|
Lutha Mahtin posted:Oh no, statistically Minnesota will have one trans student athlete every (1 / (5 * 1.7%) =) 11.6 years!! Yeah. If they're legitimately concerned about protecting girls from harassment and assault like they pretend they are, they'd be focusing their efforts on cisgender males. Lutha Mahtin posted:Honestly I'm really kinda ticked at the little bitches who ran that newspaper ad. If I had a nice slush fund I'd try and see if they could be sued for false advertising or something. Because clearly their only justification for putting "a male wants to shower with your daughter" is the XY chromosome / may-possibly-still-have-a-penis bit, but it'd be great to drag it through a trial where these people would be put on the stand and be forced to answer a lot of uncomfortable questions about their views regarding the worth of humans. It's almost trivial to rhetorically back them into a corner, for example getting someone to agree "yeah XX chromosome is female XY is male, you shouldn't be treated differently" because then well guess what you're a bigot because obviously if you believe this that means you view genetic abnormalities (like Down Syndrome) as unhuman and nobody with weird genetic poo poo should be required to be treated with basic human rights. For sure, people who love to spout off bigotry about this are ignorant about the most basic facts of sex and gender. Heh, someone should demand XYY males stay out of "regular" XY male showers and stay off their teams.
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 20:33 |
|
|
Thankfully, genetic testing and insurance mandates will take care of the whole "chromosomally different" angle within our.lifetimes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 08:04
|
|
|
Edited... gently caress
Cat Planet fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Dec 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
 High school league votes to let transgender athletes pick their teams Vote was 18-1 with one abstaining. Apparently 33 other states have already done this? I haven't heard much about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ah okay, yeah I suspect there's truth to that, and that the number of people identifying as bisexuals are depressed from the dual forces of a society with strong taboos against same-sex attraction plus the conscious cultivation of gay identity and gay solidarity to fight against those taboos. The phenomenon of situational homosexual behavior among straight-identifying people that's limited to periods when they're solely among members of the same sex indicates some degree of malleability anyway. I wonder if anyone has links to any papers about that... Horribly late to reply to this as I had a busy week at work and didn't feel up to coherent debate when it was posted, but no worries, it's a subject usually debated by monumentally lovely people so I can't at all fault your distaste for it, and also thankyou to everyone who contributed to the discussion as it was extremely helpful. Apologies once more for the somewhat unpleasant derail.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Thankfully, genetic testing and insurance mandates will take care of the whole "chromosomally different" angle within our.lifetimes. Taken care of with what? Abortions? Is eugenics going to be a thing now?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Heh, someone should demand XYY males stay out of "regular" XY male showers and stay off their teams. Or start smoking 2 packs a day to get rid of that extra y chromosome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure genetic testing was banned in employment and healthcare a few years ago. At least in being used to deny claims or a job opportunity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Here's some good news! http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/us-announces-protections-transgender-workers-27697573 quote:The Justice Department is now interpreting federal law to explicitly prohibit workplace discrimination against transgender people, according to a memo released Thursday by Attorney General Eric Holder. The gay rights movement is rightly celebrated for how far they've come, and while transgender rights and visibility aren't as high profile, it's encouraging to see these sorts of successes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Horribly late to reply to this as I had a busy week at work and didn't feel up to coherent debate when it was posted, but no worries, it's a subject usually debated by monumentally lovely people so I can't at all fault your distaste for it, and also thankyou to everyone who contributed to the discussion as it was extremely helpful. Apologies once more for the somewhat unpleasant derail. I think I was having a bad week or something. Mm, sorry I was needlessly dickish and I've enjoyed your posts in other threads.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:Taken care of with what? Abortions? Is eugenics going to be a thing now? If by eugenics you mean "prevent children with terrible genetic illnesses like trisomy or Tay-Sachs or muscular dystrophy from being born and forcing parents to go through literally the worst possible thing and children to lead nasty painful short lived", then yes. If by eugenics you mean "aryan babies only plox", nobody's suggesting that and there isn't anything wrong with it anyway. We already do that by not having our mates randomly assigned to us
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 14:02
|
|
|
visceril posted:If by eugenics you mean "prevent children with terrible genetic illnesses like trisomy or Tay-Sachs or muscular dystrophy from being born and forcing parents to go through literally the worst possible thing and children to lead nasty painful short lived", then yes. Yeah, we've been here for a decade or more and it kicks rear end. Less kids with awful diseases, never mind the huge possible reduction in things like Huntington's disease (one generation of selection pretty much kills out a dominant genetic condition) which just reduces suffering dramatically. If anyone wanted to complain about it, you're a generation too late, assuming you're not some Santorum-style wingnut. quote:If by eugenics you mean "aryan babies only plox", nobody's suggesting that and there isn't anything wrong with it anyway. We already do that by not having our mates randomly assigned to us This stuff is problematic as hell. Choosing your partner or child on the basis of race is racist as hell, and the kind of thing we need to educate people out of at a young age. But that's entirely a side issue to genetic screening. I think what the original poster was trying to get at is that with genetic screening (I figure we'll be doing it for routine medical purposes very soon, since it can tell you a decent amount) that people who are XXY, XYY, or whatever other non-standard combination will know instead of being able to go through life assuming they are a standard male. While I'd hope this might make a bunch of the idiots more accepting, I honestly doubt it-- the number of people with these conditions is very small (XYY is 1 in 1000 males, XXY about the same) so if the transphobes were willing to screw over one small minority to protect their precious little gender roles, I have no doubts they'd do it to another one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 15:09
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:While I'd hope this might make a bunch of the idiots more accepting, I honestly doubt it-- the number of people with these conditions is very small (XYY is 1 in 1000 males, XXY about the same) so if the transphobes were willing to screw over one small minority to protect their precious little gender roles, I have no doubts they'd do it to another one. Yeah, transphobes don't actually care about genetics; it's just an excuse for their bigotry. They don't stop everyone they meet and ask for a dna test before deciding to treat them as a man or woman, it's only when transgender people are involved that they suddenly decide it's what's really relevant when determining gender.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Yeah, we've been here for a decade or more and it kicks rear end. Less kids with awful diseases, never mind the huge possible reduction in things like Huntington's disease (one generation of selection pretty much kills out a dominant genetic condition) which just reduces suffering dramatically. If anyone wanted to complain about it, you're a generation too late, assuming you're not some Santorum-style wingnut. Otoh, the window between legal and safe abortion and genetic screening test results is shrinking rapidly. Also for some reason (I live in the south) they will only tell you if a potential child will be afflicted, rather than simply being a carrier, because either Jesus or slippery slope bullshit. Yeah instead of eradicating a terrible illness lets go ahead a deprive the next generation of natural pregnancy or force abortions on them as well. IVF is totes fun getting hormone shots rules!
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
As for selecting your partner you are attracted to people you find attractive. If racial biases lead you to find certain skin tones or features more attractive than another, you're already doing eugenics. And you definitely are acting on societal standards of beauty. Plus, there's that other factor where you're attraxtsd to what you're attracted to, ain't nothin gonna change that.* *unless you're that guy who by sheer anime-style force of liberal will changes their sexual preference.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
visceril posted:If by eugenics you mean "prevent children with terrible genetic illnesses like trisomy or Tay-Sachs or muscular dystrophy from being born and forcing parents to go through literally the worst possible thing and children to lead nasty painful short lived", then yes. Wasn't arguing against that, but sure I can agree that less suffering is a good thing. visceril posted:If by eugenics you mean "aryan babies only plox", nobody's suggesting that and there isn't anything wrong with it anyway. We already do that by not having our mates randomly assigned to us "I" didn't mean anything. The poster I was responding to was speaking about xxy and xyy type situations becoming a thing of the past. And, I'm assuming since a lot of LGBT stuff is biological, it can be tested for an eliminated too (of that's the woman's choice).
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:Wasn't arguing against that, but sure I can agree that less suffering is a good thing. Biological and genetic are not synonymous. It's entirely possible for orientation to be entirely determined before birth but simultaneously impossible to detect with a genetic test.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Biological and genetic are not synonymous. It's entirely possible for orientation to be entirely determined before birth but simultaneously impossible to detect with a genetic test. That could be. But I start wondering where people are going with the talk about genetic tests and how those who are "chromosomally different" won't be a problem in the future.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Being chromosomally different is something we can already solve with basic genetic testing. And I hope we do, "openness to the unbidden" arguments aside, why allow suffering to exist in the name of diversity? I'm not saying we shouldn't respect people with Downs I'm saying we should prevent future people from suffering from downs, like we did with polio.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
I work in genetics, and based on the rate of technological progress with genetic sequencing, I think in ~20-40 years everyone here will have their whole genome sequenced. It'll become a routine clinical test, probably combined with the usual blood tests you get. For those worried that their insurance provider will drop them after finding whatever weird genetic thing they have... I don't think that'll be so much an issue once enough people are sequenced because EVERYONE has SOMETHING.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
The Whole Internet posted:
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
The FDA is finally removing the ban on gay and bisexual men giving blood.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:The FDA is finally removing the ban on gay and bisexual men giving blood. As long as they have not had any sex in a year. It's also interesting that the FDA did this in opposition to the panel of experts they put together to research this issue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:As long as they have not had any sex in a year. It's also interesting that the FDA did this in opposition to the panel of experts they put together to research this issue. Did the panel recommend continuing the ban or removing it altogether?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Saraiguma posted:Did the panel recommend continuing the ban or removing it altogether? I'm gonna guess remove completely because panels of experts don't have to face political pressure from republicans
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Saraiguma posted:Did the panel recommend continuing the ban or removing it altogether? Oh they were all for continuing the ban. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/12/fda-panel-gay-blood-donation-ban visceril posted:I'm gonna guess remove completely because panels of experts don't have to face political pressure from republicans That cuts both ways.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:Oh they were all for continuing the ban. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/12/fda-panel-gay-blood-donation-ban drat it! I guess science is still for sale. SOMEONE didn't watch Cosmos
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
The "men who have sex with men can only give blood after a year with no same-sex sexual intercourse" is what we've had here for a few years so it might be turning into the new consensus. I don't see why the ban is still needed considering the differences in proportions of STIs between gay men and heterosexuals is falling and screening technologies have drastically improved; but I'm not a doctor and have no medical expertise so I can't really have an informed decision on the thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:The FDA is finally removing the ban on gay and bisexual men giving blood. Sure, all you gay and bisexual men can give blood now... ...if you haven't had gay sex with a man for 12 months. edit: beaten like the penis of a gay man practicing abstinence so he can give blood next year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
The original article I saw didn't mention the 12 month thing, which is a dumb restriction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:The original article I saw didn't mention the 12 month thing, which is a dumb restriction. Yeah if you're in a committed relationship it basically doesn't change anything. Even if you're not , 12 months is a long rear end time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
How can you test for that, though? Pinkie swear?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
I mean really you could always lie, that's always been true. It's just the principle of the fact that people have to lie about something dumb like that to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
I'd be wiling to guess that the number of self-identified "straight" men lying about having had man to man sex is higher than the number of self-identified gay men lying. But whatever, Ragnarok Angel is right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
IceAgeComing posted:The "men who have sex with men can only give blood after a year with no same-sex sexual intercourse" is what we've had here for a few years so it might be turning into the new consensus. I don't see why the ban is still needed considering the differences in proportions of STIs between gay men and heterosexuals is falling and screening technologies have drastically improved; but I'm not a doctor and have no medical expertise so I can't really have an informed decision on the thing. MSM are still ~60 times more likely to contract HIV than other men. The difference may be falling, but men who have sex with men still account for a staggeringly high percentage of cases of HIV/AIDS in the United States. If you are trying to screen against HIV, it seems pretty reasonable to screen out a small minority that accounts for literally half of people with the disease, and further screening against prostitution, needle-drug users, and people who have sex with MSM has you screening a sizable majority of people with the disease. As a screening tool, that's obviously useful. I'm not saying that the ban is necessarily justified in a modern context, in 2014 with current and future medical technology, but hesitation is definitely understandable, especially since "giving blood" isn't a civil right or important social function.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
Periodiko posted:MSM are still ~60 times more likely to contract HIV than other men. The difference may be falling, but men who have sex with men still account for a staggeringly high percentage of cases of HIV/AIDS in the United States. If you are trying to screen against HIV, it seems pretty reasonable to screen out a small minority that accounts for literally half of people with the disease, and further screening against prostitution, needle-drug users, and people who have sex with MSM has you screening a sizable majority of people with the disease. As a screening tool, that's obviously useful. Well there's also the point that even if you test all the blood with 99.9% accuracy that's still a lot of mistakes on the kind of scale we're talking about with blood banks. And when a test does come back positive, that's an entire batch of blood that must be thrown out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
Why not just ask about anal sex then, since that's the reason gay men are far likelier to contract HIV? Then at least you aren't equating being gay with being a filthy disease carrier. If you think the ban on blood donation isn't something invoked by bigots as a sign of the moral wrongness of being gay, there's plenty out on the internet that shows the problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:Why not just ask about anal sex then, since that's the reason gay men are far likelier to contract HIV? Yeah, I think the rule should be 'Have you received anal sex in the last 12 months?" for men and women. Is the rate of catching HIV significantly higher if you are the penetrative partner in anal? Edit: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/risk.html Suggests it is higher then vaginal intercourse, but only just.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:Why not just ask about anal sex then, since that's the reason gay men are far likelier to contract HIV? Though in fairness, what isn't invokes as a sign of the moral wrongness of being gay? We have a similar rule over in the UK (though I think they may have repealed it recently? I haven't given blood in a while) and it always struck me as strange, but if there is a statistical correlation between gay sex and HIV, it's kind of difficult to argue against it. It's not very nice, but, well, I've lost family due to poor blood screening, so call me partisan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 20:33 |
|
|
The thing is that the questions clearly don't prevent people from donating, especially the riskiest group of all: men who have sex with men but outwardly rpesent as straight, often even being married. They would never answer the questions honestly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 06:37
|
|