Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

[MatthewLee]

Yet if food is speech, then I would still like to make sure I grasp the positions (with a slight rewarding of them):

But if I understood the positions correctly from simply the first page of comments, we basically have a "for" and an "against" position?

With MatthewLee "for" bakers who sell custom-created wedding cakes wedding speeches to be able to selectively refuse to any couples for religiously motivated reason?

That this applies to homosexual couples certainly but to jewish couples, african-american couples, liberal couples, etc?

While the "against" position, being that bakers should not be able to selectively refuse to sell a wedding cake wedding speech is held by a few?

Would that be an accurate description?

I’ll come back to this later but the questions your asking are all asked and addressed in the opening arguments. It’s really neat stuff. The question of how a cake became speech is the wheel on which this case turns. I am still studying these arguments for content and remember these are only the opening arguments in this case.

The oral arguments are just to talk about the briefs which are actually really, really long. This issue is a lot more complex than it seems on the face. I look forward to takin some time to expand our discussion on this and how it relates to same sex marriage equality and it’s overlap with religious freedom.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I look forward to takin some time to expand our discussion on this and how it relates to same sex marriage equality and it’s overlap with religious freedom.

The overlap is the presumed privilege of religious majorities who feel free to impose their religious convictions on other people.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Your linked articles provide no actual example of a "third sex" just various abnormal intermediaries between male and female.

Whereas in reality you ignored the links completely, didn't bother addressing anything in them, just so you could a few pages later pretend there's nothing contesting your view.

One article flat out denies your assertion by stating: "That the two sexes" implying there are only two.

Which of course is an absurdly literalist way to summarize an article stating exactly the fucking opposite.

You personally describe it as a "tug of war" which in case you didn't realize is BINARY.

A tug of war being binary because, as everyone knows, there are only two positions in a tug-of-war, no extensive middle ground at all!

The articles state things like:

State things like cherrypicking? Yeah, this just underscores your refusal to engage honestly with the subject matter, and once again emulates Creationist strategies.

"Intersex conditions are sometimes also referred to as disorders of sexual development (DSDs)."

Which, as I've already told you in scientific parlance, means 'different from the norm'.

If you want to call the World Health Organization and mainstream medical journals "creationists" you're a joke.

Whereas, obviously I've done no such thing having cited them in support of my own position, and in reality it's you who is pretending to their authority while actually arguing directly contrary to them.

The only creationists are the butthurt far leftists who think doctors should reclassify intersex as NOT having any disorder because their feeeeeelings are hurt. Well cry me a river, you don't get to redefine medical science because you're offended.

How typically Tree - blithely, aggressively ignorant of everything!

As you've already had explained to you before: disorder just means a state which is not the norm. We all know very well that the norm, when it comes to gender, is male and female... so something that's neither male nor female would, in that parlance, be a disorder. That still intrinsically recognizes that the norms are not absolute, ergo your argument is typically nonsensical.

Crackpot alert. In reality, the only way to overthrow a Western government would be peacefully.

Peacefully sure... It only took Eastern European countries 45 years to get rid of communism "peacefully" and Belarus is still communist. That is the price you pay for not having an eeevil gun culture. It only took 70+ years for Russia to become not-communist and it's still not quite free.

North Korea - still communist with no end in sight as the population isn't even well fed enough to have the strength to mount a resistance
Cuba - still communist

Those Western nations, like Eastern Europe, Belarus, North Korea, Cuba and Russia! :lol:

Don't mistake your ignorance of warfare tactics for an actual argument.

Another amusing scenario given your repeated declarations about international policy.

This is just an argument from incredulity.

And your argument is just an assertion, mine professes skepticism about your wilful fiction-crafting. You can label it whatever you want, but your argument still remains proudly presented navel fluff.

In reality, if the the US federal government turned tyrannical and the people revolted, there's absolutely no guarantee the government would win. Several things to consider:

In reality, you've immediately switched your argument as you always do, and as usual, you've failed to even acknowledge doing so.

Now it's just 'no guarantees'?

I*fiction fiction fiction*

Yeah, I told you that you've missed your calling, Tree. You should write fiction: you're good at it.

Also ask Assad how well he's doing to get a grip on Syria.

Western liberal democracies, tinpot Middle Eastern dictatorship propped up and contested as a proxy by other powers.... one of these things is not like the other, one of these things is not quite the same.

Unfortunately, I think it's necessary to bring in Sesame Street levels of comprehension to help you produce a coherent argument for once.

He basically lost half the country due to armed rebels and that's not even a gun culture. The US itself has trouble reigning in areas with armed rebels. I'm not defending those particular rebels, they are scum for the most part, no better than Assad or Saddam and in many ways worse, but the idea that guns make no difference is fantasy.

Buy those at Walmart, do you?

 

[Sparhafoc]

https://www.britannica.com/science/hermaphroditism

In humans, conditions that involve discrepancies between external genitalia and internal reproductive organs are described by the term intersex. Intersex conditions are sometimes also referred to as disorders of sexual development (DSDs). Such conditions are extremely rare in humans. In true gonadal intersex (or true hermaphroditism), an individual has both ovarian and testicular tissue. The ovarian and testicular tissue may be separate, or the two may be combined in what is called an ovotestis. Affected individuals have sex chromosomes showing male-female mosaicism (where one individual possesses both the male XY and female XX chromosome pairs). Most often, but not always, the chromosome complement is 46,XX, and in every such individual there also exists evidence of Y chromosomal material on one of the autosomes (any of the 22 pairs of chromosomes other than the sex chromosomes). Individuals with a 46,XX chromosome complement usually have ambiguous external genitalia with a sizable phallus and are therefore often reared as males. However, they develop breasts during puberty and menstruate and in only rare cases actually produce sperm. In 46,XX intersex (female pseudohermaphroditism), individuals have male external genitalia but the chromosomal constitution and reproductive organs of a female. In 46,XY (male pseudohermaphroditism), individuals have ambiguous or female external genitalia but the chromosomal constitution and reproductive organs of a male, though the testes may be malformed or absent.

https://www.nature.com/articles/3880645

True hermaphroditism (TH) refers to individuals who have both unequivocal ovarian tissue and testicular elements regardless of their karyotypes; whereas mixed gonadal dysgenesis (MGD) refers to individuals who usually have a differentiated gonad on one side and a streak gonad or streak testis on the other side.

http://www.who.int/genomics/gender/en/index1.html

Humans are born with 46 chromosomes in 23 pairs. The X and Y chromosomes determine a person’s sex. Most women are 46XX and most men are 46XY. Research suggests, however, that in a few births per thousand some individuals will be born with a single sex chromosome (45X or 45Y) (sex monosomies) and some with three or more sex chromosomes (47XXX, 47XYY or 47XXY, etc.) (sex polysomies). In addition, some males are born 46XX due to the translocation of a tiny section of the sex determining region of the Y chromosome. Similarly some females are also born 46XY due to mutations in the Y chromosome. Clearly, there are not only females who are XX and males who are XY, but rather, there is a range of chromosome complements, hormone balances, and phenotypic variations that determine sex.

...

Gender, typically described in terms of masculinity and femininity, is a social construction that varies across different cultures and over time. (6) There are a number of cultures, for example, in which greater gender diversity exists and sex and gender are not always neatly divided along binary lines such as male and female or homosexual and heterosexual. The Berdache in North America, the fa’afafine (Samoan for “the way of a woman”) in the Pacific, and the kathoey in Thailand are all examples of different gender categories that differ from the traditional Western division of people into males and females. Further, among certain North American native communities, gender is seen more in terms of a continuum than categories, with special acknowledgement of “two-spirited” people who encompass both masculine and feminine qualities and characteristics. It is apparent, then, that different cultures have taken different approaches to creating gender distinctions, with more or less recognition of fluidity and complexity of gender.

From the World Health Organization.

So Tree: If you want to call the World Health Organization and mainstream medical journals "creationists" you're a joke.... right?

 

[Akamia]

Who's to say they can't zerg a base and capture their own tanks? Insurgents have done that before in other places.

Haha... You never played a StarCraft game before, have you?

Zerg rushes aren't really that effective against a prepared or experienced opponent. Hell, learning how to defend against Zerg rushes is basically part of StarCraft 101.

I sincerely doubt civilians "zerging" the base of a real Western military – for any reason – will be any more effective. Actually, I'd argue it would be dramatically less effective. Unlike the Zerg, people aren't quickly spawned from larvae at some hatchery across the battlefield.

I recommend constructing additional pylons instead.

 

[Tree]

Who's to say they can't zerg a base and capture their own tanks? Insurgents have done that before in other places.

Haha... You never played a StarCraft game before, have you?

Zerg rushes aren't really that effective against a prepared or experienced opponent. Hell, learning how to defend against Zerg rushes is basically part of StarCraft 101.

I sincerely doubt civilians "zerging" the base of a real Western military – for any reason – will be any more effective. Actually, I'd argue it would be dramatically less effective. Unlike the Zerg, people aren't quickly spawned from larvae at some hatchery across the battlefield.

I recommend constructing additional pylons instead.

I think you're missing the point that having the best fighters with the best weapons doesn't guarantee you'll win. Numbers matter too.

Do you want to see a simulation of 10000 zerglings vs. 500 marines? Individually speaking, 1 marine is more powerful than 1 zergling, but nowhere near as powerful as being able to take on so many.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D_PRsuhWE8

Meanwhile US armed forces number:

1.3 million active
800k reserve

US population: 300 million

That means the army (and not all of it is on US soil at this time) is outnumbered essentially 150 to 1. Even if you discount the very old and very young, it's still probably in the hundred range. There is simply no level of training one man can attain that could protect him from the simultaneous attack of so many armed people, even if they are mediocre shooters and their guns are less powerful.

It is also unrealistic to assume that large portions of the US army including at the highest levels wouldn't defect as they are pretty allergic to tyrants. A combination of American rebels + defecting US troops + the likely support of state governments (not exactly that realistic to assume all 50 governors would side with a tyrant's administration) is more than enough to stop a tyrant if all else fails.

Maybe stop worrying so much about America's guns and start worrying more about the 6 million Jews who were never allowed weapons to defend themselves or the entire eastern bloc who had no resistance whatsoever to puppet Russian communist governments taking over. They robbed, falsely imprisoned and killed millions with impunity, the population had no means to resist.

Unlike the Zerg, people aren't quickly spawned from larvae at some hatchery across the battlefield.

Neither are soldiers, SWAT teams or policemen, which are vital if you want to enforce a tyranny on a population.

Your point?

Now on a smaller scale, how would you police a rebellious and armed population if you were the dictator of the US? Do you have any idea how much cooperation is needed for policing to work between the population and the police? The NYPD for example has a mere 51k employees, that's ALL employees, not just actual policemen. You think they can subdue a city of millions if everyone hates them and is just waiting for a reason fire back at them?

For all intents and purposes, the amount of guns lying around makes the US population ungovernable in a cost-effective manner unless they're okay with being governed.

Can you afford to hyper-militarize every city in the country to negate every household having guns? Doubt it. You won't even find enough men for it.

 

[Tree]

https://www.britannica.com/science/hermaphroditism

In humans, conditions that involve discrepancies between external genitalia and internal reproductive organs are described by the term intersex. Intersex conditions are sometimes also referred to as disorders of sexual development (DSDs). Such conditions are extremely rare in humans. In true gonadal intersex (or true hermaphroditism), an individual has both ovarian and testicular tissue. The ovarian and testicular tissue may be separate, or the two may be combined in what is called an ovotestis. Affected individuals have sex chromosomes showing male-female mosaicism (where one individual possesses both the male XY and female XX chromosome pairs). Most often, but not always, the chromosome complement is 46,XX, and in every such individual there also exists evidence of Y chromosomal material on one of the autosomes (any of the 22 pairs of chromosomes other than the sex chromosomes). Individuals with a 46,XX chromosome complement usually have ambiguous external genitalia with a sizable phallus and are therefore often reared as males. However, they develop breasts during puberty and menstruate and in only rare cases actually produce sperm. In 46,XX intersex (female pseudohermaphroditism), individuals have male external genitalia but the chromosomal constitution and reproductive organs of a female. In 46,XY (male pseudohermaphroditism), individuals have ambiguous or female external genitalia but the chromosomal constitution and reproductive organs of a male, though the testes may be malformed or absent.

https://www.nature.com/articles/3880645

True hermaphroditism (TH) refers to individuals who have both unequivocal ovarian tissue and testicular elements regardless of their karyotypes; whereas mixed gonadal dysgenesis (MGD) refers to individuals who usually have a differentiated gonad on one side and a streak gonad or streak testis on the other side.

http://www.who.int/genomics/gender/en/index1.html

Humans are born with 46 chromosomes in 23 pairs. The X and Y chromosomes determine a person’s sex. Most women are 46XX and most men are 46XY. Research suggests, however, that in a few births per thousand some individuals will be born with a single sex chromosome (45X or 45Y) (sex monosomies) and some with three or more sex chromosomes (47XXX, 47XYY or 47XXY, etc.) (sex polysomies). In addition, some males are born 46XX due to the translocation of a tiny section of the sex determining region of the Y chromosome. Similarly some females are also born 46XY due to mutations in the Y chromosome. Clearly, there are not only females who are XX and males who are XY, but rather, there is a range of chromosome complements, hormone balances, and phenotypic variations that determine sex.

...

Gender, typically described in terms of masculinity and femininity, is a social construction that varies across different cultures and over time. (6) There are a number of cultures, for example, in which greater gender diversity exists and sex and gender are not always neatly divided along binary lines such as male and female or homosexual and heterosexual. The Berdache in North America, the fa’afafine (Samoan for “the way of a woman”) in the Pacific, and the kathoey in Thailand are all examples of different gender categories that differ from the traditional Western division of people into males and females. Further, among certain North American native communities, gender is seen more in terms of a continuum than categories, with special acknowledgement of “two-spirited” people who encompass both masculine and feminine qualities and characteristics. It is apparent, then, that different cultures have taken different approaches to creating gender distinctions, with more or less recognition of fluidity and complexity of gender.

From the World Health Organization.

So Tree: If you want to call the World Health Organization and mainstream medical journals "creationists" you're a joke.... right?

Literally none of this proves there's a "third sex" and as for the last part, this is a discussion about BIOLOGICAL sex, not the subjective delusions that run in some cultures. You know what cultures also tend to have? A religion. I'm guessing though you're not as willing to accept those kind of claims being true.

By social justice warrior culture, even I could become female simply by claiming to be female (and even retroactively become female by claiming I've always been female) and everyone would need to acknowledge that or be labelled a bigot. Even though, I'm not intersex, I don't have weird chromosomes, have male parts and features, both inside and out.

 

[Akamia]

Haha... You never played a StarCraft game before, have you?

Zerg rushes aren't really that effective against a prepared or experienced opponent. Hell, learning how to defend against Zerg rushes is basically part of StarCraft 101.

I sincerely doubt civilians "zerging" the base of a real Western military – for any reason – will be any more effective. Actually, I'd argue it would be dramatically less effective. Unlike the Zerg, people aren't quickly spawned from larvae at some hatchery across the battlefield.

I recommend constructing additional pylons instead.

I think you're missing the point that having the best fighters with the best weapons doesn't guarantee you'll win. Numbers matter too.

Do you want to see a simulation of 10000 zerglings vs. 500 marines? Individually speaking, 1 marine is more powerful than 1 zergling, but nowhere near as powerful as being able to take on so many.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D_PRsuhWE8

I had a feeling you'd bring this up.

The problem with this example is threefold, only two of which are relevant to the topic at hand.

1. The marines are just standing there shooting. No Terran player worth talking to does that. Bio-style Terrans always have some measure of micromanagement while they're fighting using large amounts of marines, especially when fighting Zerglings; they can be kited, as while they are faster than marines, they don't have a ranged attack. Obviously, real life militaries are not pawns in some strategy game where they get to fight alien bugs, but frankly, if these marines were doing more than just shooting while standing in one place, their survivability would have gone way up. Even Protoss Zealots can be kited this way.
2. No explosives. Any Terran seeking to defend against pure Zerglings would have at least some siege tanks among their marines. Marines are the most flexible unit in the game, but marines alone only get you so far. Even bio Terrans throw in some additional units. Who's to say a real defending military won't break out an RPG or some mortars if absolutely necessary?
3. Cover! Those marines are way out in the open! Throw those marines in bunkers or something and you might see a marked difference in performance. That's not even getting into the terrain, which is also a factor. I would assume cover would be abundant for a defending military force trying to deal with an incoming angry mob trying to attack them head-on.

Honestly, at that point, the biggest concern for the defending military forces would be ammunition. StarCraft marines and everything else in that game, in-game at least, have infinite ammo. Real life soldiers do not. Of course, I'm also assuming there's no infighting on either side. There almost certainly would be infighting in both these prospective "sides" if this were to actually play out.

Incidentally, even if I thought the "zerging" of a US military base had a reasonable chance of winning, the sheer loss of life that would ensue during such is simply not acceptable to me. Again, humans, civilian or military, aren't the faceless, mindless, completely obedient drones seen in RTS gameplay. Diplomacy must be the solution.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Literally none of this proves there's a "third sex"...

Which really underscores the point about who the person lacking in competence at Biology is.

And logic... by definition, Tree, if there are 2 positions with a range in between, the spectrum cannot be called 'binary'.

You can argue against that until the cows come home, but you just look a tit.

and as for the last part, this is a discussion about BIOLOGICAL sex, ...

No, no it's not. It's a discussion about GENDER. It's just that your position is also in contradiction with Biology.

not the subjective delusions that run in some cultures.

Not delusions: reality. It's you who's operating under a delusion.

You know what cultures also tend to have? A religion.

Tree's typical red herrings whenever he's incapable of raising even a specious argument.

I'm guessing though you're not as willing to accept those kind of claims being true.

I would if they were supported by empirical evidence.

By social justice warrior culture, even I could become female simply by claiming to be female (and even retroactively become female by claiming I've always been female) and everyone would need to acknowledge that or be labelled a bigot.

I wouldn't know - you're the 'expert' on SJW's, or at least deeply obsessed by them.

Even though, I'm not intersex, I don't have weird chromosomes, have male parts and features, both inside and out.

Weird chromosomes? Why do you pretend you have a clue when you so clearly don't?

 

[Sparhafoc]

If you want to call the World Health Organization and mainstream medical journals "creationists" you're a joke.[/i]... right?

So you're a joke, then?

That was apparent to all, but it's nice to know your subconscious acknowledges it.

 

[Sparhafoc]

US population: 300 million

That means the army (and not all of it is on US soil at this time) is outnumbered essentially 150 to 1.

So in the fantasy scenario, every single person of all ethnicities, all political leanings, the elderly, disabled, children and infants joins the "zerg rush" Tree's contrived to... once again... never admit to being wrong!

It's so nice to be having serious conversations! :lol:

They're coming for you US armed forces! Best lay down your weapons now, or be utterly destroyed. The Master Tactician has predicted it!

 

[MarsCydonia]

I’ll come back to this later but the questions your asking are all asked and addressed in the opening arguments. It’s really neat stuff. The question of how a cake became speech is the wheel on which this case turns. I am still studying these arguments for content and remember these are only the opening arguments in this case.

The oral arguments are just to talk about the briefs which are actually really, really long. This issue is a lot more complex than it seems on the face. I look forward to takin some time to expand our discussion on this and how it relates to same sex marriage equality and it’s overlap with religious freedom.

From experience, I often tend to disagree with people who assert "Selling product X to person Y violates my religious freedom".

This isn't just concerning homosexuals, the issue is a concern with many characteristics where there will be an outgroup. So certainly sexual orientation but gender, ethnicity, religion (or lack of), political belief, etc.

So the issue before the supreme court should have nothing to do with religious freedom because religious belief can be used as the motivation for any kind of action and normally, religious freedom rights should end where another person's right begins, such as the right to life, freedom, in this case to equally participate in the marketplace, etc.

So rather the issue would be about "compelled speech" where the issue discussed is "is food a message"? "Is custom decorations a message"? etc.

 

[Sparhafoc]

From experience, I often tend to disagree with people who assert "Selling product X to person Y violates my religious freedom".

This isn't just concerning homosexuals, the issue is a concern with many characteristics where there will be an outgroup. So certainly sexual orientation but gender, ethnicity, religion (or lack of), political belief, etc.

So the issue before the supreme court should have nothing to do with religious freedom because religious belief can be used as the motivation for any kind of action and normally, religious freedom rights should end where another person's right begins, such as the right to life, freedom, in this case to equally participate in the marketplace, etc.

So rather the issue would be about "compelled speech" where the issue discussed is "is food a message"? "Is custom decorations a message"? etc.

Yup. Real equality is 'provide the service for everyone, or provide it for no one' - absolutely no person on this planet is obliging the baker to do anything other than be a baker, and he's not even obliged to do that if he can't navigate the job without coming into conflict with his religious convictions.

As already discussed though: this is indeed a litmus test as to whether the US is going to fall prey to theocratic tyranny.

 

[Tree]

Yup. Real equality is 'provide the service for everyone, or provide it for no one' - absolutely no person on this planet is obliging the baker to do anything other than be a baker, and he's not even obliged to do that if he can't navigate the job without coming into conflict with his religious convictions.

As already discussed though: this is indeed a litmus test as to whether the US is going to fall prey to theocratic tyranny.

Only it's not theocracy. It doesn't involve the government. This is a private entity choosing to not bake cakes in certain circumstances that violate his principles. This isn't even a vital industry or a monopoly, it's just a shitty small business. Stop whining and go to a different bakery. Or better yet, just order the fucking cake, don't tell them what it's for (or lie) and don't demand that they put pro-gay marriage messages on it if you know that violates their principles.

So in the fantasy scenario, every single person of all ethnicities, all political leanings, the elderly, disabled, children and infants joins the "zerg rush" Tree's contrived to... once again... never admit to being wrong!

Fuck off with your quotemining, I already addressed that issue like literally one sentence later.

Guns in case you didn't realize by the way are the no. 1 equalizers. The power gap between an old fart and a fit young man is drastically reduced by a gun.

And logic... by definition, Tree, if there are 2 positions with a range in between, the spectrum cannot be called 'binary'.

If it were a real spectrum, it would be published and you'd see it in every in human anatomy textbooks. I learned no such thing in school, only male and female and these were the only two anatomies we studied. There was no third sex, no spectrum, nothing.

It's not a "spectrum" because it's not a continuous range. If you think there is then properly define it in the way that other spectrums like the electromagnetic spectrum are.

And the values you think are in between male and female are actually just classed as male or female by professionals.

Turner syndrome sufferers for example (45,X who miss an X chromosome) are considered female.

Not delusions: reality. It's you who's operating under a delusion.

Really? Explain how it's reality based? Are all cultural perceptions of gender reality based? How could all be when they don't agree with one another. At best one of them is correct on an issue, at worst, none of them are.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

That's a list of exactly 353 exonorees based on DNA. (And that was in 1989 which means things have gotten better now due to this.)

In 1989 when this took place the US population was roughly 250 million.

My advice stands. Don't want to do time, don't do the crime. An almost 1 in a million chance to get wrongfully convicted is not a systemic problem. Nothing is ever perfect. By contrast you have a far higher chance to be the victim of medical malpractice or getting a serious hospital infection (and that's only going to get worse with antibiotic resistance), but it's still preferable to get treated than sit home and die.

Citation that it has gotten better. Those 353 were just the ones they caught. Remember that this organisation is underfunded. That number could be much higher, and the fact that it happens at all is a travesty.

Please explain what your proposed solution is to high black incarceration rates? Because right now the only way to ensure the percentage of blacks in prisons matches the percentage of blacks in the entire country would be to literally let many guilty people walk or not serve their full sentence which is MADNESS.

Decriminalising drugs for one. Body cams on offices for another.

Expanded it how?

Because it expanded the legal definition of marriage to include more possible combinations of people than before.

It went from discriminating against people to treating everyone equal. Again, how is that an expansion and not a retraction of its power?

Keep in mind that married people are treated differently than single people under the law, taxing is different, they may get certain benefits and so forth. In many ways, it's a form of subsidy. I'm not exactly sure what gay relationships provide that is so vital for society that we need to actively support them. Care to explain it? I'm perfectly fine with just leaving them alone, I don't wanna pay for them.

Thus, because you do not want to treat people equally, you do not think the government should? Beyond that, I am married and nothing the government offered factored into why I was wed. If you are against subsidies for married couples, why not go after the subsidies instead?

How about friendship registration (totally non-romantic, non-sexual purposes)? Would you be okay with that? Why? Why does the rest of society care if you're friends with Bob or not?

Gee, if you love your best friend so much, why not just marry him?

Now let's take a look at some of the weirder ones:

"Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs"

So basically if you're a dude fucking another dude who happens to be a veteran, you should literally have privilege in a true sense for government jobs. Does that make any sense whatsoever? Shouldn't the best person get the job?

I agree, I do not think spouses should get preferential treatment. The best person should get the job. Why you think this applies to two dudes fucking only is beyond me.

Would you be okay with:

"Preferential hiring for FRIENDS of veterans in government jobs"

Nope.

"For those divorced or widowed, the right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits, including: Social Security pension"

Translation: let's give free money to your boyfriend because he's your boyfriend.

The translation is, "let us give money agreed to by the government to your spouse or former spouse."

This doesn't make a lot of sense when you think about. Social security benefits are given to people who have worked and paid into the system and now get something out of it when they can no longer work.

So let's say there's this old dude who married a younger dude who's never worked a day in his life or maybe worked far less or on a much lower salary, why should the government basically become a substitute sugar daddy upon his death?

Do you think it's a good use of taxes to pay for people's boyfriends or girlfriends?

Again, they are paying for spouses or former spouses, and no it is not a good use of money. However, I am all for actually cutting government waste, unlike most people that only pay lip-service to it.

The reason we gave all these benefits to male and female couples (and there's actually a good reason to reconsider all that because many couples don't take their marriage vows seriously these days, they cheat, they don't stay together for life etc and are little more than long-term boyfriend/girlfriend for the most part) is because they formed families and produced the next generation of people. So as a collective we had a vested interest to see families succeed. Same sex couples however cannot do that. At all.

Yeah, [sarcasm]because adoption is not an option at all[/sarcasm]. Beyond that, I do not think any spouse or former spouse is entitled to what their partner earned. However, I do find it funny how you seem to want to police the bed rooms of married couples to fit your notion of marriage.

And as I've said, I'm happy to reconsider the benefits that straight couples get as well. I'm not a big government guy but if you want benefits you should at least produce something in return for society.

You are not a big government guy? When did that happen?

That is just the Donald talking out of both sides of his mouth. During his campaign, he would say anything to get votes. That is why you have him stating he would be the friendliest administration to the LGBT community while also stating the above.

Honestly, the man is a liar. Why anyone would take him at his word is beyond me.

You'd be wrong in assuming everyone in the LGBT community actually supports same-sex marriage. It is more likely but not universal.

When did I make that assumption?

In practice, very few gays actually get married as seen by the low numbers (18k couples during the first year, dropping to 6-7k in later years) when the civil partnerships indistinguishable from marriage were added in the UK. Not that many people rushed to benefit from it. So it's not even inconceivable that they may have other issues they care about which the left has failed to deliver on.

Such as?

Now if I was gay, I'd be far more concerned about Democrat pandering to Islam, an ideology violently opposed to gays, than Republican opposition to gay marriage.

Citation for Democrats pandering to Islam. Beyond that, perhaps they are already fearful of the actual pandering to Christianity from Republicans, which is also violently opposed to homosexuality.

Conservative gays like Milo Yiannopoulos understand that redefining marriage in such a fundamental way can have unexpected consequences.

You mean the guy that just got gay married?

Throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart.

I wonder if Tree failed to note where I got this quote?

That would not surprise me. He does not seem to be mister current affairs.

HWIN Commented:

“MatthewLee wrote:
If we compare Loving V Virginia and Obergefell V Hodges your comparison holds in terms of both being decided by the courts. Here is a better elucidation of why I believe this was wrong on both counts. Morally, both decisions were correct from a political standpoint... pragmatically both lead to disaster. This is an opinion and I reserve the right to be proven wrong so let me lay out the best argument I can with respect to all involved...
Morally good, but pragmatically bad. I wonder how that can be since you already agree that government should be restrained from meddling in our lives.”
MatthewLee wrote:
Before Loving V Virginia most states were already having their racism based laws repealed by court action and government involvement. Only the southern states were left as holdouts at the end. If you look at a map of the states which had their laws repealed...
https://www.aclu.org/other/map-leadup-loving
If that is the trend that it was going, is it not a good thing that something came along and made it that way across the country? That way people in the remaining states did not have to live under the tyranny of the state telling them what they can do.”

The states were not the tyrannical organizations by simple math. The majority was in agreement. The Federal government was the tyrant. I specified that the courts and the federal government dealt with these laws. The people of the states voted for and largely wanted these laws. The interference of the government didn’t allow them time to change their minds. They didn’t get to choose, the choice was made for them and therefore their prejudices become even more entrenched and their distrust of the government became genuine animosity. It was counterproductive.

Yes, but something being tyrannical is to keep something under boot. What I am saying is, is it really tyrannical for a government to remove laws that do not treat people equally? Is it not far better to say that the states restricking marriage were acting tyrannical, while the federal government corrected that? Remember, the states made the laws saying marriage was between a man and a women. Beyond that, as seen above Tree is still calling married couples just boyfriends and girlfriends. He has the right not to recognize that they are married, but the government needs to treat people equal under the law. See how just because the government treats people equal does not force individuals to?

The following is a rough, analogous example of what I mean so don’t read too much into it. I don’t want to start a debate about the right or wrong of faith and whether it is good or evil rather to use it as an example. I’m not claiming I want to convert anyone or saying anyone is going to Hell in this example… I’m just using it as an example of something some people consider a moral truth that can be imposed on with the justification that it’s for ‘their own good’.

Got it.

Let’s say that I believe that the only path to the next life is faith in Jesus Christ. By extension that means that I believe that anyone who rejects this is actually courting eternal damnation. Let’s say I managed to use the courts to make it Constitutional for mandatory faith education to be instituted into public schools and for it to be illegal to question faith in public. Any speech that questions faith is considered hate speech in the public space.
If I tried to force my beliefs on you because I know it’s the greater good and an absolute moral imperative to save your life from your own unwillingness to see what I know is the only right answer would that change your opinion or make you fight? If I used the government to force this opinion on you because I was absolutely certain it was self-evident that this is right… the government and I would become evil by extension because we would be imposing tyranny on you. It would make most people who don’t want faith forced upon them enemies of the government. Resistance to faith would go underground.

Your analogy is already going opposite of what actually happened. States imposed a restricted view of marriage/allowed Christian teaching. The federal government corrected that by saying people have to be treated equal. Thus, you are agreeing with me, at least on a subconscious level.

Instead… it is better to try and reason.. to debate… to share ideas and to make arguments and some may come around… and some will not because of their own reasons. Those reasons may even seem evil to me because my conviction is built on something I consider an absolutely objective moral basis but that doesn’t make forcing it right. People will make their own choices and if the argument is sound enough, eventually society will see the right of it and come along to the light of a good idea. Otherwise it is the minority of intelligentsia forcing their ideals on the public who obviously can’t be trusted to think for themselves. That’s how tyranny starts and democracy dies.

Again, the government can only treat people equal under the law. You are 100% correct that debate needs to happen to change people's minds, but in the mean time, the government cannot discriminate. Beyond that, what is tyrannical of the government treating people equally? People are still free to not accept gay marriage, as Tree demonstrates above.

“MatthewLee wrote:
Sure, they have legal protections and that is great in the abstract but it means that prejudice didn't go away... it went into hiding. And now the incarceration rates of African Americans are staggering. The prison population has boomed and despite being less than 15% of the population...

HWIN responded:
It is not the governments job to get rid of prejudice, but it is governments job to treat everyone equally. Beyond that, I am failing to see the link between interracial marriage being legal across the country and incarceration rates for blacks. Want to string this red herring into something logical?”

I agree that it is not the governments job to eliminate prejudice. That’s society’s job. The government can only treat people equally universally if the people in the government universally agree with the laws they are tasked to enforce. Governments are made of people.
Because we have failed to convince people of the right of this argument and instead just made it illegal to act in a racist way in any government enforced capacity or to get caught doing it… people have learned how to do it without getting caught.

If people are doing it without getting caught, than what can be done about it? Again, it seems like you are advocating for thought policing.

First off… If we agree that the data indicates that incarceration rates for blacks are incredibly, inexplicably high that leads me to one of three possible logical conclusions about them… if there are others I would be willing to discuss them on their merits but the only ones I see are as follows…
1. They are intrinsically predisposed to criminal behavior.
This is racism and obviously isn’t true. It is an unsupportable conclusion and offensive.
2. It’s just an incredible coincidence.
It would seem the probability against this is quite high. There are many fewer of them than there are other races so it would seem that if all races were equal then the tendency for criminality would show an equal distribution making prison population racial demographics roughly model societal racial demographics.
3. Some external force is acting upon them which makes it more likely for them to end up in the criminal justice system.

What external force could result in African Americans being unfairly targeted by criminal prosecution, arrest, and profiling other than racism?
It is widely accepted that OJ Simpson killed Nicole Brown Simpson. A court found him innocent not because of the strength of the exculpating evidence but the suspicious nature of the evidence for the state’s case. There was copious evidence that he was guilty but the evidence was mishandled in ways that are inexcusable. For example: legally mandated chains of custody were wholly disregarded… some of the police who gathered the evidence and testified were known white supremacist sympathizers… and evidence was proven to have been planted. It was eventually discovered by the investigations created by this trial that the LAPD routinely achieved convictions by planting evidence on African American’s because they assumed they were guilty. The way they handled the OJ case’s evidence was common protocol, but they did it in secret because yes… it was illegal… but they were prejudiced and the law doesn’t change that. It just makes it go into hiding where it can do real harm.

To just throw one thing out, since this thread is supposed to be Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion, but poverty is a huge factor in that as well. There are systemic reasons and were systematic reasons for that as well. If you really want to discuss this, I suggest opening up a new thread. However, I feel you will find that we will not actually disagree on much.

To address the point of it being in hiding, that is why people need to do investigation. Nothing is above being investigated.

Democracy only works if you let it and you let the people learn what the right choice is and make it. Otherwise you are legislating morality and that cannot ever work.

Voting cannot trump individual rights. That is why no matter what, we cannot vote back slavery.

The same people who are tasked with enforcing the new laws are the ones the laws were made to protect you from. Some of those that work forces.. are the same the burn crosses.

I love Rage Against the Machine.

Remember and I can’t repeat this enough, slavery never went away. It only became legal to keep criminals as slaves.
13th Amendment to the US Constitution:
“Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
There are almost more African American’s legally eligible to be considered in a state of involuntary servitude by the Thirteenth amendment in US prisons right now then were in a state of slavery in the US in 1810. There are almost as many people legally eligible to be considered in a state of bondage in the US right now as there were right before the civil war.

http://faculty.weber.edu/kmackay/statistics_on_slavery.htm

It went away in that they are not owned. Their children are not owned. They cannot be beaten because that would be "cruel and unusual". Plus, once they serve their time, they are free to go and are not owned for life. Now, if we could reform the criminal justice system, I feel a lot of the problems with this would go away over night.

The solution didn’t fix the problem but made it worse like a coat of paint on a house with termites.

I keep telling you that treating people equally under the law was never supposed to fix systemic racism. You are upset with this for failing to solve a problem it never was supposed to solve. This is honestly like being upset with seat belt laws, because they have not stopped car accidents.

“MatthewLee wrote:
Hidden prejudice is far more dangerous than displayed ignorance because at least one you can fight in the open.

HWIN wrote:
We can fight both in the open, because in the open is when it is affecting others. Someone can be at their house talking about how they want to burn faggots, string up niggers and shoot spics, but if they never act on it, they are free to live that way. However, the government cannot create laws restricting the voting rights of blacks or disallowing gays to live near schools. It honestly appears like you are advocating for thought policing.”

The government can’t create laws to do these things… but they can still be done…

“From the 1890s to the 1960s, many state governments in the Southern United States administered literacy tests to prospective voters purportedly to test their literacy in order to vote. In practice, these tests were intended to disenfranchise racial minorities. Southern state legislatures employed literacy tests as part of the voter registration process starting in the late 19th century. Literacy tests, along with poll taxes, residency and property restrictions and extra-legal activities (violence, intimidation)[2] were all used to deny suffrage to African Americans.”

“In Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections (1959), the U.S. Supreme Court held that literacy tests were not necessarily violations of Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment nor of the Fifteenth Amendment.”

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

Yet what finally got rid of poll taxes? The state What got rid of literacy test before voting? Again, the state. You are once again proving my point. Yeah, the state does not get it right on the first try a lot of times, eventually, the arc bends because we hold the government accountable.

It’s not about thought policing. It’s about doing the actual work necessary to convince people of the correct truth which usually becomes self-evident after enough effort to spread it. It’s hard work and it requires education, usually at the primary level to start. It has to be done with the emphasis on letting the person make the right decision internally based on good and unbiased information. You can’t tell someone… it is wrong to do X. You have to teach them about people who did X and what the consequences of X actually were and let their conscience do the work. Socrates didn’t just spit truth at you. He asked you questions which made you figure out through logic on your own. That’s why lawyers are still taught with the Socratic method to this day.

I do not disagree with you, but in the mean time the government needs to treat everyone equally under the law.

“MatthewLee wrote:I believe that Americans also didn't want same sex marriage equality as a majority.

HWIN wrote:
Well, you are just wrong on that belief. “

It’s not a belief. The numbers tell the tale.

Did you not look at my source? Support for marriage equality is over 50%. That is a majority.

The courts overruled votes. Votes can be said to represent opinions. Look at the graphic I posted again and really check out the details. Click on it state by state. Laws and Amendments which defined marriage largely were voted into reality. They were mostly overturned by judges, courts, and the Supreme Court. A minority of states voted it into law on their own. Nothing has significantly happened since then to change their opinions one way or the other except for the case of a Christian who is in the Supreme Court right now fighting for his business. Whether he was right or wrong is not what I am saying here.. how the public perceives it is what’s really important. If he wins it could set back LGBT goals and if he loses it will turn public opinion even farther the other way.

Yet, discrimination cannot be voted in. That goes against the Bill of Rights.

This has to be taken out of the courts and has to be done at the ground level or terrible things are going to happen. The civil war teaches us this, in my opinion.

Again, we cannot vote in discrimination. That goes against the Bill of Rights, and is what the courts are for. Checks and balance, right?

People’s opinions have not changed from what they were in 2000 when same sex marriage wasn’t even conceived of being something you needed to legislate against because society tabooed it. They haven’t changed from when most of the ‘flyover states’ voted to define marriage as a man and a woman and they didn’t change because of Obergefell. They can only be changed by educated, informed people in open discourse.
The media might have you believe otherwise but I believe that the tendency to constantly ignore the warning signs is dangerous. People in a corner fight dirty. Sun Tzu said, “When on desperate ground, fight.”

Again, you are simply wrong about this, look at my source.

MatthewLee wrote:
The civil war started over similar debates about states rights and the rights of people to vote their conscience... even if they were wrong... you have to change the minds of people before you try and force laws on them or you are just imposing your views... right or wrong... through tyranny. One type of tyranny is not better than another.

HWIN wrote:
Let us not sugar coat it, the South wanted the right to own other people. Again, just because something is popular and you can get a lot of people to vote for it, does not make it okay. I honestly do not care if the minds of the southerners were changed or not, slavery is disgusting and a black mark on the history of my Country. For a country to have a founding document that states "all men are created equal" to have slavery for any stretch of time is shameful. Beyond that, I am not sure one can actually call freeing slaves as an act of tyranny.
However, this does bring up a perplexing issue. Earlier you said Loving and Obergefell were morally good, but pragmatically bad. Are you now saying the same for slavery? It seems that way, or why else bring it up?”

Remember that the man who wrote that “all men are created equal” owned slaves, impregnated one of his slaves and died in debt so bad they auctioned his possessions, I believe this may have included his slaves as well… including the one who bore his children who he said he loved.

That is a reason why I do not hold Thomas Jefferson in that high of regard. Than again, most of my heroes do not appear on stamps.

The act that started the civil war was not the freeing of slaves. It was the election of a man who the South believed would abolish slavery.

Right... The mere thought of them having to free their slaves led them to secede.

It was also a long progression of abuses of the rights of the South through legislation by the largely northern leaning Federal Government. The South saw the north just like the colonies saw England. A tyrannical and distant organization who didn’t care about them and would oppress them for profit. Freeing slaves wasn’t just a moral argument then. They didn't keep slaves because it was popular.. their entire economy was based on agrarianism and slavery made it possible. It's not so simple as they just liked it. The debate over the Missouri compromise really illustrates this well.

If your whole economy is based on enslaving other humans, than your economy is evil. I am not sure what you are trying to do here, but it seems like you are trying to defend slavery. Are you going to be another slavery-apologist?

The economy of the south was a massive and productive force in the world economy. They supplied tobacco and cotton on a massive scale to the rest of the world. If you took away their property (as they saw it as evidence by the link I shared on the Mississippi causes for secession which numbered their holding alone at 4 billion in 1860 dollars) you didn’t just deprive them of an unthinkably large investment. Their entire economy would have collapsed and they would have been reduced to stunning poverty and starvation almost instantly... and they would have been at the mercy of a massive population of now liberated slaves. It would have been a human disaster on an unimaginable scale. The north wasn’t just telling them, hey you’re wrong. In the eyes of the south… they were making war on them and willing to deprive them of life, liberty and property without due process in a way that would have utterly destroyed them and their cherished way of life.

You are not going to get me to feel sorry for people that owned other people. They are disgusting and I actually would not care if they died in the mud.

The emancipation proclamation wasn’t until 1863. Lincoln said as much in the letter I quoted him in. The north didn’t care about slavery so much… they didn’t want the south to have an unfair labor advantage. The thirteenth amendment wasn’t even passed until after the war.

Like you said, the South seceded at the mere thought of having to free their slaves. Imagine just how much longer it would have existed in my country if they were smart. Beyond that, it still feels like you are defending the right to own other people. Are you actually advocating for this?

Attitudes can change about such things but because they didn’t wait for time and history to take it’s course… hundreds of thousands died or were mutilated and a wound was made in the nation that never actually healed. The Southerners still resent the Northerners for something that happened in 1860. We have done the same thing to them many times since. It’s amazing they haven’t tried to secede again already…

I am one of the people that would say let the South go. They suck up so much Federal money, that it would be a net positive for the rest of the Union. Beyond that, as you said, the Civil War started at the mere thought of the South having to free their slaves. They saw a whole group of people as less than human and would fight for that right. They are scum plain and simple. Now, I know the South still regrets the War of Southern Stupidity (which is why I love wearing my General Sherman shirt whenever I am there), but remember that they are pining for a time when it was okay to own other humans. That is a disgusting thought.

Now, beyond that, I am all for changing minds through dialog (hence the membership here), but I will not coddle anyone. Pining for a time when it was okay to own other people is reprehensible.

Traditionally the 2nd Amendment is not interpreted that citizens get to own guns because they are afraid of an invader.

I have literally never heard it phrased as such - it's always about contesting a tyrannical government. Definitely plausible in a contest with matchlocks and muskets, not so much when the government possesses stealth bombers, attack helicopters, and a vast array of missiles. My suggestion to any would-be 2nd amendment revolutionary would be to try the political route, because the military one is doomed to be a laughable footnote in the history of weaponry.

It is for both. I was about to repeat a lie about this, but it is a good thing I checked before telling it. However, even with that being the case (and the fact that this lie can take foot shows that there is roots to this meme), the Second Amendment is thought of for individual citizens to defend themselves, whether that be from a criminal, invaders, or their own government.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Only it's not theocracy. It doesn't involve the government.

Yes, as usual you're not paying attention because you're only interested in taking a dump on the table of discourse.

Clearly, I am talking about the case in the supreme court.

This is a private entity choosing to not bake cakes in certain circumstances that violate his principles.

Great, then he is also choosing not to make a profit from a business in society if he's unable to follow the laws of that nation.

This isn't even a vital industry or a monopoly, it's just a shitty small business.

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter the size of the entity when it comes to breaking the law.

Stop whining and go to a different bakery.

In other words, let people break the law when you don't give a fuck about their victims.

Or better yet, just order the fucking cake, don't tell them what it's for (or lie) and don't demand that they put pro-gay marriage messages on it if you know that violates their principles.

Because it's your duty to use your telepathic powers to divine the religious convictions of a provider rather than their duty being to serve all people equally according to the law.

So in the fantasy scenario, every single person of all ethnicities, all political leanings, the elderly, disabled, children and infants joins the "zerg rush" Tree's contrived to... once again... never admit to being wrong!

Fuck off with your quotemining, I already addressed that issue like literally one sentence later.

:lol: you gibbering loon, you did no such thing. It's right there in the quote: 150 to 1. You can't even be truthful about your own arguments on this very page! :lol: :lol:

Guns in case you didn't realize by the way are the no. 1 equalizers.

Tell that to an AH-64 Apache. Equalize away with your pistol!

The power gap between an old fart and a fit young man is drastically reduced by a gun.

But not between the young man and a fucking modern army, you drooler.

And logic... by definition, Tree, if there are 2 positions with a range in between, the spectrum cannot be called 'binary'.

If it were a real spectrum, it would be published and you'd see it in every in human anatomy textbooks.

Which, of course, you do.

I learned no such thing in school,...

That goes a long way to explaining your educational deficiencies.

Perhaps if you'd studied past high school you wouldn't be talking out of your rectum?

....only male and female and these were the only two anatomies we studied.

You studied 'two anatomies'? :lol:

There was no third sex, no spectrum, nothing.

Either they failed you, or you weren't paying attention. I presume from your belligerent ignorance it's probably the latter. Either that, or it was a seminary.

It's not a "spectrum" because it's not a continuous range.

He says directly contradicting 2 scientific articles provisioned for his edification. You clearly didn't pay attention to those articles, which may well illuminate why you missed out on vital knowledge at school.

As I already cited: it was assumed until the 80's that all fetuses started female, and then due to various chemical factors, some percentage of males would form. What actually happens is there's a genuine tug-of-war between the two, with the norm being either male or female, but a statistically significant number of people never arriving at either extreme.

You can just read the articles dropped directly into your lap so you don't even need to do any work at all bar reading them... or you could ignore any and all facts that contradict your ignorant narrative.

Either way's fine by me.

If you think there is then properly define it in the way that other spectrums like the electromagnetic spectrum are.

As I said: feel free to read the articles cited directly to you.

And the values you think are in between male and female are actually just classed as male or female by professionals.

No, they're not - you're talking out of your arse.

Turner syndrome sufferers for example (45,X who miss an X chromosome) are considered female.

No, gender is assigned on an individual basis usually in accordance with the visible reproductive organs.

Not delusions: reality. It's you who's operating under a delusion.

Really? Explain how it's reality based? Are all cultural perceptions of gender reality based? How could all be when they don't agree with one another. At best one of them is correct on an issue, at worst, none of them are.

What they show is that your notion of male and female is not universal, so every time you bleat about there being only male and female, you are actually ignorantly parroting your cultural norms, even though your own culture's scientific advances dispelled those naive cultural beliefs decades ago.

 

[Sparhafoc]

When did I make that assumption?

Tree made that assumption on your behalf. He's just saving you the effort of having your own opinions.

 

[Sparhafoc]

It's binary, innit? :lol:

 

[Sparhafoc]

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/ambiguous-genitalia/symptoms-causes/syc-20369273

Ambiguous genitalia is a rare condition in which an infant's external genitals don't appear to be clearly either male or female. In a baby with ambiguous genitalia, the genitals may not be well-formed or the baby may have characteristics of both sexes. The external sex organs may not match the internal sex organs or genetic sex.

...

Babies who are genetically female (with two X chromosomes) may have:

An enlarged clitoris, which may resemble a small penis
Closed labia, or labia that include folds and resemble a scrotum
Lumps that feel like testes in the fused labia

Babies who are genetically male (with one X and one Y chromosome) may have:

A condition in which the narrow tube that carries urine and semen (urethra) doesn't fully extend to the tip of the penis (hypospadias)
An abnormally small penis with the urethral opening closer to the scrotum
The absence of one or both testicles in what appears to be the scrotum
Undescended testicles and an empty scrotum that has the appearance of a labia with or without a micropenis

...

Male and female sex organs develop from the same tissue. Whether this tissue becomes male organs or female organs depends on the chromosomes and the presence or absence of male hormones.

In males, a region on the Y chromosome triggers the development of testicles, which produce male hormones. Male genitals develop in response to male hormones from the fetal testicles.
In a fetus without a Y chromosome — without the effects of male hormones — the genitals develop as female.

How ambiguous genitalia occurs

A disruption of the steps that determine sex can result in a mismatch between the appearance of the external genitals and the internal sex organs or the genetic sex (XX or XY).

A lack or deficiency of male hormones in a genetic male fetus can cause ambiguous genitalia, while exposure to male hormones during development results in ambiguous genitalia in a genetic female.
Mutations in certain genes can influence fetal sex development and cause ambiguous genitalia.
Chromosomal abnormalities, such as a missing sex chromosome or an extra one, also can cause ambiguous genitalia.
In some cases, the cause of ambiguous genitalia may not be determined.

Possible causes in genetic females

Causes of ambiguous genitalia in a genetic female may include:

Congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Certain forms of this genetic condition cause the adrenal glands to make excess male hormones (androgens).
Prenatal exposure to male hormones. Certain drugs that contain male hormones or that stimulate production of the male hormones in a pregnant woman can cause developing female genitals to become more masculine. A developing baby also may be exposed to excess male hormones if the mother has a disease or condition that causes hormone imbalance.
Tumors. Rarely, a tumor in the mother can produce male hormones.

Possible causes in genetic males

Causes of ambiguous genitalia in a genetic male may include:

Impaired testicle development. This may be due to genetic abnormalities or unknown causes.
Androgen insensitivity syndrome. In this condition, developing genital tissues don't respond normally to male hormones made by the testes.
Abnormalities with testes or testosterone. Various abnormalities can interfere with the testes' activity. This may include structural problems with the testes, problems with production of the male hormone testosterone or problems with cellular receptors that respond to testosterone.
5a-reductase deficiency. This enzyme defect impairs normal male hormone production.

Risk factors

Family history may play a role in the development of ambiguous genitalia, because many disorders of sex development result from genetic abnormalities that can be inherited.

So much for gender being solely defined by reproductive anatomy.

Rather, as anyone with actual interest in the subject and honesty to pursue it would acknowledge, there's just a little more to it than this.

In fact, gender is comprised of 3 primary components: genetic, anatomical, and psychological. It's wholly possible, as shown, for every cell in the body to be mismatched between chromosomes. It's wholly possible, as shown, for one's reproductive anatomy to not match one's genetic gender. It is also wholly possible for one's psychological identification not to match either anatomy or genetics.

In short, it's a very complicated field which presents far more than just a simplistic 1950's binary approach to gender.

Fortunately, idiots don't conduct research, so we're not stuck gaping in awe at the guff we extracted from our navels.

 

[Sparhafoc]

https://www.nature.com/articles/3880645

True Hermaphroditism and Mixed Gonadal Dysgenesis in Young Children: A Clinicopathologic Study of 10 Cases

True hermaphroditism (TH) refers to individuals who have both unequivocal ovarian tissue and testicular elements regardless of their karyotypes; whereas mixed gonadal dysgenesis (MGD) refers to individuals who usually have a differentiated gonad on one side and a streak gonad or streak testis on the other side. A differential diagnosis between the TH and MGD has important clinical implications for gender assignment and the decision for early gonadectomy...

...

in contrast, true hermaphroditism (TH) is the rarest form of intersexuality in humans, and the term is applied to an individual who has both well-developed ovarian and testicular tissues. A differential diagnosis between the two conditions has important clinical implications for gender assignment; furthermore, early gonadectomy in MGD patients is needed to prevent the development of malignant germ cell tumors. However, the form of intersexuality is sometimes very difficult to determine without a knowledge of normal histological findings of the gonads in newborns and young children. It is also true in adults, especially when both gonads are replaced by malignant tumors or when the gonads have various secondary histological changes. In young children, histological features of the gonads remain relatively unchanged, and they are helpful for understanding the histological differences between the TH and MGD. We review the clinicopathological features of TH and MGD in 10 young children to identify the most important features for differentiating between the two conditions and to emphasize the role of the pathologist in the correct diagnosis.

Oops, there's that scientific literature expressly stating scientific knowledge of intersexuality - the thing that Tree tells us is SJW Creationism!


http://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(08)00233-1/fulltext

Result(s)

The current patient had previous pregnancy and a wedge biopsy of her left gonad, which demonstrated an ovotestis and an area suspicious for a gonadoblastoma. After delivery of her second pregnancy, the patient underwent a hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. The histopathologic evaluation following bilateral oophorectomy demonstrated a residual ovotestis without further evidence of a gonadoblastoma. Review of the literature identified 10 other cases of pregnancy in a hermaphrodite patient.
Conclusion(s)

This is the 11th reported case of fertility in a true hermaphrodite and only the second report of a mosaic true hermaphrodite to demonstrate fertility. This is the only case of a pregnancy involving a male-predominant mosaic 96% 46XY and the only case to confirm the genetics of the offspring.

A male predominant mosaic hermaphrodite giving birth! Impossibru! Tree hath spoken!