonsense.

It's unfortunate that terms like "normal" and "natural" are being used as though they were commendations, and their opposites as pejoratives. Not being "normal" or "natural" doesn't mean being wrong or lesser or evil.

But that also doesn't excuse people stretching to ridiculous contortions to imagine an outlier is the norm.

Sorry to say it friend but you just brought facts to a moral-off. You're probably going tp be ignored to the end of time or shouted down as your "facts" probably offends someone.

 

[Cowabungaa]

I thought about that but this just means that rather than answer in the strips that the strawmen conflates between sex and gender it answers that XX XY definition does not exist.

It does not, all it hints at is that there's more to biological sex than an XX and XY chromosome divide. Which is true. Look, what really matters is this; sex and gender aren't the same thing. The Ancient Greeks for instance knew male and female sexes and probably inter-sex as well, but defined genders as "passive" and "active."

 

[Scarim Coral]

I'm sorry but anyone else from the UK mistaken the title for the bank Halifax?

I thought it had something to do with the Hanna-Barbera sellout they had with the bank.

 

[American Fox]

The strip is talking about heterosexuality as a sexual preference. Invalidating the argument of 'only for reproduction' against loving relationships people have no involvement with.

And the strip is very sweet. Almost grandmotherly so.