San Diego County Passes Ordinance to Change Definition of ‘Woman’

[el midgetron]

1 hour ago, Gromdor said:

Yup.  Genetically it was female but because of a biological condition it developed male characteristics and behavior.  And it wasn't just one chicken, they listed multiple chickens that this occurred with.  

So if it can happen to a chicken, why deny that it happens with people? 

Sort of like when a woman gets hair on her lip or chin? Or even a hermaphrodite? The comparison is false because there is NO “biological condition” or more appropriately NO “biological standard” for who is transgender or not. Can any rooster lay eggs (identify as chicken) or just the ones with a recognizable biological condition? You are taking the biological reproductive abilities of chickens to argue in support of human subjective social constructs overriding the our biological reproductive abilities, 

“A hen has two ovaries, but normally only the left one is functional. An ovarian cyst or a tumor in the left ovary, or elsewhere, may cause the ovary to atrophy. The latent ovary on the right side may then develop into a combination ovary-testicle. So, while the dysfunctional left ovary reduces estrogen output, the testicular component of the right ovary releases testosterone.

As a result, the hen’s comb grows larger. She may molt into male plumage. She may crow and mount other hens. She may even produce viable sperm to fertilize eggs that hatch into chicks.”

in comparison, a boy with normal male biology self identifies as a girl. 

Your comparison also conflates sex (biology) with gender. The reproductive capabilities of the chicken actually morphs. Not just the self’s perception of social (gender) characteristics. 

Edited May 22, 2022 by el midgetron

[Gromdor]

3 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

Sort of like when a woman gets hair on her lip or chin? Or even a hermaphrodite? The comparison is false because there is NO “biological condition” or more appropriately NO “biological standard” for who is transgender or not. Can any rooster lay eggs (identify as chicken) or just the ones with a recognizable biological condition? You are taking the biological reproductive abilities of chickens to argue in support of human subjective social constructs overriding the our biological reproductive abilities, 

“A hen has two ovaries, but normally only the left one is functional. An ovarian cyst or a tumor in the left ovary, or elsewhere, may cause the ovary to atrophy. The latent ovary on the right side may then develop into a combination ovary-testicle. So, while the dysfunctional left ovary reduces estrogen output, the testicular component of the right ovary releases testosterone.

As a result, the hen’s comb grows larger. She may molt into male plumage. She may crow and mount other hens. She may even produce viable sperm to fertilize eggs that hatch into chicks.”

in comparison, a boy with normal male biology self identifies as a girl. 

Your comparison also conflates sex (biology) with gender. The reproductive capabilities of the chicken actually morphs. Not just the self’s perception of social (gender) characteristics. 

It conflagrates genetics with hormones.  It crows, has a comb, etc.  but it lays eggs- because of biology.  

Your biggest mistake is thinking that biology (or God if your religious) makes things in only binary absolutes.  The real world shows this to be untrue.

 

[el midgetron]

1 hour ago, Gromdor said:

It conflagrates genetics with hormones.  It crows, has a comb, etc.  but it lays eggs- because of biology.  

Your biggest mistake is thinking that biology (or God if your religious) makes things in only binary absolutes.  The real world shows this to be untrue.

But there is NO biological standard for being transgender. So, in your comparison, even though you have a chicken with a biological condition that gives it biological characteristics of a rooster, you still don’t know what that chicken’s subjective gender identity is. 

Basically, you don’t need biologically morphing sexual traits (because there is NO biological standard) to be transgender. A full blooded male can be transgender. The rooster comparison fails because human males don’t need to produce ovarian eggs to subjectively identify as a woman. If anything your comparison just demonstrates the lack of a quantifiable standard in identifying transgender individuals. As I’ve said before, identifying as trans is an entirely subjective venture. 

What exactly does “binary absolutes” in biology have to do with subjective social constructs? Sure there exceptions to binary sexual characteristics in nature, some females grow hair on their faces. So what exactly is your point? Having hair on a woman’s lip doesn’t make her a “man”. And you don’t have to be a hermaphrodite to be transgender.