snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Social Studies

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 14 March 2019, 04:37 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,695
Default

I think you have that backwards. State legislation to ban (or restrict so much as to effectively ban) abortion happens unless there is an injunction or court decision to block the implementation of it. ETA: Which there usually is before such laws can take place as there are several organizations which are on the lookout for just such laws and have a number of lawyers ready to take up the cause.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 15 March 2019, 04:22 AM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 13,155
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
It's official. Transgender people can serve in the military as long as they serve under their biological gender. People already in the military under their preferred gender can continue to do so.

Far from ideal, but better than it could have been I guess.
It really isn't.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 15 March 2019, 07:18 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,789
Default

I have a very limited understanding of these issues so I probably have a lot of things wrong but is there such a thing as "biological gender"?
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 15 March 2019, 01:23 PM
ChasFink's Avatar
ChasFink ChasFink is offline
 
Join Date: 09 December 2015
Location: Mineola, NY
Posts: 965
Icon05

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
I have a very limited understanding of these issues so I probably have a lot of things wrong but is there such a thing as "biological gender"?
I think they mean "sex" - not the act, but one of "either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures" (according to Merriam-Webster). There are, of course, biologically transsexual persons, but that's a whole 'nother issue.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 15 March 2019, 03:57 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 13,155
Default

The current term is intersex.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 15 March 2019, 04:23 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is online now
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,913
Default

I don't think it is a whole 'nother issue. I think that the entire issue is that some people are trying to jam all humans into one of two boxes.

Whether you're looking at the outside of the bodies, the inside of the bodies, or the inside specifically of the heads which are part of the body: there are a lot of people who just plain don't fit.

Current estimates of only people whose genitals at birth don't appear to be clearly one or the other (leaving out entirely everybody who's unmatching in their internal organs, chromosomes, hormonal receptors, hormonal production, and/or etc., all of which we now know enough about to clearly distinguish physically in cases in which anyone bothers to check; plus of course people who may match on all of those but still don't match in their perceptions, which may be biological in any sensible use of the term but which we don't understand enough about yet to clarify with a physical test), seem to range from about one in 1500 to about one in 2000. (Estimates including any or all of the above are of course much higher.) There are well over seven billion people on the planet, and well over 300 million in the USA alone. So even one in 2000 is quite a lot of people.


thorny -- somewhat confused person producing confused paragraphs -- locust
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 15 March 2019, 08:10 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,695
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter View Post
It really isn't.
It could have been involuntary discharges due to being psycholgically unfit for military service.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 15 March 2019, 11:12 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 13,155
Default

Instead they get to stay in a service that's proven to be actively hostile to them so long as they pretend to not be different? Sorry, not an improvement.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 16 March 2019, 12:43 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,789
Default

They've always been able to serve if they're willing to hide who they are, so, yeah, not seeing how it's better.

It isn't clear how biology and gender are related. If biological sex is the intended term then, as thorny points out, it's a whole different set of problems. But "biological gender" is extremely ambiguous, at best.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 16 March 2019, 01:15 AM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,695
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter View Post
Instead they get to stay in a service that's proven to be actively hostile to them so long as they pretend to not be different? Sorry, not an improvement.
The people already in the army as their preferred gender can continue to do so, they don't have to pretend anything.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 16 March 2019, 02:08 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,789
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
People already in the military under their preferred gender can continue to do so.
The linked document mentions those who have already been "diagnosed" being able to continue serving, not that they can serve "under their preferred gender". Not to mention that the previous diagnosis requirement seems to be rather limiting to say the least. That summary does not seem to concern or contradict "all persons will be subject to the standard, requirement, or policy associated with their biological sex" (here using the correct term, AIUI, but raising lots of other questions...).
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 16 March 2019, 11:42 AM
St. Alia St. Alia is offline
 
Join Date: 06 October 2010
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 881
Default

I believe this is an accurate website (i.e. actually from the DoD). I wish it were satire or a Poe or something other than what it is.

There are so many things wrong with this I can't even start. Fortunately some people have already mentioned a number of reasons why this is effed up, idiotic, backwards, and wrong. Apparently though, this administration is the "hold my beer" of let's see how horrifying we can be in 4 years.

5 Things to Know About DOD's New Policy on Military Service by Transgender Persons and Persons With Gender Dysphoria
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 16 March 2019, 12:27 PM
ASL's Avatar
ASL ASL is offline
 
Join Date: 04 July 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 5,985
Teacher

I think the military's biggest problem with this issue, apart from the general bigotry of its senior leadership (all the way to the President), is that it continues to use gender-based fitness tests, rather than job-specific or functional tests. To be sure, there are job-specific tests and functional tests, but they don’t take the place of their service's general fitness tests.

It seems like a small hurdle to get over, but then I don’t think our leaders are very good at using empirical evidence to solve problems. Too much going with their gut, then coming up with "data" to justify the decision they’ve already made. Kind of like the post-2018 transgender policy, actually. They begin with a conclusion, then cook up a "study" or two that supports it and pat themselves on the back for being "objective."

And here there was such a push to get "our best and brightest" (as if those two descriptors go hand in hand) MBAs round about 2005, it makes me wonder what the point was. They missed the most important lesson of any primer on operations research: garbage in yields garbage out.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 16 March 2019, 02:38 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is online now
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,913
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by St. Alia View Post
I believe this is an accurate website (i.e. actually from the DoD). URL]
What on earth is "transgender with no diagnosis or history of gender dysphoria"?

Why would somebody with no gender dysphoria transition? Do they seriously think there are significant numbers of happily cis people wanting to serve in the military as members of a different gender?

And then proceeding onwards to the definition of "biological sex": "a person's biological status as male or female, based on chromosomes, gonads, hormones, and genitals": what are they doing with people in whom those don't match, and/or aren't clearly one or the other?
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 16 March 2019, 10:11 PM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,789
Default

Looks like the dod confirms those who have been previously diagnosed can continue serving "in the gender" of their preference only if they are willing to serve under their "biological sex". A man who was assigned "female" at birth has to wear a woman's uniform, behave as a female, and follow the rules for females? Even if he's so lucky as to have been previously diagnosed by a military doctor with a dysphoria or to have been admitted as a male during the short time that was possible, what does he get now that he didn't get during the ban? To check the "male" box on a form?

Genyus, can you explain again why you think this is better than an outright ban?
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 18 March 2019, 03:03 AM
Mouse's Avatar
Mouse Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 10 July 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 7,591
Mouse

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
I don't think it is a whole 'nother issue. I think that the entire issue is that some people are trying to jam all humans into one of two boxes.

Whether you're looking at the outside of the bodies, the inside of the bodies, or the inside specifically of the heads which are part of the body: there are a lot of people who just plain don't fit.
An example of how gender is complicated, is Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. If we are looking at things from a strictly biological chromosome view, a person with this condition, their sex is male. Blood tests and the like would show them as having the XY chromosome sex associated with being male.

Yet for someone with AIS, basically the Y chromosome fails to activate. As a result, people with AIS look like women. When they come into the world, a baby with AIS looks like a girl and when they grow up, they develop breasts and hips like a woman. For many, their condition isn’t discovered until they reach puberty and fail to menustrate.

So using the logic of the Pentagon and anti-Trans people, under what category would a woman with AIS fall? Again, most of people with it look female and unless you saw the results of their blood tests, you wouldn’t really have any reason to believe otherwise. But said blood tests identify them as male.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 18 March 2019, 03:30 AM
ASL's Avatar
ASL ASL is offline
 
Join Date: 04 July 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 5,985
Military

This may strike you as utterly incomprehensible, but the DOD has a very simple solution for anyone who doesn’t fit neatly into pre-defined categories (e.g. man with penis, woman with vagina). It simply doesn’t allow them to join the military. Too easy!
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 18 March 2019, 01:09 PM
ChasFink's Avatar
ChasFink ChasFink is offline
 
Join Date: 09 December 2015
Location: Mineola, NY
Posts: 965
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter View Post
The current term is intersex.
Thanks for correcting me; that's what I meant. "Biologically transsexual" really makes no sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
I don't think it is a whole 'nother issue. I think that the entire issue is that some people are trying to jam all humans into one of two boxes.
I only meant another issue in the sense that intersex is something different from transgender. I agree with what you're saying (echoed by others) that defining people by their biological sex totally ignores intersex individuals and those with AIS, as well "guevedoces" - XY people who are classified as girls at birth, but experience a boy's massive production of testosterone at puberty and transform into males.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 18 March 2019, 02:02 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is online now
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,913
Default

Those with AIS and guevedoches were indeed among those I was thinking of; I believe there's quite a few other variations.

-- It's interesting to posit a society in which all male children are guevedoches. It wouldn't be possible to treat male and female children differently before puberty, because nobody (lacking modern medical techniques) would be able to tell which was which. You might get an answer to some (though not all) of the nature-versus-nuture questions. I also wonder whether it would affect treatment after puberty: whether children who weren't raised from infancy expecting to be treated "like a girl" or "like a boy" would respond poorly to suddenly being so classified at puberty if it meant significantly different treatment by their society, or whether the society might be less likely to treat them differently in the first place. Might not work that way, of course; adults are treated differently than children to begin with, and it might just turn into a layer added on to puberty ceremonies. And since all the children would look like girls, it might even increase a tendency to infantilize grown women.

-- whoops, that was rather a hijack, wasn't it?
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 18 March 2019, 02:28 PM
ChasFink's Avatar
ChasFink ChasFink is offline
 
Join Date: 09 December 2015
Location: Mineola, NY
Posts: 965
Default

But what a hijack! Interesting questions indeed!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Pentagon's plan to put robot Marines in space A Turtle Named Mack Techno-Babble 13 23 July 2014 10:10 PM
Pentagon Lifting Ban on Women in Combat lord_feldon War, What Is It Good For? 8 24 January 2013 02:31 PM
9/11: Pentagon aircraft hijack impossible snopes Spook Central 15 14 October 2010 03:28 PM
Mornings at the Pentagon snopes Inboxer Rebellion 6 12 February 2010 01:29 PM
The Pentagon's purple water fountain snopes Military 3 07 February 2009 11:02 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.