Tucker Carlson Absolutely Destroys DNC Advisor On TRANS Science

originally posted by: ColdWisdom


If the dysphoria is relieved by simply dressing a certain way (without the surgery) then that proves that their gender identity is a social/behavioral mechanism. A real transgendered person wouldn't be relieved of this dysphoria until they've reassigned their genitalia.

The experts disagree with you.

In addition to hormone therapy, transgender people may opt for surgery to alter breasts, genitalia or other sexual characteristics. Other transgender people may choose a "social transition" that involves only cosmetic changes in dress, grooming or name, for instance, and no medical intervention.

www.apa.org...

By the way, somebody needs to start citing some links to some scientific literature to back up all these claims of gender dysphoria in young children. Again, I don't think anybody here so far is questioning the legitimacy of a transgendered/transsexual identity. What we seem to be disagreeing on is the nature vs nurture component, something that is just ripe for scientific inquiry.

How's this for starters?

www.psychologicalscience.org...

www.theguardian.com...

Very young children do know about boys and girls and men and women. They understand gender before they understand sex.

Actually they don't.

Lets get some basic guidelines across, Sex and Gender are two different things.

Sex is the biological as aspect on whether your a female or male.

Gender is the cultural perception attached to a sex.

Children will at best maybe know about Sex, such as M and F, the sake of visuals, but not Gender.

What defines a MAN and a WOMAN depends on a number of social systems throughout life within our culture. Trust me, a child doesnt know the complex nature of Gender roles and why it is such a huge thing.

Breitbart is championing the scientific method now?

Who knew?

As far as the "dangers" trumped up in the Breitbart article, none of the examples had anything to do with transfolk.

Characteristics of Offenders Who Violate and Assault Children

* Those inmates who were convicted of committing violent acts against children were more like to have been white, a percentage of nearly 70%, than any other race.

* White inmates were nearly three times more likely to have victimized a child than black inmates.

* About one in every seven Hispanic convicts had been convicted for a crime against a child.

* Nearly two-thirds of convicted child molesters and/or offenders were or had been married.

* Child molesters and offenders were more likely to have grown up in a two parent home and were more likely to have been molested as a child.

* Approximately 22% of child offenders reported having been sexually abused as a child.

Of course there are also women

64 Facts About . . . Child Sexual Abuse

According to the APA, women are the abusers in about 14% of cases reported among boys and 6% of cases reported among girls.

Ninety-five percent of molested children know their molesters

Child molesters come from all backgrounds and social classes. However, most molesters (1) are male, (2) work in an environment surrounded by children, (3) befriend the parents first and then gain the child’s trust, and (4) attend events such as sports, camping, and video arcades

Cannot find the stats on transgenders but no doubt they most likely molest.

Now are you after transgenders or men/women who dress up as the opposite sex to gain access to children, there is a big difference.

Also how are these laws enforced? Do you ask everyone going into a washroom what sex they think they are? Do you ask them to show you their genitalia? Do assume someone who may have masculine or feminine features is transgender?

HOW DOES THIS GET ENFORCED?

a reply to: Arnie123

Yes, sex and gender are two different things. Sex is about whether you have a penis or a vagina. Sex is what kind of chromosomes you have. Two-year-olds don't usually know about penises and vaginas and chromosomes. But they usually know their mommy is a girl and their daddy is a boy, and they are usually able to point out a girl in a room or a boy in a room. And they do it without looking in their pants or giving them a chromosome test.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Mictain

What are the stats for how many times this has happened? How many incidents are on record of them doing this?

Here you go.

I, mean after all this is only about the safety of the kids, right and not just bigotry towards transgenders?

It is actually about the children, as well as the utilization of the scientific method.

First off Briebart, really? Secondly compare that to the thousands of cases of sexual abuse committed by heteros, why is there no outcry about children being in the same bathroom as any adult, since children have more to fear from hetero perverts than gay or transgenders?

Is this really about the safety of the children or are they being used as scapegoats for people's bigoted belief system?

I mean, there has never been no outcry about men being in the areas as children such as bathrooms and they are the ones who are more likely to commit these acts.

What is this really about?

Here's where the illogical equivalancy of transgender rights and "a male predator in a dress" fails completely:

A true predator is not going to do anything to bring attention to themselves, and if they do, they are going to be caught (as with almost every case listed out in the Breitbart article here linked.)

I'd follow that up with:

A true predator isn't going to let anything stop them - they have to be stopped, and sexual predation did not begin with transgender bathroom rights.

In fact, most of this started with laws that attempted to bar transgender folks from using the correct bathrooms ... as they have for years with no "big deals" being made of it.

This is the same tucker carlson that got run out of cnn in the 90s for being a dirt bag, he couldent have ended up in a better place, fox news.

a reply to: kaylaluv

From your second source:

To get a comprehensive sense of the children’s gender identity, Olson and colleagues used self-report measures that asked children to reflect on aspects of their gender in combination with implicit measures designed to gauge the strength of the children’s more automatic gender associations.

For example, one of the implicit measures, based on the commonly used Implicit Association Test (IAT), assessed the speed with which they associated gender — male and female — with descriptors related to the concepts of “me” and “not me.” The test is based on the theory that people are faster to respond to pairings that are more strongly associated in memory. The IAT has been used in many studies to investigate implicit attitudes related to various attributes, including gender and race, and brief versions of the IAT that use pictures instead of words have been validated for use with children.

The implicit-association test (IAT) is a measure within social psychology designed to detect the strength of a person's automatic association between mental representations of objects (concepts) in memory.

This subjective methodology corrupts the entire experiment, which is itself based on some pretty flimsy psychosocial assumptions and subjective measurements. There is no objective corollary in the experiment, which mind you, is entirely behavioral and not cognitive, leaving the neuroscience of transgender hanging in limbo. Objective measurements in brain matter and brainwave functioning combined with measurements of hormone levels would yield much more insight into this phenomenon, methinks.

Their proposed experiment to follow transgender children into adulthood to document their social development sounds like it could be interesting. But again, without a physical corollary, all this behavioral analysis remains contrived.

Oh, and no peer review either. That's another red flag.

a reply to: Mictain

First off Briebart, really? Secondly compare that to the thousands of cases of sexual abuse committed by heteros, why is there no outcry about children being in the same bathroom as any adult, since children have more to fear from hetero perverts than gay or transgenders?

I think that most parents wouldn't let their (young) children wander off into a public restroom by themselves, unless it was a single room with a door/lock in a public place. And there absolutely is outcry when a case of child abuse occurs, no matter who the criminals are, or their sexual identities.

Is this really about the safety of the children or are they being used as scapegoats for people's bigoted belief system?

I have no belief system. And how am I bigoted?

I mean, there has never been no outcry about men being in the areas as children such as bathrooms and they are the ones who are more likely to commit these acts.

See above.

Also, try to avoid using double negatives. It helps prevent you from undermining your own argument.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

Well, the neuroscience of transgender in general hasn't been nailed down yet.

Here is what the research does suggest:

Children who are persistent and insistent about their gender identity over a period of time need to be examined by a mental health professional, especially if those children are experiencing distress.

Allowing the child who presents distress over their gender to change their outward appearance and/or their name, etc., tends to alleviate that distress, and is totally reversible if the child changes their mind. Irreversible changes require much more time and therapy with professionals who have experience in this area.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Mictain

I think that most parents wouldn't let their (young) children wander off into a public restroom by themselves, unless it was a single room with a door/lock in a public place.

Then you just nullified the argument regarding reasons for the law.

So then, why create a law if most parents wouldn't let their (young) children wander off into a public restroom by themselves.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Children who are persistent and insistent about their gender identity over a period of time need to be examined by a mental health professional, especially if those children are experiencing distress.

Well that I completely agree with.

a reply to: Mictain

So then why create a law if most parents wouldn't let their (young) children wander off into a public restroom by themselves.

Who is talking about making laws? I'm talking about doing away with existing bathroom laws, not creating new ones.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: kaylaluv


Who is talking about making laws? I'm talking about doing away with existing bathroom laws, not creating new ones.

Exactly that anyone can use the bathrooms, regardless of being transgender.

What is the big deal about them now? It is not like they are using the bathrooms for the first time and in bathrooms they believe they belong in.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Has nothing to do with chromosomes, thats an indepth aspect. You got it reversed, children of course know a mommy and daddy, being exposed to what sexes there are at an early age is the result of them pointing that out.

But what defines a "mommy" for a woman and "daddy" for a man? You see, you're ignoring the cultural aspects of it. My daughter knows what a female and male is, but she doesnt know why females are FEMALE and males are MALES. She has yet to experience that cultural aspect to its maximum simply because she is too young understand, as is with all children.

Did you know that there is a tribe that has dominate females in power and males as breeding vessels? Ye, the Mosuo tribe is an example of how culture determines gender in a society.

All in all, children know M and F, but understanding why is not within themselves yet till they actively seek out soceity itself, called a "self actualization need" a concept of Schutz theory on the merits of people and needs.

I think the laws protecting transgenders was unnecessary in the first place. I am going to bet it was some bigoted idiot who realized there was a transgender in the bathroom with them and they made a big deal about it.

Of course, there were other bigoted idiots and they used their perverted sexual thought process and joined the first one in making it an even bigger deal than it really is.

They then decided to use the children as pawns in their bigoted arguments.

Not even realizing that most molesters were men and were people they knew which kind of defeats the argument that transgenders are a threat to the children. It is men/women who dress as the opposite sex or don't even dress as the opposite sex, who are the bigger threat to the children.

Now they are using the argument that children will see transgenders genitals, I mean how many times as a child or adult have you went to the bathroom and seen other peoples junk?. Such an absurd argument. If your looking that is on you and not anyone else.

As another poster said, most parents do not allow their children to go the bathroom alone.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: ColdWisdom

When it comes to sports, it really has to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Some trans girl teens have taken female hormones before the effects of puberty, so they don't have the same strength and muscles as a boy that has gone through puberty. That would mean they would not be any stronger or faster than the strongest/fastest girl on the team.

I have to correct you on that. You are almost - but not quite - entirely wrong.

• Men have lager hearts. As in MUCH larger hearts. Hormones does not change that. On average a man's heart is FIFTY percent larger than a woman's heart. In sport that matters.
  
  
• And not just that - men's veins are larger than women's. Hormones does not change that. On average a man's veins are 1 mm larger than a woman's veins. This matters in sports.
  
  
• Men have greater lung volume pr body mass too - 56% greater to be precise. That REALLY matters in sports - and hormones does not change that.
  
  
• Men have more fast twitch muscle fibers than women who in turn have more slow twitch fibers. Fast twitch fibers are essential for power. It matters in sports, and hormones does not change that.
  
  
• Men have 10-15% more red blood cells pr cubic inch of blood - and they have a higher haemoglobin count. That matters in sort. A whole lot. And hormones does not change that.
  
  
• Men also have more skeletal muscle mass. Both actually and potentially. Hormones does not change that.
  
  
• Men in general are taller, have longer limbs.
  

You are right, however, that some trans girls have taken hormones before puberty. You are wrong about the effect though. The main reason that trans girls has less muscle mass than boys is their desire to not look masculine.

The hormone's' job is to subdue secondary sexual characteristics. As such it does have some impact on muscularity, but it does not even come close to erase the muscular advantages males hold over females.

a reply to: Mictain

This really has nothing to do with bathrooms, by the way.

If you would have watched the video in the OP you wouldn't be as confused about the discussion.

The concern is what defines a persons gender in terms of the law. The policy suggested by the DNC Advisor in the video would allow anyone to identify as a man or a woman for any reason they want, and they will get transgendered benefits from the state.

This should be a state's issue for the time being, we'll play it out as an experiment.

I think the laws protecting transgenders was unnecessary in the first place. I am going to bet it was some bigoted idiot who realized there was a transgender in the bathroom with them and they made a big deal about it.

I'm actually quite convinced that the original laws rolled out by the Obama administration were part of an effort to further divide the country, as in a massive Soros funded psy-op. We don't even know what percent of the population is transgender but gosh I'd have to assume 1% at best.

Tell me how it is logical to implement laws that protect less than 1% of the population on a federal level, thus allowing special privileges to the 1% minority and encroaching on the rights of the 99%?

a reply to: ColdWisdom

Well that is easy. First the person thing.

U.S. Code › Title 1 › Chapter 1 › § 8

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

US Code


(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

Secondly, the discrimination
U.S. Code Title 42, Chapter 21 -- Civil Rights )
Title 42, Chapter 21 of the U.S. Code prohibits discrimination against persons based on age, disability, gender, race, national origin, and religion (among other things) in a number of settings -- including education, employment, access to businesses and buildings, federal services, and more. Chapter 21 is where a number of federal acts related to civil rights have been codified -- including the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act.

Specifically,

2000a.
Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation.
2000a–1.
Prohibition against discrimination or segregation required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule or order of a State or State agency.
2000a–2.
Prohibition against deprivation of, interference with, and punishment for exercising rights and privileges secured by section 2000a or 2000a–1 of this title.
2000a–3.
Civil actions for injunctive relief.
2000a–4.
Community Relations Service; investigations and hearings; executive session; release of testimony; duty to bring about voluntary settlements.
2000a–5.
Civil actions by the Attorney General.
2000a–6.
Jurisdiction; exhaustion of other remedies; exclusiveness of remedies; assertion of rights based on other Federal or State laws and pursuit of remedies for enforcement of such rights.

a reply to: Arnie123

I understand that there are cultural influences on gender, but that doesn't mean that a person doesn't have in their brain a gender identity. You take that identity and apply it to whatever your culture says about gender.

A two-year-old may apply their gender identity to liking the color pink verses the color blue, because in our culture, girls tend to favor pink and boys tend to favor blue (or something not pink). A girl who identifies as a girl doesn't like pink because her mother told her to. I told my daughter when she was little that she could have her room in whatever color she wanted, and she chose pink. That's probably because she saw other girls with pink rooms or pink clothes and she identified with them. A boy with gender dysphobia might like pink because they see girls with pink rooms and clothes and because they identify as a girl, they naturally gravitated towards those colors. I'm not saying that every boy who likes pink has gender dysphobia, I'm just using that as one example of many possible examples.