SC Senate Passes Bill Banning Affirmative Care For Minors

[rjs330]

No, you've just repeatedly hand-waved away the ways they are similar - which in this case were also actual reasons provided by previous posts why one of the two treatment should be made illegal. So why shouldn't both?

Lol I've pointed out over and over again why they are not similar. Who's doing the hand waving? I see you are stuck to this even though everyone knows they are not. So I guess I'm done trying to convince you otherwise. If you want to stick to a bad analogy that's on you.

Why shouldn't both? Dude how do you miss this? Do you even read my posts? I've pointed out every flaw in your argument. Any to repeat myself. It's because one is life saving for a deadly DISEASE. The other is not deadly and is not a disease.
If you want to make a claim that being trans is a disease and kids need rhe medicine in order to prevent their inevitable death from it, then make that argument. Otherwise stop wasting our time.

 

[rjs330]

How can transgendered be treated as equals when they can’t even accept themselves?

It just blows my mind they scream and demand “special privileges.” Quite frankly the rights of REAL women are more important than some few odd men PRETENDING to be women.

I just don’t understand.

What we find from the left is often the people they believe are more marginalized are therefore to be elevated over the rights of those they see less marginalized. Hence blacks should be elevated over whites. Women should be elevated over men. Black women elevated over white women. Gays over straights, and now transgender over everyone.

It's the classic victim mentality that the left propagated. Everyone is a victim except white males. And transgender people are the greater victims because even many gay people don't want transgender people in women's spaces because there are gay women. And transgender kids are the greatest victims of all.

 

[rjs330]

Merely being a "professional in the field" doesn't make someone immune from biases, or taking some marching orders from the institutions that provide their funding.

But, to the topic at hand, my original assertion is still valid...they don't appear to be doing any serious studying of any approach that's an alternative to affirmation. The studies seem to be centered around how to optimize the affirmation approach.

I'll use a scientific analogy.

We have a climate issue -- which I'm sure you'd agree with, yes?

If virtually all of the research being done was in the theme of
"well, we all know fossil fuels are the preferred way to get energy, we've already decided that, so lets do these studies that examine the best way to marginally reduce the negative impacts of coal"

and there was virtually no research happening in the theme of
"hmmm... well maybe coal isn't even the best way at all, let's study these other alternative energy sources and renewables"

Would you call that serious research into the issue? Or would you feel like that would be more in the realm of what's known as "academic capture"?


A more direct analogy...

If they had stopped researching treatment premises for schizophrenia beyond when they used to do induced insulin comas, and instead of studying potential pharmaceutical approaches (which led to the development of things like Thioridazine), they just studied ways to optimize and reduce the negative long-term side effects of induced insulin comas, they would've done a disservice to those afflicted people, yes?


For this particular topic, this seems to be the only one I can think of where people have largely conflated "the best approach we know of right now" with the "the best approach now until forever...period". And to suggest that it's even possible that with the right research, there may be a medical intervention that prevents it in the first place gets labelled as "offensive" or "erasing someone's existence".

I really like your posts and the way you lay things out reasonably. I am sure you and I don't agree on everything, maybe only half of things, but I always appreciate your reasonableness on things, even those we may not agree on.

 

[Pommer]

What we find from the left is often the people they believe are more marginalized are therefore to be elevated over the rights of those they see less marginalized. Hence blacks should be elevated over whites. Women should be elevated over men. Black women elevated over white women. Gays over straights, and now transgender over everyone

That’s one slippery-slope!

 

[RileyG]

What we find from the left is often the people they believe are more marginalized are therefore to be elevated over the rights of those they see less marginalized. Hence blacks should be elevated over whites. Women should be elevated over men. Black women elevated over white women. Gays over straights, and now transgender over everyone.

It's the classic victim mentality that the left propagated. Everyone is a victim except white males. And transgender people are the greater victims because even many gay people don't want transgender people in women's spaces because there are gay women. And transgender kids are the greatest victims of all.

Exactly right! Transgenders made their choice and scream when no one likes them. It’s their own fault.

 

[Pommer]

This bill, which makes life-saving healthcare more expensive and harder to access for many trans adults in South Carolina by interfering with what state-run insurance plans can cover, is likely to run afoul of the recent 4th circuit ruling barring such actions by the States.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I guess we'll have to take it on faith.

You don't....do you want another quote from the legislators involved or not?

 

[Ana the Ist]

This bill, which makes life-saving healthcare more expensive and harder to access for many trans adults in South Carolina by interfering with what state-run insurance plans can cover, is likely to run afoul of the recent 4th circuit ruling barring such actions by the States.

Can't read the article.

How is the court defining "life-saving"? If they have to show this saves lives....they're in for some difficulty. Also, I don't think that decision will survive an appeal....the Biden administration has been dropping these cases since they know the president can't simply tack on words to amendments without a vote.

 

[Pommer]

Can't read the article.

How is the court defining "life-saving"? If they have to show this saves lives....they're in for some difficulty. Also, I don't think that decision will survive an appeal....the Biden administration has been dropping these cases since they know the president can't simply tack on words to amendments without a vote.

Try this for size.
How is the court defining “life-saving”? I dunno. I don’t have to know. I’m not a judge on the 4th circuit that I know of.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Try this for size.
How is the court defining “life-saving”? I dunno. I don’t have to know. I’m not a judge on the 4th circuit that I know of.

Well those aren't life saving procedures....and the puberty blockers and HRT aren't even FDA approved for trans people.

There have been a number of states that have imposed these laws....and the Biden administration either drops the case before the SCOTUS or gets ruled against.

 

[Pommer]

Well those aren't life saving procedures....and the puberty blockers and HRT aren't even FDA approved for trans people.

Please enjoy your tangent.

There have been a number of states that have imposed these laws....and the Biden administration either drops the case before the SCOTUS or gets ruled against.

They ruled as they ruled, if SCOTUS wants to wade in, it will, (though I haven’t seen anything that suggests that either SC or WV have/will appeal).

 

[rturner76]

I don't always by the "what does the majority say?" The majority could be extremely misinformed. Just cause the majority thinks this or that doesn't mean they are correct. I think you know this

That's the cool thing about democracy, You don't have to agree with the majority. We CAN lobby for whatever we want but if the majority doesn't go for it that's where they win.

I don't think we have any laws that are based soley on Christian values. Christians have to convince people their arguments are valid as well. Another question that has to be asked is are Christians really the minority here? Rhe majority of Ameticans identify as Christian. So in your scenario the majority IS ruling the minority as you think it should be.

I don't really think so either. Especially if we are talking about a minority vote making a Christian law the law of the land but many many Christian laws and Humanist Laws are the same. There still are different things they disagree on but not so much if we are talking about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I'm still not sure what you think is a Christian based law you are concerned about?

I'm not really concerned about any Christian laws other than I do believe there are cases where an abortion may be the best or only option, I don't believe in the death penalty (knowing that 10 different churches could have 10 different feelings about it. I don't think there is anything wrong with Christian laws, I just think those Christian values based laws are shared by the majority

The adults should be doing what the can to keep.the kids from making those harmful decisions because they are not mentally or emotionally prepared for them. Why you keep.missing this is beyond me.

I know it sounds callous to some people but that would be the good thing about these field tests or research on the negative effects of hormones. We can find out the risk/reward factors. I don't like the idea of pre-pubecent kids getting hormones or hormone blockers but everyone I've seen in interviews and dovumentaries say that they knew they were in the wrong gender from a very young age. If someone is determined to get that done, I think they will have better results on their physical crossover if they get into hormone therapy before their hormones go haywire. Only if they find it to be safe though. That has nothing to do with bigotry but physical health.

Should a child be sentenced to jail for the same things an adult would be?

In some cases I do. If a 16-year-old kid decides to rape and murder a couple people, they are likely to want to do it again. It's sad but they need to be out of society as long as possible.

The WPATH files proved that neither the kids nor the parents understood consequences of medicalization. Why do you keep ignoring these things?

That is why they are studying the results now. There is no way to get this information without trying it on people.

 

[rturner76]

Nobody wants to be preached to about some set of morals that aren't their own.

Again, you'll need to explain what you mean by "equality" here.

What it boild down to in this particular case is that everyone should have a place to relieve themselves regardless of gender.

People have been attacked for all sorts of reasons beyond their control. While I'm sure people are beaten up for being gay in some places...in others they're beaten up for being black, or white, or Jewish, etc. I'm not certain this merits any special attention and I certainly don't have any idea of a solution.

I don't think it needs special attention but it needs the same attention that hate crimes get.

Those are behaviors at that point though...not merely words

You are right but suggestible people often can be manipulated by words. That's not a crime it's just not cool/right if one knows that the person is suggestible and someone else exploits that trait in the person. Again not always illegal but also not moral IMO.

Of these two men....we really only need to concern ourselves with protecting the speech of Guy #2, right? Guy #1 isn't going to find his speech under attack....because he says what everyone else says. Guy #2 however, is alone in his views...and if he's silenced, we will notice.

I think on issues like this no one is alone but they may be in the minority

Let's assume they haven't increased significantly. Does it matter? I'm sure that's of little comfort to the women who have been victimized. It didn't have to happen at all...and had these legal issues not created these opportunities, they may not have happened.

I am convinced that people who want to violate others will find a way even if they are no longer able to use the ladie's room. I'm not defending the abuse of women but I think that if women see what appears to be a man in the ladies, they will pretty much get watched from the moment they come in until the moment they come out. I think what happens more often is abusers get themselves in a position where they are most able to groom their young victims.

Here's the issue though....you can't write the laws and policies that way. "Trans" is just a claim someone makes about how they "feel inside". It's not a costume requirement. There's no checklist of "trans". If the guy in that picture enters a women's restroom behind your daughter...who is to say that person isn't trans? As much as your side likes to make jokes about "checking genitalia" there's no way to check anyone's feelings. Trans is a claim someone has to accept or reject on faith.

I go back to we can't know what's in ANYBODY'S mind. I am more afraid of a teacher, preacher, or coach securing the trust of my daughter and training her to keep their secret than a burly man stomping around the ladies. He will stand out more and is more likely to be confronted if they try some funny business.

I'm certain about the first, and far less convinced about the second.

This is kind of what's at the heart of the matter. Sex is sex. It's indisputable because of chromosomes and DNA. When it comes to gender they don't consider what your genetics are as much as what do you want to live your life as. Saying a person is a woman when they have male genitalia AND they live life as a man by not taking up any female traits doesn't seem logical. It's like ok, so you want to keep your penis and you don't want to dress in women's clothes......you're a man. Now if they want to use what people seem to think is a loophole, it still doesn't allow the person man or woman, they shouldn't interfere with a girl in the next stall. So for me, it's more about what someone is doing or attempting to do in the shower/lockerroom than having male sex organs and minding you business in there by closing your stall door and not looking in other stalls. I think one should be banned from a restroom/lockerroom because of their behavior rather than who they are (or believe they are).

I think the big deal comes down to dating specifically and "the deception" generally. Many trans people seem to be....let's say "turned on" by the idea of successfully "passing" as the opposite sex. Moreover, since it's extremely difficult for them to find romantic partners and long term relationships (not my opinion, but a fact) many of them hold the belief that they aren't obligated to disclose their actual sex on a first date. They think that perhaps if they can get their potential partner to fall for them romantically...it will be easier to convince them to continue their relationship once they learn the truth. I would imagine that the whole deception falls apart rather quickly if they keep using the appropriate restroom.

Decivinf=g someone is a little different than not disclosing something (but that's up to the morality police to decide I guess.

Now, you may be thinking to yourself "That's not what I'm defending though"....and I understand that perhaps whenever you decided your position on this issue...it was about pronouns and restrooms. You believed you were helping people experiencing a genuine problem....and back then you didn't expect it to follow this path that involves prisons and women's sports, and early childhood education and medical treatment.

The main thing I am defending in this case is that we should all have a place where we can do our business in relative privacy.

I suggest you take a closer look. This is very quickly changing and soon it won't be about a "medical condition" at all.

ia has a deep hatred of women and really enjoys the idea of them suffering from his constant harassment and inability to compete with him

Lia was quietly banned from swimming when this all came out (and much more) because collegiate swimming was pretty embarrassed by the way this person took advantage of the rules to humiliate and harass the female swimmers. Lia was put on a pedestal by the left wing media and given medals and awards....but in reality, the sports organizations just elevated a pervert who hated women and enjoyed exposing himself to them while their complaints were ignored.

Did you know this?

The sports thing is another issue because there, the issue is sex and not so much gender.

I know. I bet you aren't really a fan of the prison thing either. Once you conceded to the pronouns and restrooms though...it becomes a bit more difficult to draw a line and say "enough is enough". That's what the pronouns are really about imo. Once you start speaking that way...you begin thinking about it that way.

I think that different situations may be considered on the basis of what they are trying to get/do. If there is proper confidentiality, there is no need to disclose that one has changed gender but like I said, is the issue about common courtesy or is it about making oneself a target for rape in a prison?

And I wouldn't stop you nor try to prevent you from doing so. If it feels right to you...I don't judge. It doesn't even bother me that some people think I'm a immoral of bad person for not using preferred pronouns. I simply don't want end up in a situation where I'm required to do so.

I don't think it should be a legal requirement but I do think it just takes a little courtesy.

You said something about this dude that looks like a dude not go into the female bathroom. Why not? If they honestly believe they are a woman why should.they be stopped?

Why not would be because if one doesn't have the physiology of a woman and they don't present as a woman, it would seem to me that they are just protesting and every protest has an opposite group with an opposite opinion.

 

[rjs330]

That's the cool thing about democracy, You don't have to agree with the majority. We CAN lobby for whatever we want but if the majority doesn't go for it that's where they win.

I thought you were trying to make a point about the majority. And what they thought in regards to this issue. My bad. I've heard that quite a bit so my mistake if you weren't trying g to make that point. Your wording made it sound that way.

don't really think so either.

Okay then why bring up Christian laws in this instance? Especially if you don't think there are any.

I know it sounds callous to some people but that would be the good thing about these field tests or research on the negative effects of hormones. We can find out the risk/reward factors.

I don't thinknit sounds callous at all. That's what they are doing in Europe. There are very tightly controlled studies being done with kids. The thing is we KNOW already what the downsides to these medicines are. So we dont really need more studies on that end if it.

don't like the idea of pre-pubecent kids getting hormones or hormone blockers but everyone I've seen in interviews and dovumentaries say that they knew they were in the wrong gender from a very young age.

I'm sure there are. Just like there are interviews from others that are very upset they received these treatments and wish they hadn't. Feeling like they were rushed into it and were actually trans. Since there is no way to determine when a kid is trans or not, we shouldn't be transitioning them. Leave that to the adults who have their own issues.

If someone is determined to get that done, I think they will have better results on their physical crossover if they get into hormone therapy before their hormones go haywire. Only if they find it to be safe though. That has nothing to do with bigotry but physical health

Let them.be determined as an adult. Because there is no way to determine that a child is trans. Thus the horror stories of those who have transitioned when they weren't. Why you would be for putting a child through this is beyond me. Can you please provide evidence that we can actually determine when a child is trans and when they are not?

Would you be for giving a kid cancer treatments if we couldn't determine if they had cancer?

 

[rjs330]

decides to rape and murder a couple people, they are likely to want to do it again. It's sad but they need to be out of society as long as possible.

In some cases I agree. But even in many of those cases we don't. Why is that? Why do we have a juvenile system at all? Why don't we just sentence kids as adults?

That is why they are studying the results now. There is no way to get this information without trying it on people.

We aren't studying it now. Not in the US. What Europe is doing in tightly controlled research is finding out if these drugs are effective. We already know what these drugs do to the human body. They are looking into the effectiveness. Theyce givin up on the Affirmative Care Model. Again the US is doing no such thing.

And rhe WPATH files proved that neither the parents nor the kids understood the consequences of these drugs. There was no informed.consent. You keep.ignoring this.

 

[rjs330]

The sports thing is another issue because there, the issue is sex and not so much gender.

That's where you are wrong. Because the whole reason that there are men in women's sports is because they see gender and sex as the same thing. That's why they want to use women's restrooms and women's locker rooms and to be called she/her. For all the claims that sex and gender are not the same from the left, what the trnas community actually wants is to be seen as the opposite sex. That's why the claims of men can menstruate and breast feed. And the reason they want to go into women's prisons.

They aren't separating gender and sex.

I don't think it should be a legal requirement but I do think it just takes a little courtesy.

Fine, be courteous if YOU want to be.

Why not would be because if one doesn't have the physiology of a woman and they don't present as a woman, it would seem to me that they are just protesting and every protest has an opposite group with an opposite opinion.

No they don't, but that is irrelevant to them and to most on the left. So what if they don't have the physiology. It doesn't matter to them. They are a woman and should be treated as such no.matter what they look like. They aren't protesting they are believing rhat they ARE as they claim to be. And who are you to stop them?

 

[Ana the Ist]

What it boild down to in this particular case is that everyone should have a place to relieve themselves regardless of gender.

Don't they already? Surely they had a place to use the restroom prior to any bills passing?

I don't think it needs special attention but it needs the same attention that hate crimes get.

I think there's a dismal amount of "trans murders" back when that was they claim they used to advance political interests.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's few assaults as well.

You are right but suggestible people often can be manipulated by words. That's not a crime it's just not cool/right if one knows that the person is suggestible and someone else exploits that trait in the person. Again not always illegal but also not moral IMO.

That's a pretty philosophical question. All communication is essentially an attempt to manipulate someone.

Perhaps it's nothing more than trying to get someone to understand your perspective. Perhaps it's trying to get someone to change their mind. I'm not certain it's immoral if you are good at it.

I think on issues like this no one is alone but they may be in the minority

Regardless, you see the point I'm making, right? No one needs to protect popular speech.

I am convinced that people who want to violate others will find a way even if they are no longer able to use the ladie's room.

Sure...perhaps. Those rooms are often small though, with one entry/exit.

I go back to we can't know what's in ANYBODY'S mind.

As I said, prior to this nonsense...we could safely assume a man entering a women's restroom is up to something.

I am more afraid of a teacher, preacher, or coach securing the trust of my daughter and training her to keep their secret than a burly man stomping around the ladies.

Ok.

This is kind of what's at the heart of the matter. Sex is sex. It's indisputable because of chromosomes and DNA.

Uh huh.

When it comes to gender they don't consider what your genetics are as much as what do you want to live your life as.

That sounds suspiciously like a choice.

When we go to great lengths to accommodate someone, like someone in a wheelchair, it's because they don't have any choice.

Saying a person is a woman when they have male genitalia AND they live life as a man by not taking up any female traits doesn't seem logical.

Is there some combination of those factors that does seem logical to you?

I would agree of course, but it all seems illogical to me.

It's like ok, so you want to keep your penis and you don't want to dress in women's clothes......you're a man.

Just fyi...the activists see this idea as "transphobic". According to them, trans people don't have to transition to be trans. After all, these little children deciding they're trans haven't transitioned in many cases....would you say that the children aren't trans?

Decivinf=g someone is a little different than not disclosing something (but that's up to the morality police to decide I guess.

Well I think we can agree it's a deception if the trans person knows that their "date" is unaware they are trans.

The main thing I am defending in this case is that we should all have a place where we can do our business in relative privacy.

Again, didn't this already exist?

The sports thing is another issue because there, the issue is sex and not so much gender.

It seems like regardless of whether we are talking about prison, locker rooms, sports, or any issues apart from pronouns....biological reality is a significant factor.

In fact, I'd say that the whole concept of gender may just be a distraction...an attempt to reduce or eliminate the importance of biology.

I think that different situations may be considered on the basis of what they are trying to get/do. If there is proper confidentiality, there is no need to disclose that one has changed gender

I would have to disagree. I think if a trans person is completely passable....and no one would suspect they aren't what they claim to be....that needs to be disclosed prior to intimacy.

Otherwise I'd call it a situation close to "date rape". It's not a situation that one party consented to...and immediately before engaging in that activity is the wrong time to find out.

I don't think it should be a legal requirement but I do think it just takes a little courtesy.

I do...after all, we consider most sexual crimes to be grounded in consent. If you make out with someone you believe is a woman, and learn its not, you didn't consent to that activity.

There was a controversial law in CA that got passed labeling "stealthing" rape under the law. This is the act of removing a condom mid coitus without the knowledge of the other party despite agreeing to use condoms beforehand. It's a much smaller deception than the one we're talking about.

 

[rturner76]

Okay then why bring up Christian laws in this instance? Especially if you don't think there are any.

I'm sure there are. Just like there are interviews from others that are very upset they received these treatments and wish they hadn't. Feeling like they were rushed into it and were actually trans. Since there is no way to determine when a kid is trans or not, we shouldn't be transitioning them. Leave that to the adults who have their own issues.

Let them.be determined as an adult. Because there is no way to determine that a child is trans. Thus the horror stories of those who have transitioned when they weren't. Why you would be for putting a child through this is beyond me. Can you please provide evidence that we can actually determine when a child is trans and when they are not?

Would you be for giving a kid cancer treatments if we couldn't determine if they had cancer?

In some cases I agree. But even in many of those cases we don't. Why is that? Why do we have a juvenile system at all? Why don't we just sentence kids as adults?

I'm pretty sure it's because a kid in an adult prison has to either hurt someone to gain respect or be victimized. There are some cases where a teenager is tried as an adult because of the heinousness of the crime or they are a criminal mastermind at a young age.

And rhe WPATH files proved that neither the parents nor the kids understood the consequences of these drugs. There was no informed.consent. You keep.ignoring this.

I didn't realize I was ignoring this but I guess I chalked it up to be a personal problem if they don't want to get more information about the side effects of this process.....Knowledge is power.

That's where you are wrong. Because the whole reason that there are men in women's sports is because they see gender and sex as the same thing. That's why they want to use women's restrooms and women's locker rooms and to be called she/her. For all the claims that sex and gender are not the same from the left, what the trnas community actually wants is to be seen as the opposite sex. That's why the claims of men can menstruate and breast feed. And the reason they want to go into women's prisons

Even if leftists get it wrong, science is there for anyone who wants to research it. The problem is that we can't make people read it or if they do, we can't make them believe what they are reading.

No they don't, but that is irrelevant to them and to most on the left. So what if they don't have the physiology. It doesn't matter to them. They are a woman and should be treated as such no.matter what they look like. They aren't protesting they are believing rhat they ARE as they claim to be. And who are you to stop them?

I think that is more of an extremist point of view but I don't doubt that many people feel that way.

 

[rturner76]

Don't they already? Surely they had a place to use the restroom prior to any bills passing?

Right but the issue they have is they don't want to be "outed" by wearing a dress and a wig to the men's.

I think there's a dismal amount of "trans murders" back when that was they claim they used to advance political interests.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's few assaults as well.

I'm pretty sure it's more than a few. That is one reason they want to keep it private.

That's a pretty philosophical question. All communication is essentially an attempt to manipulate someone.

Perhaps it's nothing more than trying to get someone to understand your perspective. Perhaps it's trying to get someone to change their mind. I'm not certain it's immoral if you are good at it

Where I draw the line is when someone manipulates another for financial gain or other wise take advantage of them. Like a con-man for example. Thry know who to target, it's a skill they usually have and they get better at it over time.

Sure...perhaps. Those rooms are often small though, with one entry/exit.

In my experience, the restrooms that only have one toilet have locks.

As I said, prior to this nonsense...we could safely assume a man entering a women's restroom is up to something

I think we could still say that they are up to something if they get up to something or try. It's as easy as putting in a full-length door where people can't look over or under the stall. Most already have locks. Problem solved. But I know people don't want to make any changes that might help a trans person get along better. A valid point but I think it's harsh. If we talk about back in the day, my high school restrooms didn't even have doors on the stalls. I think it's more about privacy than relieving themselves net to a girl.

That sounds suspiciously like a choice.

When we go to great lengths to accommodate someone, like someone in a wheelchair, it's because they don't have any choice.

It gets complicated when we get into the subject of mental illness. People's minds tell them all kinds of things and I guess with a trans person, their brain rejects the idea that they can live as the gender they were born with. I don't think they do anything like flip a coin to decide what they want to be but ultimately in practice, they are making a choice to express that intrusive thought physically.

Is there some combination of those factors that does seem logical to you?

I would agree of course, but it all seems illogical to me.

When we are talking about a mental condition, logic is not much of a factor.

Just fyi...the activists see this idea as "transphobic". According to them, trans people don't have to transition to be trans. After all, these little children deciding they're trans haven't transitioned in many cases....would you say that the children aren't trans?

I don't think someone is "really" trans until they make an outward expression of it one way or another.

Well I think we can agree it's a deception if the trans person knows that their "date" is unaware they are trans.

I agree it's deceptive but I don't think they need to tell everybody they meet that they are trans but when people start having feelings it's only right to disclose that major part of their lives.

Again, didn't this already exist?

Again, they don't want to be the only "woman" in the men's.

I'd say that the whole concept of gender may just be a distraction...an attempt to reduce or eliminate the importance of biology.

I didn't know the difference either. Sex is physiological but gender is more psychological from my understanding. The chromosome thing, testicles, ovaries, and uterus thing is pretty much set in stone at birth. That aspect can't be changed. Gender is more of a social construct.

I would have to disagree. I think if a trans person is completely passable....and no one would suspect they aren't what they claim to be....that needs to be disclosed prior to intimacy

Of course, you don't want any surprises there. It should be disclosed as soon as one thinks they have romantic feelings for the other person.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Please enjoy your tangent.

You brought it up.

They ruled as they ruled, if SCOTUS wants to wade in, it will, (though I haven’t seen anything that suggests that either SC or WV have/will appeal).

Here, have a peek...

U.S. Supreme Court allows Idaho to enforce gender care ban while lawsuit plays out • Idaho Capital Sun

The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed Idaho to enforce a law banning Idaho youth from receiving gender-affirming care medications and surgeries.

idahocapitalsun.com

You'll notice the date is less than two weeks before this decision was handed down. It appears that the SCOTUS disagrees with the 4th circuit at least in regards to the ability of Idaho to enforce the ban on everyone not involved in their lawsuit. I'd say that's a pretty good indicator that the SCOTUS would be receptive to any arguments regarding such bans.