Yay, for American Society of plastic surgeons. It’s about damn time! Sick and tired of doctors looking the other way and acting like this is all perfectly normal.
If I didn't actually know smart women who act like this is all perfectly normal, I would think the media is just gaslighting us into believing feminists are aok with an ideology that almost exclusively negatively impacts women and girls.
I too am aquatinted with smart women who are on the be kind and this is a normal way to live. I hate to admit it, but I too was part ofthe be kind , live and let live, philosophy. Then it my family. I do feel a great deal guilt that that’s what it took for me to see the light.
Why is it called “ gender affirming care” when it is nothing like care but more like mutilation? Amputating healthy breasts should be illegal.
Amputating arms or legs is not done except for shady doctors. This is no different,indeed it is even more life changing in that a woman who has lost her breasts will lose the intimate relationship between herself and her baby , if she ever has one.
“This is another proof the feminist movement has been hijacked by people who are not serious and are not actually fighting for women’s interest. Reality is, many local laws already allow women to be topless. Sane women do not go around topless not because they’re prohibited or the law is discriminatory. They do not because they haven’t completely lost their minds and do not want strange men to leer at them and invite physical harm to themselve”
If the feminist movement was hijacked it was hijacked 60 years ago, and was hikacked through Western and Eastern Europe and was long ago hijacked in sub-Saharan Africa.
There’s nothing wrong with women going topless, it’s routine in those regions, and I see less harassment of women there than the US.
I don’t believe your ideas of modesty are a manifestation of a collapse of feminism.
Feminism has advocated toplessness and braless since I can remember.
Were women liable for all male lechery they would wear bags over their bodies and masks.
> "Why is it that all super-advanced technology humans create would inevitably be used for the worst acts and behaviors instead of making the world better?"
In the nature of the beast, and right from "time immemorial". The invention of fire being the greatest of them, the best thing since sliced bread, but used to burn people at the stake. My "patron saint" -- Norbert Wiener, author of The Human Use of Human Beings, there being many "inhuman" uses of them -- argued that Science hasn't really informed Man, only "implemented" him -- to both our shame and glory.
But thanks again for some great links and stories.
Though I think Esses is barking up the wrong tree for believing that "biological sex is immutable". He's entitled to his beliefs -- as Christians are that Jesus walked on water -- but his are flatly contradicted by standard biological definitions for the sexes which STIPULATE that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither -- like most intersex like Khelif and transwomen who cut their nuts off -- are therefore sexless.
If one goes through male puberty which is the case for Khelif and benefits from the additional muscle mass, enhanced lung capacity, blood oxygen levels, etc then they are hardly "sexless."
Little doubt that Khelif has benefited from having XY chromosomes. Though it is rather moot whether "she" actually went through a FULL "male puberty" since "her" intersex condition is, as biologist Emma Hilton has been arguing, probably 5-ARD:
Wikipedia: "The internal reproductive structures (vasa deferentia, seminal vesicles, epididymides and ejaculatory ducts) are normal but testes are usually undescended and prostate hypoplasia is common. "
If the testes are "undescended" -- not inside the scrotum but inside the body cavity -- then they're typically NON-FUNCTIONAL, they're not capable of producing sperm. And it is the ability to produce either sperm or ova that is the criteria to qualify as male or female. Hence "sexless".
It is NOT the "muscle mass, enhanced lung capacity, etc." that qualifies someone as a male -- ONLY the ability to produce sperm which Khelif is likely to be incapable of. You might take a look at what are the standard biological definitions for the sexes published in reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries:
See also the Oxford English Dictionary which is basically the main source that Google uses:
OED: "male, adjective: Of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring."
OED: "female, adjective: Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes."
There is absolutely diddly-squat there in ANY of those definitions about chromosomes or genitalia -- and for the very good reason that those definitions apply, and HAVE to apply, to literally millions of other species, not just the human one.
The problem is generally that the IOC is using genitalia -- IF one has something that looks like a vagina, particularly at birth, THEN "female". But many others -- like the IBA -- are using chromosomes -- IF one has some XY chromosomes THEN "male".
However, there's a fundamental conflict there -- emphasized by Khelif and the intersex in general -- where many will have vaginas and XY chromosomes, the classic case being CAIS people who have the "female phenotype" -- i.e., vaginas, cervixes, whole 9 yards, LOOKS fully female -- yet have a "male genotype (karyotype)" -- i.e., XY chromosomes.
Take a close look at the photos in the first case -- would you call them males? Most of those blathering on about chromosomes would be obliged to do so:
Wikipedia: "Persons with a complete androgen insensitivity have a typical female external phenotype, despite having a 46,XY karyotype."
And there are even some cases where those with an XY karyotype would qualify as "females" -- even by the strict biological definitions I've quoted above -- since they have fully functional ovaries, the essential requirement to qualify as "female":
NCBI: "Report of Fertility in a Woman with a Predominantly 46,XY Karyotype in a Family with Multiple Disorders of Sexual Development. .... A 46,XY mother who developed as a normal woman underwent spontaneous puberty, reached menarche, menstruated regularly, experienced two unassisted pregnancies, and gave birth to a 46,XY daughter with complete gonadal dysgenesis.":
Which is largely why reputable biologists and philosophers -- not grifters and scientific illiterates like Colin Wright and Alex Byrne -- use functional gonads as the criteria for sex category membership. There are simply more than a few contradictions in the phenotype and genotype definitions which cause any number of problems in using "biological sex" for social engineering purposes.
You may wish to take a gander at my longer essay that provides some justification for those biological definitions which is based, in turn, on an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Mechanisms in Science:
Yay, for American Society of plastic surgeons. It’s about damn time! Sick and tired of doctors looking the other way and acting like this is all perfectly normal.
If I didn't actually know smart women who act like this is all perfectly normal, I would think the media is just gaslighting us into believing feminists are aok with an ideology that almost exclusively negatively impacts women and girls.
I too am aquatinted with smart women who are on the be kind and this is a normal way to live. I hate to admit it, but I too was part ofthe be kind , live and let live, philosophy. Then it my family. I do feel a great deal guilt that that’s what it took for me to see the light.
Why is it called “ gender affirming care” when it is nothing like care but more like mutilation? Amputating healthy breasts should be illegal.
Amputating arms or legs is not done except for shady doctors. This is no different,indeed it is even more life changing in that a woman who has lost her breasts will lose the intimate relationship between herself and her baby , if she ever has one.
A nice posting up
“This is another proof the feminist movement has been hijacked by people who are not serious and are not actually fighting for women’s interest. Reality is, many local laws already allow women to be topless. Sane women do not go around topless not because they’re prohibited or the law is discriminatory. They do not because they haven’t completely lost their minds and do not want strange men to leer at them and invite physical harm to themselve”
If the feminist movement was hijacked it was hijacked 60 years ago, and was hikacked through Western and Eastern Europe and was long ago hijacked in sub-Saharan Africa.
There’s nothing wrong with women going topless, it’s routine in those regions, and I see less harassment of women there than the US.
I don’t believe your ideas of modesty are a manifestation of a collapse of feminism.
Feminism has advocated toplessness and braless since I can remember.
Were women liable for all male lechery they would wear bags over their bodies and masks.
> "Why is it that all super-advanced technology humans create would inevitably be used for the worst acts and behaviors instead of making the world better?"
In the nature of the beast, and right from "time immemorial". The invention of fire being the greatest of them, the best thing since sliced bread, but used to burn people at the stake. My "patron saint" -- Norbert Wiener, author of The Human Use of Human Beings, there being many "inhuman" uses of them -- argued that Science hasn't really informed Man, only "implemented" him -- to both our shame and glory.
But thanks again for some great links and stories.
Though I think Esses is barking up the wrong tree for believing that "biological sex is immutable". He's entitled to his beliefs -- as Christians are that Jesus walked on water -- but his are flatly contradicted by standard biological definitions for the sexes which STIPULATE that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither -- like most intersex like Khelif and transwomen who cut their nuts off -- are therefore sexless.
If one goes through male puberty which is the case for Khelif and benefits from the additional muscle mass, enhanced lung capacity, blood oxygen levels, etc then they are hardly "sexless."
Little doubt that Khelif has benefited from having XY chromosomes. Though it is rather moot whether "she" actually went through a FULL "male puberty" since "her" intersex condition is, as biologist Emma Hilton has been arguing, probably 5-ARD:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5%CE%B1-Reductase_2_deficiency
https://karadansky.substack.com/p/ffs-friday-developmental-biologist
Wikipedia: "The internal reproductive structures (vasa deferentia, seminal vesicles, epididymides and ejaculatory ducts) are normal but testes are usually undescended and prostate hypoplasia is common. "
If the testes are "undescended" -- not inside the scrotum but inside the body cavity -- then they're typically NON-FUNCTIONAL, they're not capable of producing sperm. And it is the ability to produce either sperm or ova that is the criteria to qualify as male or female. Hence "sexless".
It is NOT the "muscle mass, enhanced lung capacity, etc." that qualifies someone as a male -- ONLY the ability to produce sperm which Khelif is likely to be incapable of. You might take a look at what are the standard biological definitions for the sexes published in reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries:
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990 (see the Glossary)
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3063-1
https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009407037441 (Oxford Dictionary of Biology)
See also the Oxford English Dictionary which is basically the main source that Google uses:
OED: "male, adjective: Of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring."
https://web.archive.org/web/20190608135422/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/male
OED: "female, adjective: Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes."
https://web.archive.org/web/20181020204521/https:/en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/female
There is absolutely diddly-squat there in ANY of those definitions about chromosomes or genitalia -- and for the very good reason that those definitions apply, and HAVE to apply, to literally millions of other species, not just the human one.
The problem is generally that the IOC is using genitalia -- IF one has something that looks like a vagina, particularly at birth, THEN "female". But many others -- like the IBA -- are using chromosomes -- IF one has some XY chromosomes THEN "male".
However, there's a fundamental conflict there -- emphasized by Khelif and the intersex in general -- where many will have vaginas and XY chromosomes, the classic case being CAIS people who have the "female phenotype" -- i.e., vaginas, cervixes, whole 9 yards, LOOKS fully female -- yet have a "male genotype (karyotype)" -- i.e., XY chromosomes.
Take a close look at the photos in the first case -- would you call them males? Most of those blathering on about chromosomes would be obliged to do so:
Wikipedia: "Persons with a complete androgen insensitivity have a typical female external phenotype, despite having a 46,XY karyotype."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome#Physical
And there are even some cases where those with an XY karyotype would qualify as "females" -- even by the strict biological definitions I've quoted above -- since they have fully functional ovaries, the essential requirement to qualify as "female":
NCBI: "Report of Fertility in a Woman with a Predominantly 46,XY Karyotype in a Family with Multiple Disorders of Sexual Development. .... A 46,XY mother who developed as a normal woman underwent spontaneous puberty, reached menarche, menstruated regularly, experienced two unassisted pregnancies, and gave birth to a 46,XY daughter with complete gonadal dysgenesis.":
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190741/
https://alipmcg.substack.com/p/the-womens-boxing-olympics-meta-scandal
Which is largely why reputable biologists and philosophers -- not grifters and scientific illiterates like Colin Wright and Alex Byrne -- use functional gonads as the criteria for sex category membership. There are simply more than a few contradictions in the phenotype and genotype definitions which cause any number of problems in using "biological sex" for social engineering purposes.
You may wish to take a gander at my longer essay that provides some justification for those biological definitions which is based, in turn, on an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Mechanisms in Science:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/rerum-cognoscere-causas