Newborn baby may be the first to be registered ‘gender unknown’

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

This almost sounds like Doty, they whatever is going to create a gender confusion with this child.

That's what I was thinking, too.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Human beings are a sexually dimorphic species. There are two sexes - male and female. That is a distinct concept from "gender", which may not match a person's biological sex, and may be "fluid" in the sense that it's discovered over time. It's also possible to describe gender in the form of a "continuum".

However, none of these things are "social constructs". In this context the term "social construct" would apply to things like gender roles that are entrenched in culture, e.g. associating cooking with femininity.

Now that I've answered your question, will you answer mine, or will you simply attempt to use my response to distract from what I suspect is your inability to logically defend your own views on this topic?

OK great, so, you're taking the position that gender is fluid, and not attached to biology. I find that position to have the same scientific merit as anti vaxxers.

Your question about why I consider it to be a defect won't really matter to you and you likely know why. I don't consider gender to be something that is removed from biology. I reject that notion that gender is fluid and I suspect society will never accept that either. The reason society is moving forward in a good way with homosexuality is that there's actual science behind it that even backwoods ultra conservatives can see. People are born gay and judging them and treating them differently for it is wrong. Same with people who have gender identity issues. The difference here is that there are people making the argument that gender is this fluid thing with no attachment to biology. I suspect that science will likely find that this is false, and much in the same way there's a gay gene, there's a gender identity gene.

(google searched that very thing and the first thing that popped up was this:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/arti...ender-identity

Sexual identity may be hard-wired into the brain. Before a
developing embryo begins to generate its own hormones, genes are already
playing an important role in organizing the brain along gender.
Researchers from University of California at Los Angeles studying mice
embryos have identified 54 genes in which activity levels vary according
to gender.

Eric Vilain, an assistant professor of genetics at UCLA,
compared the activity levels of genes in male and female brains in
10-day-old embryonic mice—days before they developed sex organs. He
found 18 genes that were more strongly active in male embryonic brains,
and 36 that were revved up in female brains.

The finding suggests that genes play an important role in the early
development of sexual identity, and probably have much to do with shaping
gender in the mammalian brain. "This refutes the notion that hormones are
the sole influence in gender identity," says Vilain.

Still, scientists do not know how large a
role genetics plays in making the brain male or female. Hormones and
environmental factors are certainly a vital part of development.

)

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

So you're not going to answer my question, then? Because you've again failed to identify what characteristic or feature a transgendered person is lacking that would make them "better" or "not defective" if they had it.

There is, incidentally, no scientific basis for arguing that gender and sex are identical concepts. Sex certainly predicts gender in the vast majority of cases, and that's not at all surprising given there are clearly things that men's brains (and bodies) do differently than women's (see testosterone). But that doesn't provide evidence for literally any point you've attempted to make thus far. For the cases where sex and gender diverge, for example, you have not established that this is a problem, that something has gone "wrong", or, once again, that this constitutes a "defect" that would need to be "cured".

You simply aren't supporting your point. You're just asserting that something is a problem without explaining why you think that is.

[White Out 403]

No I think I've outlined what the problem is pretty specifically. You simply reject the notion that gender is a biological distinction, so you're playing a word game here.

I would go far as to guess that you would reject that a cure for gender identity could ever exist, in the same way that the gay gene could be "fixed" in embryo in the future?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

You'd be wrong, and you've now put words in my mouth rather than attempt to defend your point. You haven't identified a "problem", you've just said "hey, see, gender is connected to biology". I'm aware that there are crazy people who deny that there's any link between the two, but no one here has done so. And sure, there's no reason to think it's impossible to develop technology that could alter any number of genetic markers in utero, and thereby change the characteristics of the person who emerges from the womb. Stop trying to change the subject.

You're arguing against straw men while refusing to answer the simple question that was posed to you: why is having a gender identity that differs from your biological sex a defect? What is it about this state of being that is bad and in need of "curing", as you've repeatedly suggested it is? You said it was a birth defect. Asking you to explain why you believe what you say you believe is not a "word game".

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

No I think I've outlined what the problem is pretty specifically. You simply reject the notion that gender is a biological distinction, so you're playing a word game here.

I would go far as to guess that you would reject that a cure for gender identity could ever exist, in the same way that the gay gene could be "fixed" in embryo in the future?

You are not the first person to think this. Indeed Alberta has a long history of eugenics. That line of thought leads to a lot of personal and family suffering, and millions of dollars of wasted public money.

Your opinion is based in science and I think that it is important to remember that there is often a large disconnect between science, ethics and morality. Just because something is scientifically possible doesn't mean that it ads value to the planet.

[White Out 403]

If you are born a man, and think that you're a woman, that is a defect. You are suffering from a mental problem because you aren't correctly identifying as the gender you were born as. I'm not sure how to more cogently explain to you that fact. Is it "bad" that a person born this way has this problem? I mean that question is so silly I don't know where to begin. We could discuss the daily stresses of trying to fit to a world where 99.5 to 99% of the world doesn't have this issue, so there's the isolation of non understanding. Or the suicide rates that are astronomical. Depression. I mean, it's almost too silly to even entertain such a ridiculous question.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

You are not the first person to think this. Indeed Alberta has a long history of eugenics. That line of thought leads to a lot of personal and family suffering, and millions of dollars of wasted public money.

Your opinion is based in science and I think that it is important to remember that there is often a large disconnect between science, ethics and morality. Just because something is scientifically possible doesn't mean that it ads value to the planet.

I wish eugenics wasn't so closely associated with evils of the past, because it's an exciting future. When I talk about gene therapy and manipulation of the embryonic cells I'm talking about:
-eliminating physical disorders like babies born with no hands or malformed toes/fingers
-screening and removing down syndrome and other crippling mental health problems that will cause a child to have terrible quality of life for their whole adulthood
-that would include a test for gender identity possibly, and correcting it

What I am not suggesting is designer babies with all blonde hair blue eyes and IQ's of 150. Frankly I don't know how we would prevent that in the distant future as the science will be there. We dont get to choose for science not to figure this out it's already happening. We will have to be judicial about its use. But lets not pretend we wont be wiping out mental and physical defects in 50 years .. its coming and it will be a huge step forward for humanity. The ethical and morality debates will be around how far we will go, not if we do it.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

I wish eugenics wasn't so closely associated with evils of the past, because it's an exciting future. When I talk about gene therapy and manipulation of the embryonic cells I'm talking about:
-eliminating physical disorders like babies born with no hands or malformed toes/fingers
-screening andremoving down syndrome and other crippling mental health problems that will cause a child to have terrible quality of life for their whole adulthood
-that would include a test for gender identity possibly, and correcting it

What I am not suggesting is designer babies with all blonde hair blue eyes and IQ's of 150. Frankly I don't know how we would prevent that in the distant future as the science will be there. We dont get to choose for science not to figure this out it's already happening. We will have to be judicial about its use. But lets not pretend we wont be wiping out mental and physical defects in 50 years .. its coming and it will be a huge step forward for humanity. The ethical and morality debates will be around how far we will go, not if we do it.

I'm not wading into this argument, but there are many people with Down's who don't have a terrible quality of life, just FYI. Picking and choosing what "defects" you "cure" while an embryo is developing WILL lead to designer babies because your definition of what is desirable/non-desirable is different that mine, your neighbor's, and everyone else.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

I'm talking about:
-screening and removing down syndrome

This can already be done. You're clearly not a parent.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I'm not wading into this argument, but there are many people with Down's who don't have a terrible quality of life, just FYI. Picking and choosing what "defects" you "cure" while an embryo is developing WILL lead to designer babies because your definition of what is desirable/non-desirable is different that mine, your neighbor's, and everyone else.

In what ####ing world is down syndrome desirable?

So you would be opposed to a test to determine DS, and, a subsequent cure that has no side effects or harm for the baby? You'd willingly let a child of yours be born with down syndrome when it didn't have to be? That's ludicrous.

Keep in mind I'm not saying it would be mandatory. But I find your post to be incredibly disturbing.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

This can already be done. You're clearly not a parent.

Wrong. You can identify a baby with Down's in-utero, then destroy it. Not cure it.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

If you are born a man, and think that you're a woman, that is a defect. You are suffering from a mental problem because you aren't correctly identifying as the gender you were born as.

You have once again just baldly asserted this without providing reasons. You apparently think this is self evident, and if you had the ability to reason logically, you would see that your inability to offer a reason why it's bad should cause you to question your intuition.

Is it "bad" that a person born this way has this problem? I mean that question is so silly I don't know where to begin.

If so, you should have been able to answer it easily, and I shouldn't have had to drag it out of you.

We could discuss the daily stresses of trying to fit to a world where 99.5 to 99% of the world doesn't have this issue, so there's the isolation of non understanding.

Okay, finally, you've provided a reason. I think it's a pretty bad justification because:

1. This implies that if the world were, by pure fluke, majority transgender, it would not be a "defect", because there wouldn't be this sense of isolation. It follows that your judgment that this is a "defect" is contingent on an external factor. However, a "defect" is by its nature inherent, so you've already failed to meet the definition.
2. You say 99% of the world "doesn't have this issue". The obvious question that follows from that is, how many people who share your characteristics does there need to be for something to no longer be a "defect"? 90% of the population is straight - is that enough to make being gay a defect? Approximately 1% of the human population is Inuit. Is that enough to make being Inuit a defect? Where would you draw the line here?
3. What about transgendered people who don't feel a sense of isolation? There are many who do, but also many who don't. Are those transgendered people not "defective"?

Or the suicide rates that are astronomical. Depression.

This is a problem with society, not a problem inherent to transgendered people - unless you think they're biologically predisposed to killing themselves, and if so, you'd better have some evidence to support that. There's plenty of evidence to the contrary. For one thing, suicide rates among gay youth are also higher than average - this would suggest that you also think gays are defective.

I mean, it takes a special sort of illogic to look at a minority group and think, "hmmm, they seem to be disproportionately marginalized, resulting in a higher number of suicides. Rather than addressing the marginalization, let's just eliminate them from the population going forward."

Again, if it's so obvious that being transgendered is the same as being defective, surely you must be able to give better reasons than those.

[FlamesAddiction]

How often is it the case that someone born as a man literally thinks he is a woman (or vice versa)? I think you are making it sound more like a defect than it actually is.

I think it is more often a situation where they mentally and emotionally feel like the opposite gender even if their physical sex does not reconcile. It's not that they are delusional.

All mammals are full of individual variations and this is just one of them. It's one of the main mechanisms for evolution. A small number of variations are beneficial, but most are benign and some are detrimental. Being gay, trans, etc... are examples of variations that I believe are pretty benign in the big picture. Maybe you could "fix" them through genetics, but as a biological mechanism, it's working as intended. It would be like "fixing" someone with heterochromia iridium, freckles or situs inversus. If the people are happy and healthy, why should it be an issue?

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

This can already be done. You're clearly not a parent.

Wow! We cured down syndrome in the womb? Amazing! You clearly aren't well informed.

(I am a parent for the record)

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You have once again just baldly asserted this without providing reasons. You apparently think this is self evident, and if you had the ability to reason logically, you would see that your inability to offer a reason why it's bad should cause you to question your intuition.

If so, you should have been able to answer it easily, and I shouldn't have had to drag it out of you.

Okay, finally, you've provided a reason. I think it's a pretty bad justification because:

1. This implies that if the world were, by pure fluke, majority transgender, it would not be a "defect", because there wouldn't be this sense of isolation. It follows that your judgment that this is a "defect" is contingent on an external factor. However, a "defect" is by its nature inherent, so you've already failed to meet the definition.
2. You say 99% of the world "doesn't have this issue". The obvious question that follows from that is, how many people who share your characteristics does there need to be for something to no longer be a "defect"? 90% of the population is straight - is that enough to make being gay a defect? Approximately 1% of the human population is Inuit. Is that enough to make being Inuit a defect? Where would you draw the line here?
3. What about transgendered people who don't feel a sense of isolation? There are many who do, but also many who don't. Are those transgendered people not "defective"?

This is a problem with society, not a problem inherent to transgendered people - unless you think they're biologically predisposed to killing themselves, and if so, you'd better have some evidence to support that. There's plenty of evidence to the contrary. For one thing, suicide rates among gay youth are also higher than average - this would suggest that you also think gays are defective.

I mean, it takes a special sort of illogic to look at a minority group and think, "hmmm, they seem to be disproportionately marginalized, resulting in a higher number of suicides. Rather than addressing the marginalization, let's just eliminate them from the population going forward."

Again, if it's so obvious that being transgendered is the same as being defective, surely you must be able to give better reasons than those.

I would respond point by point but its going to waste my time and yours. We cant even agree on a starting point, that the issue itself is biological. Everything else is a total moot point as this is a non starter for any reasoned debate we would have. I've tried to get this through to you several times but your either unwilling to accept that, or, too stubborn to care.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Wrong. You can identify a baby with Down's in-utero, then destroy it. Not cure it.

Exactly.

"screening and removing down syndrome"

I am not wrong.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

So after several pages of trying to get you to offer support for your position that being transgender is a bad thing that needs to be cured, you finally offer one dubious and poorly thought out rationale... and upon being presented with the myriad logical flaws in your reasoning, you throw in the towel?

Weak.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

How often is it the case that someone born as a man literally thinks he is a woman (or vice versa)? I think you are making it sound more like a defect than it actually is.

I think it is more often a situation where they mentally and emotionally feel like the opposite gender even if their physical sex does not reconcile. It's not that they are delusional.

All mammals are full of individual variations and this is just one of them. It's one of the main mechanisms for evolution. A small number of variations are beneficial, but most are benign and some are detrimental. Being gay, trans, etc... are examples of variations that I believe are pretty benign in the big picture. Maybe you could "fix" them through genetics, but as a biological mechanism, it's working as intended. It would be like "fixing" someone with heterochromia iridium, freckles or situs inversus. If the people are happy and healthy, why should it be an issue?

I have very few beefs with this post because it seems you are willing to entertain, if not already accept its a biological function. As for the end, why fix it if people are happy and healthy, well, it's clear that trans people and people with gender identity are anything but. Depression and suicide are astronomically higher in these groups and while I agree a lot of its due to society being society, if we accepted these groups fully (which we should) I suspect the depression and suicide issues would still be higher than other groups.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

So after several pages of trying to get you to offer support for your position that being transgender is a bad thing that needs to be cured, you finally offer one dubious and poorly thought out rationale... and upon being presented with the myriad logical flaws in your reasoning, you throw in the towel?

Weak.

There's no towel throwing, there's simply no point in debating with you because it would be like trying to convince an anti vaxxer why they should get a polio vaccination for their child. Maybe I should go and debate gravity with someone too while I'm at it?