Smoking does not belong on that list. Smoking frequently affects people other than the person doing it.
Guns per se aren't quite analogous, but "shooting" as an activity is.
Drink what you want, watch what you want, inject whatever you want into your veins or carve into your own flesh if it suits you, none of that forces me to partake. But watch where your bullets and your fumes go, and if either of them come anywhere near me, you done fucked up now.
How is using a gift card or debit card better than using a credit card? (For the privacy purposes this article is concerned about; obviously you can't spend yourself into a hole without credit, but you can use credit responsibly, too, at which point it's basically a debit card).
Get some unlimited web hosting for the cost of a about one cheap meal a month, install free blog software on it, and craft your fake online persona there, where you control the information, not Facebook/Twitter/whoever.
There's no way in hell you're old enough to have kids in college and yet you had Common Core homework yourself. The standard development didn't begin until 2009, the report calling for standards wasn't even issued until 2004, and the organization that issued that report didn't exist until 1996. Maybe you were still in school 20 years ago and have 20-ish kids in college now, but Common Core was barely a twinkle some people's eyes back then.
Daisy, daisy Give me your answer do I'm half crazy Can't divide three by two All my answers I can't see 'em They are stuck In my Pentium I could be sweet My answers fleet With a workable FPU
In fact, the second point of your own link asserts exactly what I was saying:
Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one.
Emphasis mine. Contrast the first anon (not sure if you're the same one) that I was replying to:
Gender is a biological fact
Thanks for making my point for me, even if you had to do it by way of recognized hate group pushing a political agenda under the guise of medical neutrality.
Pediatricians are not scientists, and a position statement of one professional organization of pediatricians is not a scientific result, and besides all that, that position statement does not claim that gender is the same thing as sex, which is all I was disputing; it claims that sex is some ways more important than gender and that some practices regarding sex and gender are harmful, some of which I can agree with.
The issues with race that you point out are what I meant to briefly gloss with my parenthetical comment at the end of my post; just to flag that I'm aware of them, without going into them too much and detracting from the main point.
What I was getting at is that, e.g. someone ethnically Hispanic could be every bit as much white (genetically of European ancestry) as someone ethnically Anglo-American; their race, as far as biological ancestry goes, is the same, but their ethnicity is different.
I do actually have objections to the terminology that Money coined, precisely because it causes exactly this confusion, but the two concepts he coined the terms for do actually need to be kept separate. I just wish he'd have coined some New Latin terms of art instead of repurposing existing English words, and I have some suggestions for better terms myself, but those are unlikely to catch on and Money's terminology is entrenched in all the literature about the topic now so that seems like kind of a hopeless battle to fight.
I'm not sure if you're talking to me, or talking to other people about me.
In either case, I'd like to see an example of someone claiming "it's all gender" because I don't think I've ever heard that. I've heard "it's all sex", like the person I was responding to seems to believe (and since gender is socially constructed, literally imaginary, there's some small merit to that position so long as you're not making other errors in the process), but not the other way around.
The issue of assigning sex at birth is still a thing even making the distinction between sex and gender, because intersex people often have their biological sex surgically adjusted to match one of the two main sexes at birth. In the same way that a transgender person may get sexual reassignment surgery (a sex change), those surgical adjustments at birth are (re)assigning the baby's sex to match the gender that's been assigned to them.
I actually would still have a problem with that, because I don't think bathrooms should be segregated at all in the first place, but that would indeed be better (if only very slightly) than what this law is mandating.
You're talking about sex again. There are practical biological definitions of sex that shouldn't be thrown out. There are arbitrary social constructs that are arbitrarily associated with sex. But those arbitrary social constructs though? Those are what the word "gender" refers to. Not to the same thing as sex.
You missed the point completely. You are talking about a thing called sex, not a thing called gender. There are sex-change operations, but not gender-change operations. Sex is that biological thing having to do with what genitals you have and such. Gender is a social thing, different from biological sex, in the same way that, say, ethnicity (social) is different from race (biological).
(Although both race and sex themselves are not as nicely compartmentalized as you'd probably like to think of them, either).
I'm sure the ciswomen in the women's room will have no problem with the burly bearded transman coming into their restroom, once he unzips his pants and shows them the vagina he was born with.
And that the transwoman in a crop top and sexy miniskirt touching up her lipstick in the men's room mirror won't encounter any problems at all there.
Gender is a social property, like a rank or title, or membership in a subculture (nerd, goth, whatever). The biological thing you're thinking of is sex.
Yes. It says that local jurisdictions within NC cannot have broader protections against discrimination (against anyone) than those of the state legislature, which are basically none when it comes to LGBT people. The "trans bathroom issue", which is merely a consequence of that broad legislation, is being hyped up to try to make people think this is a good thing (because it protects those poor hapless ciswomens from the scary dangerous perverted transwomen they would have to share bathrooms with).
Not to detract from your otherwise excellent post, but the NC law does actually specify gender, not sex; just specifically gender at birth, rather than present gender. So intersex people are safe from this law, at least assuming they still identify with the gender that the doctor who delivered them slapped them with at birth.
Sex is not gender. My post was nitpicking on an error Capsaicin made about what defines sex. I'm not talking about gender at all in this subthread. Your questions are non-sequitur.
Slashdot Mirror
Smoking does not belong on that list. Smoking frequently affects people other than the person doing it.
Guns per se aren't quite analogous, but "shooting" as an activity is.
Drink what you want, watch what you want, inject whatever you want into your veins or carve into your own flesh if it suits you, none of that forces me to partake. But watch where your bullets and your fumes go, and if either of them come anywhere near me, you done fucked up now.
How is using a gift card or debit card better than using a credit card? (For the privacy purposes this article is concerned about; obviously you can't spend yourself into a hole without credit, but you can use credit responsibly, too, at which point it's basically a debit card).
Get some unlimited web hosting for the cost of a about one cheap meal a month, install free blog software on it, and craft your fake online persona there, where you control the information, not Facebook/Twitter/whoever.
You say "$50k/year" as though that's a low figure. That's about twice the median personal income. Half of Americans make half or less than that.
Which I guess makes your point even stronger, but still.
There's no way in hell you're old enough to have kids in college and yet you had Common Core homework yourself. The standard development didn't begin until 2009, the report calling for standards wasn't even issued until 2004, and the organization that issued that report didn't exist until 1996. Maybe you were still in school 20 years ago and have 20-ish kids in college now, but Common Core was barely a twinkle some people's eyes back then.
Daisy, daisy
Give me your answer do
I'm half crazy
Can't divide three by two
All my answers
I can't see 'em
They are stuck
In my Pentium
I could be sweet
My answers fleet
With a workable FPU
-David Pogue, probably
Sure, but nobody in this subthread said it was.
In fact, the second point of your own link asserts exactly what I was saying:
Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one.
Emphasis mine. Contrast the first anon (not sure if you're the same one) that I was replying to:
Gender is a biological fact
Thanks for making my point for me, even if you had to do it by way of recognized hate group pushing a political agenda under the guise of medical neutrality.
Pediatricians are not scientists, and a position statement of one professional organization of pediatricians is not a scientific result, and besides all that, that position statement does not claim that gender is the same thing as sex, which is all I was disputing; it claims that sex is some ways more important than gender and that some practices regarding sex and gender are harmful, some of which I can agree with.
The issues with race that you point out are what I meant to briefly gloss with my parenthetical comment at the end of my post; just to flag that I'm aware of them, without going into them too much and detracting from the main point.
What I was getting at is that, e.g. someone ethnically Hispanic could be every bit as much white (genetically of European ancestry) as someone ethnically Anglo-American; their race, as far as biological ancestry goes, is the same, but their ethnicity is different.
I do actually have objections to the terminology that Money coined, precisely because it causes exactly this confusion, but the two concepts he coined the terms for do actually need to be kept separate. I just wish he'd have coined some New Latin terms of art instead of repurposing existing English words, and I have some suggestions for better terms myself, but those are unlikely to catch on and Money's terminology is entrenched in all the literature about the topic now so that seems like kind of a hopeless battle to fight.
I'm not sure if you're talking to me, or talking to other people about me.
In either case, I'd like to see an example of someone claiming "it's all gender" because I don't think I've ever heard that. I've heard "it's all sex", like the person I was responding to seems to believe (and since gender is socially constructed, literally imaginary, there's some small merit to that position so long as you're not making other errors in the process), but not the other way around.
The issue of assigning sex at birth is still a thing even making the distinction between sex and gender, because intersex people often have their biological sex surgically adjusted to match one of the two main sexes at birth. In the same way that a transgender person may get sexual reassignment surgery (a sex change), those surgical adjustments at birth are (re)assigning the baby's sex to match the gender that's been assigned to them.
I actually would still have a problem with that, because I don't think bathrooms should be segregated at all in the first place, but that would indeed be better (if only very slightly) than what this law is mandating.
You don't even know what a straw man argument is.
So that's why traffic has gotten so bad lately, we're letting babies drive cars now!
You're talking about sex again. There are practical biological definitions of sex that shouldn't be thrown out. There are arbitrary social constructs that are arbitrarily associated with sex. But those arbitrary social constructs though? Those are what the word "gender" refers to. Not to the same thing as sex.
You missed the point completely. You are talking about a thing called sex, not a thing called gender. There are sex-change operations, but not gender-change operations. Sex is that biological thing having to do with what genitals you have and such. Gender is a social thing, different from biological sex, in the same way that, say, ethnicity (social) is different from race (biological).
(Although both race and sex themselves are not as nicely compartmentalized as you'd probably like to think of them, either).
You going to invent and then provide every bathroom with an on-the-fly sex chromosome tester?
And even if you do: are you going to tell the woman with AIS that she has to use the men's room?
What about that guy with Kleinfelter's, which room will your magic chromosometer let him into?
I'm sure the ciswomen in the women's room will have no problem with the burly bearded transman coming into their restroom, once he unzips his pants and shows them the vagina he was born with.
And that the transwoman in a crop top and sexy miniskirt touching up her lipstick in the men's room mirror won't encounter any problems at all there.
Interesting. So is the summary merely incorrect about the IP-blocking, or did someone from the site themselves put out incorrect info?
Gender is a social property, like a rank or title, or membership in a subculture (nerd, goth, whatever). The biological thing you're thinking of is sex.
I think this is the first time I've yet heard the 20th century referred to as some backward bygone era, rather than more-or-less the present.
Yes. It says that local jurisdictions within NC cannot have broader protections against discrimination (against anyone) than those of the state legislature, which are basically none when it comes to LGBT people. The "trans bathroom issue", which is merely a consequence of that broad legislation, is being hyped up to try to make people think this is a good thing (because it protects those poor hapless ciswomens from the scary dangerous perverted transwomen they would have to share bathrooms with).
Not to detract from your otherwise excellent post, but the NC law does actually specify gender, not sex; just specifically gender at birth, rather than present gender. So intersex people are safe from this law, at least assuming they still identify with the gender that the doctor who delivered them slapped them with at birth.
Sex is not gender. My post was nitpicking on an error Capsaicin made about what defines sex. I'm not talking about gender at all in this subthread. Your questions are non-sequitur.