Enough of this transgender nonsense.

[ChrisL]

Have you written and published your findings in a medical journal yet?

I don't have to. Doctors already have.

Definition of transgender

1. : of, relating to, or being a person (as a transsexual or transvestite) who identifies with or expresses a gender identity that differs from the one which corresponds to the person's sex at birth

And what is a person's sex at birth, especially when we pick for them?

Dear Jack4jill ChrisL and Lilah
I can see Chris is going by the legal definition, as in Texas, which recognizes what is on the birth certificate.

Jack4jill you are arguing similarly to the Right to Life people who recognize human rights at conception,
while laws may recognize them at BIRTH.

Chris and Jack you would have to agree which realm you are going to frame this in.
Otherwise you will go in circles as legalistic liberals who are going by what the law says literally
versus what other sources are used to define things outside that framework.

Agree on a framework first.
Or take turns, discuss how this plays out using the legal definition of gender based on either
birth certificate or if doctors confirm someone passes as female after going through procedures.

Now on the side of ChrisL's argument
it has been argued that in sports, people who are transgender female have an unfair advantage
in some sports over females who are born female.
So it is argued that it is not fully fair to allow a MMA fight between a former man who can still
BREAK THE JAW of a female who wasn't born male and then changed.
This fits ChrisL's argument that no matter how much you change physically to female
there are going to be some things that are still male.
NOTE: there is at least one case of a male giving birth using female organs that were still there.

On Jack's side of the argument, if you want to pick the genes apart,
you can show it isn't clear cut XX or XY only.

This again shows the issue is not purely genetic.

We'd likely have to agree to rely on biologically what doctors will confirm is the
person's predominant gender, and go with that definition.

In the case of the man who gave birth, this father identifies as male,
dresses and presents as male, so was considered male.

If you take that argument on a national or worldwide audience, of course people would debate it.
what matters is if the couple has an agreement with their immediate community
how they want to be identified and treated. I recommend keeping this issues
local, where there is a better chance of resolving them. Rather than trying to
make a global issue of them, where as Chris and Jack show here, there are
too many different frames of reference, and people won't even agree where to start.
Of course you are going to argue in circles if you don't even agree on a common context.

Jack4jill if that is your point, that is clear from your exchange with Chris
that this is impossible to resolve without a common framework.

However, your insistence on calling her names like D B does not help
but distracts and discredits the good points you were trying to make.
I can hear what you are sharing, becuase I know ChrisL is NO D B.
She is very sharp and willing to discuss things very deeply, so I know better.

But your language made you look bad, when you had very good points.
Please don't let that get in the way of what you are trying to say!

Thanks Emily, for not thinking I'm a "D B." Lol.

She or he does not have any good points. This person is trying to equate genetic anomalies with transgenderism. Transgenders have normal sex organs and no genetic anomalies.

Stop it, already.

Stop what? Posting facts? No, I will not.

 

[Lilah]

Holy crap. You are dumber than a box of cereal. Seriously.

Why is a box of cereal dumb. Do you have a link?

Because it has no brain. Lol.

A door has no brain, but it's not dumb because the idea of a door allows entrance and egress. Cereal could feed a starving child.
I think we all know the definition of dumb ... you.

Nobody here is dumb. We may be stubborn in defending our ideas.
But stubborn is not the same as stupid. It just makes us look that way sometimes!

No, some people are dumb. If they aren't dumb, then they are dishonest. That is different from "stubborn."

You were born thinking that you are omniscient?

 

[Lilah]

Wwhat?

Holy crap. You are dumber than a box of cereal. Seriously.

Why is a box of cereal dumb. Do you have a link?

Because it has no brain. Lol.

A door has no brain, but it's not dumb because the idea of a door allows entrance and egress. Cereal could feed a starving child.
I think we all know the definition of dumb ... you.

Nobody here is dumb. We may be stubborn in defending our ideas.
But stubborn is not the same as stupid. It just makes us look that way sometimes!

Au contraire!

 

[Lilah]

I don't have to. Doctors already have.

Definition of transgender

1. : of, relating to, or being a person (as a transsexual or transvestite) who identifies with or expresses a gender identity that differs from the one which corresponds to the person's sex at birth

And what is a person's sex at birth, especially when we pick for them?

Dear Jack4jill ChrisL and Lilah
I can see Chris is going by the legal definition, as in Texas, which recognizes what is on the birth certificate.

Jack4jill you are arguing similarly to the Right to Life people who recognize human rights at conception,
while laws may recognize them at BIRTH.

Chris and Jack you would have to agree which realm you are going to frame this in.
Otherwise you will go in circles as legalistic liberals who are going by what the law says literally
versus what other sources are used to define things outside that framework.

Agree on a framework first.
Or take turns, discuss how this plays out using the legal definition of gender based on either
birth certificate or if doctors confirm someone passes as female after going through procedures.

Now on the side of ChrisL's argument
it has been argued that in sports, people who are transgender female have an unfair advantage
in some sports over females who are born female.
So it is argued that it is not fully fair to allow a MMA fight between a former man who can still
BREAK THE JAW of a female who wasn't born male and then changed.
This fits ChrisL's argument that no matter how much you change physically to female
there are going to be some things that are still male.
NOTE: there is at least one case of a male giving birth using female organs that were still there.

On Jack's side of the argument, if you want to pick the genes apart,
you can show it isn't clear cut XX or XY only.

This again shows the issue is not purely genetic.

We'd likely have to agree to rely on biologically what doctors will confirm is the
person's predominant gender, and go with that definition.

In the case of the man who gave birth, this father identifies as male,
dresses and presents as male, so was considered male.

If you take that argument on a national or worldwide audience, of course people would debate it.
what matters is if the couple has an agreement with their immediate community
how they want to be identified and treated. I recommend keeping this issues
local, where there is a better chance of resolving them. Rather than trying to
make a global issue of them, where as Chris and Jack show here, there are
too many different frames of reference, and people won't even agree where to start.
Of course you are going to argue in circles if you don't even agree on a common context.

Jack4jill if that is your point, that is clear from your exchange with Chris
that this is impossible to resolve without a common framework.

However, your insistence on calling her names like D B does not help
but distracts and discredits the good points you were trying to make.
I can hear what you are sharing, becuase I know ChrisL is NO D B.
She is very sharp and willing to discuss things very deeply, so I know better.

But your language made you look bad, when you had very good points.
Please don't let that get in the way of what you are trying to say!

Thanks Emily, for not thinking I'm a "D B." Lol.

She or he does not have any good points. This person is trying to equate genetic anomalies with transgenderism. Transgenders have normal sex organs and no genetic anomalies.

Stop it, already.

Stop what? Posting facts? No, I will not.

I didn't think so, but please don't refer to yourself as someone who reports the facts.

 

[ChrisL]

And what is a person's sex at birth, especially when we pick for them?

Dear Jack4jill ChrisL and Lilah
I can see Chris is going by the legal definition, as in Texas, which recognizes what is on the birth certificate.

Jack4jill you are arguing similarly to the Right to Life people who recognize human rights at conception,
while laws may recognize them at BIRTH.

Chris and Jack you would have to agree which realm you are going to frame this in.
Otherwise you will go in circles as legalistic liberals who are going by what the law says literally
versus what other sources are used to define things outside that framework.

Agree on a framework first.
Or take turns, discuss how this plays out using the legal definition of gender based on either
birth certificate or if doctors confirm someone passes as female after going through procedures.

Now on the side of ChrisL's argument
it has been argued that in sports, people who are transgender female have an unfair advantage
in some sports over females who are born female.
So it is argued that it is not fully fair to allow a MMA fight between a former man who can still
BREAK THE JAW of a female who wasn't born male and then changed.
This fits ChrisL's argument that no matter how much you change physically to female
there are going to be some things that are still male.
NOTE: there is at least one case of a male giving birth using female organs that were still there.

On Jack's side of the argument, if you want to pick the genes apart,
you can show it isn't clear cut XX or XY only.

This again shows the issue is not purely genetic.

We'd likely have to agree to rely on biologically what doctors will confirm is the
person's predominant gender, and go with that definition.

In the case of the man who gave birth, this father identifies as male,
dresses and presents as male, so was considered male.

If you take that argument on a national or worldwide audience, of course people would debate it.
what matters is if the couple has an agreement with their immediate community
how they want to be identified and treated. I recommend keeping this issues
local, where there is a better chance of resolving them. Rather than trying to
make a global issue of them, where as Chris and Jack show here, there are
too many different frames of reference, and people won't even agree where to start.
Of course you are going to argue in circles if you don't even agree on a common context.

Jack4jill if that is your point, that is clear from your exchange with Chris
that this is impossible to resolve without a common framework.

However, your insistence on calling her names like D B does not help
but distracts and discredits the good points you were trying to make.
I can hear what you are sharing, becuase I know ChrisL is NO D B.
She is very sharp and willing to discuss things very deeply, so I know better.

But your language made you look bad, when you had very good points.
Please don't let that get in the way of what you are trying to say!

Thanks Emily, for not thinking I'm a "D B." Lol.

She or he does not have any good points. This person is trying to equate genetic anomalies with transgenderism. Transgenders have normal sex organs and no genetic anomalies.

Stop it, already.

Stop what? Posting facts? No, I will not.

I didn't think so, but please don't refer to yourself as someone who reports the facts.

Everything I've posted has been a fact.

 

[ChrisL]

Why is a box of cereal dumb. Do you have a link?

Because it has no brain. Lol.

A door has no brain, but it's not dumb because the idea of a door allows entrance and egress. Cereal could feed a starving child.
I think we all know the definition of dumb ... you.

Nobody here is dumb. We may be stubborn in defending our ideas.
But stubborn is not the same as stupid. It just makes us look that way sometimes!

No, some people are dumb. If they aren't dumb, then they are dishonest. That is different from "stubborn."

You were born thinking that you are omniscient?

What is wrong with you? I have an education in the medical field. I also look things up when I have questions and educate myself.

 

[Jack4jill]

The reason here is simple, people will exploit that situation who are not transgender but want to gain access for other reasons.

There is absolutely nothing to show that this would be true? Nothing. It's right-wing fear mongering, plain and simple.

Nope... it's called COMMON SENSE..... plain and simple.

And it certainly IS true because it's already happening. There have been hundreds of reported cases around the country since this all started.

If it's common sense, what's an XY female, male or female?

If they have a penis, they are male... if they have a vagina, they are female. If they have both, they are hermaphrodites. Now the circus or carnival the hermaphrodites are in can deal with their own restrooms... not a problem. That leaves us with penises and vaginas... one goes in the mens room, one goes in the womens room. If there is any question as to whether you have a penis or vagina, the default is the mens room.

We do it like this so that women are protected from predators.

Okay, so it's all based on looks, and since you are all so concerned about what looks are in what bathroom, any transsexual should be operated on ASAP, and all Interersexed children should have a gender picked for them and as many operations as necessary to make them look "normal".

Once everyone looks either A or B, the bathroom question resolves itself. Problem solved.

 

[ChrisL]

And what is a person's sex at birth, especially when we pick for them?

Dear Jack4jill ChrisL and Lilah
I can see Chris is going by the legal definition, as in Texas, which recognizes what is on the birth certificate.

Jack4jill you are arguing similarly to the Right to Life people who recognize human rights at conception,
while laws may recognize them at BIRTH.

Chris and Jack you would have to agree which realm you are going to frame this in.
Otherwise you will go in circles as legalistic liberals who are going by what the law says literally
versus what other sources are used to define things outside that framework.

Agree on a framework first.
Or take turns, discuss how this plays out using the legal definition of gender based on either
birth certificate or if doctors confirm someone passes as female after going through procedures.

Now on the side of ChrisL's argument
it has been argued that in sports, people who are transgender female have an unfair advantage
in some sports over females who are born female.
So it is argued that it is not fully fair to allow a MMA fight between a former man who can still
BREAK THE JAW of a female who wasn't born male and then changed.
This fits ChrisL's argument that no matter how much you change physically to female
there are going to be some things that are still male.
NOTE: there is at least one case of a male giving birth using female organs that were still there.

On Jack's side of the argument, if you want to pick the genes apart,
you can show it isn't clear cut XX or XY only.

This again shows the issue is not purely genetic.

We'd likely have to agree to rely on biologically what doctors will confirm is the
person's predominant gender, and go with that definition.

In the case of the man who gave birth, this father identifies as male,
dresses and presents as male, so was considered male.

If you take that argument on a national or worldwide audience, of course people would debate it.
what matters is if the couple has an agreement with their immediate community
how they want to be identified and treated. I recommend keeping this issues
local, where there is a better chance of resolving them. Rather than trying to
make a global issue of them, where as Chris and Jack show here, there are
too many different frames of reference, and people won't even agree where to start.
Of course you are going to argue in circles if you don't even agree on a common context.

Jack4jill if that is your point, that is clear from your exchange with Chris
that this is impossible to resolve without a common framework.

However, your insistence on calling her names like D B does not help
but distracts and discredits the good points you were trying to make.
I can hear what you are sharing, becuase I know ChrisL is NO D B.
She is very sharp and willing to discuss things very deeply, so I know better.

But your language made you look bad, when you had very good points.
Please don't let that get in the way of what you are trying to say!

Thanks Emily, for not thinking I'm a "D B." Lol.

She or he does not have any good points. This person is trying to equate genetic anomalies with transgenderism. Transgenders have normal sex organs and no genetic anomalies.

Stop it, already.

Stop what? Posting facts? No, I will not.

I didn't think so, but please don't refer to yourself as someone who reports the facts.

What have I posted that is not factual? Put up or shut up.

 

[Lilah]

Dear Jack4jill ChrisL and Lilah
I can see Chris is going by the legal definition, as in Texas, which recognizes what is on the birth certificate.

Jack4jill you are arguing similarly to the Right to Life people who recognize human rights at conception,
while laws may recognize them at BIRTH.

Chris and Jack you would have to agree which realm you are going to frame this in.
Otherwise you will go in circles as legalistic liberals who are going by what the law says literally
versus what other sources are used to define things outside that framework.

Agree on a framework first.
Or take turns, discuss how this plays out using the legal definition of gender based on either
birth certificate or if doctors confirm someone passes as female after going through procedures.

Now on the side of ChrisL's argument
it has been argued that in sports, people who are transgender female have an unfair advantage
in some sports over females who are born female.
So it is argued that it is not fully fair to allow a MMA fight between a former man who can still
BREAK THE JAW of a female who wasn't born male and then changed.
This fits ChrisL's argument that no matter how much you change physically to female
there are going to be some things that are still male.
NOTE: there is at least one case of a male giving birth using female organs that were still there.

On Jack's side of the argument, if you want to pick the genes apart,
you can show it isn't clear cut XX or XY only.

This again shows the issue is not purely genetic.

We'd likely have to agree to rely on biologically what doctors will confirm is the
person's predominant gender, and go with that definition.

In the case of the man who gave birth, this father identifies as male,
dresses and presents as male, so was considered male.

If you take that argument on a national or worldwide audience, of course people would debate it.
what matters is if the couple has an agreement with their immediate community
how they want to be identified and treated. I recommend keeping this issues
local, where there is a better chance of resolving them. Rather than trying to
make a global issue of them, where as Chris and Jack show here, there are
too many different frames of reference, and people won't even agree where to start.
Of course you are going to argue in circles if you don't even agree on a common context.

Jack4jill if that is your point, that is clear from your exchange with Chris
that this is impossible to resolve without a common framework.

However, your insistence on calling her names like D B does not help
but distracts and discredits the good points you were trying to make.
I can hear what you are sharing, becuase I know ChrisL is NO D B.
She is very sharp and willing to discuss things very deeply, so I know better.

But your language made you look bad, when you had very good points.
Please don't let that get in the way of what you are trying to say!

Thanks Emily, for not thinking I'm a "D B." Lol.

She or he does not have any good points. This person is trying to equate genetic anomalies with transgenderism. Transgenders have normal sex organs and no genetic anomalies.

Stop it, already.

Stop what? Posting facts? No, I will not.

I didn't think so, but please don't refer to yourself as someone who reports the facts.

What have I posted that is not factual? Put up or shut up.

Your personal opinions.

 

[ChrisL]

Thanks Emily, for not thinking I'm a "D B." Lol.

She or he does not have any good points. This person is trying to equate genetic anomalies with transgenderism. Transgenders have normal sex organs and no genetic anomalies.

Stop it, already.

Stop what? Posting facts? No, I will not.

I didn't think so, but please don't refer to yourself as someone who reports the facts.

What have I posted that is not factual? Put up or shut up.

Your personal opinions.

Such as?

 

[Jack4jill]

Because it has no brain. Lol.

A door has no brain, but it's not dumb because the idea of a door allows entrance and egress. Cereal could feed a starving child.
I think we all know the definition of dumb ... you.

Nobody here is dumb. We may be stubborn in defending our ideas.
But stubborn is not the same as stupid. It just makes us look that way sometimes!

No, some people are dumb. If they aren't dumb, then they are dishonest. That is different from "stubborn."

You were born thinking that you are omniscient?

What is wrong with you? I have an education in the medical field. I also look things up when I have questions and educate myself.

God help anyone you try to help.

You shouldn't be allowed to clean teeth. You're both stupid and dishonest, and have no clue what the hell you're talking about on gender or transgender.

Your opinion on transgender children is utterly worthless.

 

[Lilah]

Stop it, already.

Stop what? Posting facts? No, I will not.

I didn't think so, but please don't refer to yourself as someone who reports the facts.

What have I posted that is not factual? Put up or shut up.

Your personal opinions.

Such as?

Your continued lies.

 

[ChrisL]

A door has no brain, but it's not dumb because the idea of a door allows entrance and egress. Cereal could feed a starving child.
I think we all know the definition of dumb ... you.

Nobody here is dumb. We may be stubborn in defending our ideas.
But stubborn is not the same as stupid. It just makes us look that way sometimes!

No, some people are dumb. If they aren't dumb, then they are dishonest. That is different from "stubborn."

You were born thinking that you are omniscient?

What is wrong with you? I have an education in the medical field. I also look things up when I have questions and educate myself.

God help anyone you try to help.

You shouldn't be allowed to clean teeth. You're both stupid and dishonest, and have no clue what you talking about on gender or transgender.

Your opinion on transgender children is utterly worthless.

My "opinion" on transgender children, such as?

 

[ChrisL]

Stop what? Posting facts? No, I will not.

I didn't think so, but please don't refer to yourself as someone who reports the facts.

What have I posted that is not factual? Put up or shut up.

Your personal opinions.

Such as?

Your continued lies.

What lies. Like I said, post something that I've said that is a lie, or shut your whore mouth.

 

[Lilah]

I didn't think so, but please don't refer to yourself as someone who reports the facts.

What have I posted that is not factual? Put up or shut up.

Your personal opinions.

Such as?

Your continued lies.

What lies. Like I said, post something that I've said that is a lie, or shut your whore mouth.

Do you really need someone to read your posts back to you?

 

[ChrisL]

What have I posted that is not factual? Put up or shut up.

Your personal opinions.

Such as?

Your continued lies.

What lies. Like I said, post something that I've said that is a lie, or shut your whore mouth.

Do you really need someone to read your posts back to you?

Yes. Now, prove your allegations or get lost.

 

[Lilah]

I didn't think so, but please don't refer to yourself as someone who reports the facts.

What have I posted that is not factual? Put up or shut up.

Your personal opinions.

Such as?

Your continued lies.

What lies. Like I said, post something that I've said that is a lie, or shut your whore mouth.

Whore?

 

[ChrisL]

Let's see if the 2 psychos can come up with any "lies" I've posted. Lol. I'm waiting.

 

[Lilah]

Your personal opinions.

Such as?

Your continued lies.

What lies. Like I said, post something that I've said that is a lie, or shut your whore mouth.

Do you really need someone to read your posts back to you?

Yes. Now, prove your allegations or get lost.

Or what, you'll cut me?

 

[ChrisL]

What have I posted that is not factual? Put up or shut up.

Your personal opinions.

Such as?

Your continued lies.

What lies. Like I said, post something that I've said that is a lie, or shut your whore mouth.

Whore?

Have trouble reading, huh? Oh, now I see what your problem is. Try taking some reading classes, or get some glasses.