What's new
By:

Proposed Rollback of Transgender Protections

While I have difficulty understanding the transgender thing, I've always supported a person's right of choice when it comes to sexual preference. Sometimes, it's simply biology, that people don't feel they are the sex with the genitalia they are born with, like Bruce Jenner. In any case, it's much more complex than this and I think it's more related to biology than culture. One thing of note that might be influencing the increase of transgender persons is the decrease of male testosterone level world-wide:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2017/10/02/youre-not-the-man-your-father-was/#5ecb1e188b7f

I believe this may be related to our increasingly toxic environment, the pesticides in food and other environmental toxins. For example, a zoo was faced with a problem of the decreasing fertility of its male rhinos, which had occurred over a number of years. Somehow, they linked it to their diet and they stopped feeding them barley, which is mostly GMO (genetically-modified), and before long, the males became fertile again. GMOs have been in the food supply since 1974 and have been progressively increasing. This coincides with decreasing levels of human male testosterone. This of course is purely speculative but it's food for thought.

Of course, considering all that I've said, I would be totally opposed to such a law, but then just about anything Trump does is without reflection or depth of knowledge.
 
One Brow said:
History says otherwise.
Click to expand...
I went to your blog but didn't see a post with information supporting your comment. Is there one? My comment is based on anecdotal rather than scientific evidence, so thought you might have something scientific or factual in relation to this.
 
Eenie-Meenie said:
I went to your blog but didn't see a post with information supporting your comment. Is there one? My comment is based on anecdotal rather than scientific evidence, so thought you might have something scientific or factual in relation to this.
Click to expand...
Stalking has begun...
 
Elections have consequences. Younger people tend to emphasize protections for the LGBT community yet only a fraction get off their asses and vote in non-presidential elections. Elections have consequences. Voting matters. Tough lesson to learn. Want protections? Vote every election for people who’ll protect these rights.
 
Eenie-Meenie said:
While I have difficulty understanding the transgender thing, I've always supported a person's right of choice when it comes to sexual preference. Sometimes, it's simply biology, that people don't feel they are the sex with the genitalia they are born with, like Bruce Jenner. In any case, it's much more complex than this and I think it's more related to biology than culture. One thing of note that might be influencing the increase of transgender persons is the decrease of male testosterone level world-wide:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2017/10/02/youre-not-the-man-your-father-was/#5ecb1e188b7f

I believe this may be related to our increasingly toxic environment, the pesticides in food and other environmental toxins. For example, a zoo was faced with a problem of the decreasing fertility of its male rhinos, which had occurred over a number of years. Somehow, they linked it to their diet and they stopped feeding them barley, which is mostly GMO (genetically-modified), and before long, the males became fertile again. GMOs have been in the food supply since 1974 and have been progressively increasing. This coincides with decreasing levels of human male testosterone. This of course is purely speculative but it's food for thought.

Of course, considering all that I've said, I would be totally opposed to such a law, but then just about anything Trump does is without reflection or depth of knowledge.
Click to expand...
*SIGH*

GMOs aren't a thing. Or, rather, they're not a SINGLE thing. Asking if GMOs are bad is like asking if animals are dangerous. Sure, some of them. But some are also cuddly.
 
gandalfe said:
*SIGH*

GMOs aren't a thing. Or, rather, they're not a SINGLE thing. Asking if GMOs are bad is like asking if animals are dangerous. Sure, some of them. But some are also cuddly.
Click to expand...

It's not the GMOs that are necessarily the problem. It's more the process of cultivating them which kills all other life around them. There is also a controversy about GMOs themselves. But as you should know, they are developed to endure the harsh pesticide glyphosate which is carcinogenic to humans, and this pesticide kills all other life, insects and other plants. So imagine what it does to us. I've read a bit on the topic and glyphosate has a half-life of six months. They've also developed another equally harmful pesticide to use with GMOs. Can't recall it off the top. See this link:

https://www.farmaid.org/issues/gmos...OHq7wTJ_kzT8Api89v6RzfxDEoFmQP0kaAusGEALw_wcB
 
The more I think of this the more I think it's a cynical attempt to lure the SJW's of the far left into the forefront to change the narrative during the mid-terms.

Scare the crap out of the god loving mid-western folks when they see the purple-haired masses marching on TV. They'll run to the voting booths.
 
One Brow said:
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/content/two-spirits_map-html/

Multiple genders, being transgender, etc., have had traditions going back centuries. It has little to do with toxins, agricultural run-off etc.
Click to expand...
I know that but the testosterone decline is related to environmental conditions. It seems to me that there is an increase in transgender persons, or maybe it's just a matter of more transparency ??? Do you think there are more transgenders and that it is increasing, or not?
 
I don't understand the outrage. Please help me understand.

First, I want to confirm my understanding that trans-advocates distinguish between sex and gender. I understand that Sex is scientifically determined by whether a person has xx or xy chromosomes (an unambiguous biological designation for the vast majority of humans). Whereas gender is more nuanced and subjective (with number of gender options and expectations/characteristics varying across cultures). I think this could be compared to a person being a voter vs being a republican or democrat: sex would be like whether you voted or not, it is a dichotomous designation, but what party you identify as is based on a lot of factors and the characteristics of the parties are also subject to change (a republican in Texas is not the same as in NY). Is my understanding correct? If not, please correct me.

If my understanding is correct, I don't see why anyone would be upset that a government doesn't want to classify people based on gender. As the definition of gender is disconnected from sex, and traditional designations of man or woman do not represent how people identify, it seems reasonable to stop trying to track/identify people by gender. However, because sex is a permanent attribute, it could efficiently be used by a government when it is necessary for a government to classify citizens (e.g., the draft, prison assignments, etc.).

Is the issue they are trying to force sex and gender to be the same? Edit: Is the issue more that they are focusing on sex over gender?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top