Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MassLive)   Transgender student denied access to Smith College all because of one little box   (masslive.com) divider line
    More: Sad, Smith College, The Republicans, petitions, activists  
•       •       •

16423 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 May 2013 at 1:40 PM (7 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



274 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-05-03 12:06:37 PM  
What's in the box?!?!?!
 
2013-05-03 12:28:16 PM  
I wonder what would happen if all applications (jobs, schools, etc) were anonymous and stood on their own merits.  Like resumes were considered without names/identifying anything, applications, the same.  People were just accepted on their merits.

I suppose with jobs, you could suss out age and probably even guess gender based on duties and such, but it could be an interesting experiment that would end a lot of this kind of crap. I mean, does the college really care what someone is biologically? Does it, or should it, matter?
 
2013-05-03 12:30:56 PM  

serpent_sky: I wonder what would happen if all applications (jobs, schools, etc) were anonymous and stood on their own merits.  Like resumes were considered without names/identifying anything, applications, the same.  People were just accepted on their merits.

I suppose with jobs, you could suss out age and probably even guess gender based on duties and such, but it could be an interesting experiment that would end a lot of this kind of crap. I mean, does the college really care what someone is biologically? Does it, or should it, matter?


For an all girls college, yes it matters.

/Smith girls are great, the ones that aren't gay are really horny.
 
2013-05-03 12:45:26 PM  

EvilEgg: /Smith girls are great, the ones that aren't gay are really horny.


I dated one...true, but the sex needed to be like it read out of a trashy romance novel.
 
2013-05-03 1:06:47 PM  
Calliope Wong

Well, there's your problem.
 
2013-05-03 1:38:29 PM  
Disallowing trans-women seems just as arbitrary and discriminatory as disallowing men.  Folks who want the school to be more open should be advocating opening it to everybody, imho, or get off their equality high horse.


Also, TFA's use of pronouns confuses me.

They use the word "he" to refer to this person, who is a student at the female-only school:
"They are taking steps to be more accommodating," Ollie J. Schwartz, a 22-year-old Smith senior and member of the organization, said of the administration.
He and other students said the college has agreed


But then they use "she" to refer to this person, who was rejected on grounds of being too male:
In rejecting Wong, Smith cited the fact that Wong had checked "male" on her FAFSA form
 
2013-05-03 1:41:12 PM  

EvilEgg: For an all girls college, yes it matters.

/Smith girls are great, the ones that aren't gay are really horny.


Somehow I missed the all girls college.  Why such places exist, I don't even know.  I went to a college that skewed almost all female. That was unpleasant to say the least, for someone who naturally gets along with guys better.  At least I was in NYC and not limited to some closed campus or anything annoying like that.
 
2013-05-03 1:42:21 PM  
Members of Smith Q&A spoke after five of them delivered more than 4,000 signatures seeking admissions policies that are welcoming and supportive of transgender women to Debra Shaver, the college's admissions director

Ironically, Debra Shaver does not Shaver anything

/or so I assume
 
2013-05-03 1:42:45 PM  
Oh, maybe Ollie Smith was born a "she" and became a "he"?  Would make TFA's pronouns consistent, but makes the school's admissions policy more absurd.  Men born in women's bodies are admitted, but men born in men's bodies aren't?
 
2013-05-03 1:43:02 PM  
To Calliope Wong. Thanks for everything,

Julie Newmar
 
2013-05-03 1:43:39 PM  

serpent_sky: I wonder what would happen if all applications (jobs, schools, etc) were anonymous and stood on their own merits.  Like resumes were considered without names/identifying anything, applications, the same.  People were just accepted on their merits.

I suppose with jobs, you could suss out age and probably even guess gender based on duties and such, but it could be an interesting experiment that would end a lot of this kind of crap. I mean, does the college really care what someone is biologically? Does it, or should it, matter?


Sure we can just trust them not to lie.
 
2013-05-03 1:44:36 PM  

Demetrius: EvilEgg: /Smith girls are great, the ones that aren't gay are really horny.

I dated one...true, but the sex needed to be like it read out of a trashy romance novel.


My friend's daughter just chose Smith. I think I need to send him a link to this thread.

/'cuz I'm evil that way.
 
2013-05-03 1:45:19 PM  

Demetrius: EvilEgg: /Smith girls are great, the ones that aren't gay are really horny.

I dated one...true, but the sex needed to be like it read out of a trashy romance novel.


Not that there is anything wrong with that...
 
2013-05-03 1:47:55 PM  

serpent_sky: I wonder what would happen if all applications (jobs, schools, etc) were anonymous and stood on their own merits.  Like resumes were considered without names/identifying anything, applications, the same.  People were just accepted on their merits.

I suppose with jobs, you could suss out age and probably even guess gender based on duties and such, but it could be an interesting experiment that would end a lot of this kind of crap. I mean, does the college really care what someone is biologically? Does it, or should it, matter?


You're saying that someone's emotional stability, ability to interact with others, deal with questions put forth to them, and manner of dressing and presenting themselves to the world are not components of merit?

What kind of dream world do you live in where everything about a person can be sussed out on a form?
 
2013-05-03 1:48:08 PM  
Smith College cock blocks Wong

/I must have been drinking when I submitted that headline...on 3-27
 
2013-05-03 1:48:58 PM  
So I'm gathering from the article, it's a person born with female parts, but identifies as a man?  Would be a lot easier to follow if they just said if the person has a penis or not.

If they have a vagina, they should be allowed to attend...if they are a man who identifies as a woman, than not so much.
 
2013-05-03 1:50:14 PM  

CrazyCracka420: So I'm gathering from the article, it's a person born with female parts, but identifies as a man?  Would be a lot easier to follow if they just said if the person has a penis or not.

If they have a vagina, they should be allowed to attend...if they are a man who identifies as a woman, than not so much.


why not?
 
2013-05-03 1:50:19 PM  
i1.ytimg.comView Full Size

 
2013-05-03 1:51:28 PM  

skullkrusher: CrazyCracka420: So I'm gathering from the article, it's a person born with female parts, but identifies as a man?  Would be a lot easier to follow if they just said if the person has a penis or not.

If they have a vagina, they should be allowed to attend...if they are a man who identifies as a woman, than not so much.

why not?


Because they have a wiener and it's an all girls college...seems kind of self explanatory
 
2013-05-03 1:53:37 PM  
This is quite the pickle. I support a private college to discriminate based on gender, but I also decry discriminating against someone who sees themselves as an opposite gender. I hope smith doesn't get it hard on this one, because this really is a head scratcher.
 
2013-05-03 1:53:47 PM  

CrazyCracka420: skullkrusher: CrazyCracka420: So I'm gathering from the article, it's a person born with female parts, but identifies as a man?  Would be a lot easier to follow if they just said if the person has a penis or not.

If they have a vagina, they should be allowed to attend...if they are a man who identifies as a woman, than not so much.

why not?

Because they have a wiener and it's an all girls college...seems kind of self explanatory



But they've had their wieners turned inside out and their testicles amputated.  So they're women.
 
2013-05-03 1:54:08 PM  

serpent_sky: I wonder what would happen if all applications (jobs, schools, etc) were anonymous and stood on their own merits.  Like resumes were considered without names/identifying anything, applications, the same.  People were just accepted on their merits.

I suppose with jobs, you could suss out age and probably even guess gender based on duties and such, but it could be an interesting experiment that would end a lot of this kind of crap. I mean, does the college really care what someone is biologically? Does it, or should it, matter?


In-person interviews might get a little tricky.

But yeah, I suggested that and heard some crazy conspiracy theories when I was in college and a big affirmative action debate was going on.
The school didn't do any sort of in-person admissions interviews, didn't even make you write essays.  Just a few multiple choice questions, high school transcripts, SAT and ACT scores.  People really wanted to believe the school was going to reject people based on their name being obviously "ethnic" or "urban".
When I suggested anonymizing the name and just using social security number or something, one of my classmates seriously attempted to argue that you could glean a general idea of somebody's place of birth and age from their SSN.  Ok fine, how about a randomly assigned GUID?
 
2013-05-03 1:54:19 PM  

CrazyCracka420: skullkrusher: CrazyCracka420: So I'm gathering from the article, it's a person born with female parts, but identifies as a man?  Would be a lot easier to follow if they just said if the person has a penis or not.

If they have a vagina, they should be allowed to attend...if they are a man who identifies as a woman, than not so much.

why not?

Because they have a wiener and it's an all girls college...seems kind of self explanatory


but if they dress and live as a female, what's the difference? I don't think Smith College is all women because they don't want to have penises on campus... well officially
 
2013-05-03 1:54:22 PM  

farkingismybusiness: What's in the box?!?!?!


usul.netView Full Size


Pain.
 
2013-05-03 1:54:30 PM  

serpent_sky: I wonder what would happen if all applications (jobs, schools, etc) were anonymous and stood on their own merits.  Like resumes were considered without names/identifying anything, applications, the same.  People were just accepted on their merits.

I suppose with jobs, you could suss out age and probably even guess gender based on duties and such, but it could be an interesting experiment that would end a lot of this kind of crap. I mean, does the college really care what someone is biologically? Does it, or should it, matter?


it does because of the other programs going on, There are various rules that accrediting bodies look for in terms of student diversity based on gender, race, etc. Also it can affect various other things, the amount of information we track and report against is insane.
 
2013-05-03 1:55:03 PM  
neonpunch.comView Full Size
 
2013-05-03 1:55:42 PM  
So trannies are OK but men are still not allowed? And they get federal money in top of that???????????? Sexism exists and this is it.
 
2013-05-03 1:57:54 PM  

serpent_sky: EvilEgg: For an all girls college, yes it matters.

/Smith girls are great, the ones that aren't gay are really horny.

Somehow I missed the all girls college.  Why such places exist, I don't even know.  I went to a college that skewed almost all female. That was unpleasant to say the least, for someone who naturally gets along with guys better.  At least I was in NYC and not limited to some closed campus or anything annoying like that.


I once took a class on laws regarding education. There are lots of studies that show teenage boys tend to be much more agressive in classroom discussions, and as a result, female students get shutout of discussions and the learning experience. So a lot of people use those studies to bolster the case for same-sex classrooms. But as my professor pointed out, there are lots of studies which show that a good teacher can do simple things to counter that dynamic, such as waiting 10 seconds to call on someone (so whoever raises their hand first isn't rewarded -- which tend to be males), or calling on students who do not raise their hand (seems like a dick thing to do, but it pulls the non-hand raisers into the conversation leading to a better educational experience for them).
 
2013-05-03 1:58:07 PM  

farkingismybusiness: What's in the box?!?!?!


a train wreck, that's what
 
2013-05-03 1:58:47 PM  

Thisbymaster: So transformers are OK but men are still not allowed? And they get federal money in top of that???????????? Sexism exists and this is it.


oh stop
 
2013-05-03 1:59:47 PM  

skullkrusher: CrazyCracka420: skullkrusher: CrazyCracka420: So I'm gathering from the article, it's a person born with female parts, but identifies as a man?  Would be a lot easier to follow if they just said if the person has a penis or not.

If they have a vagina, they should be allowed to attend...if they are a man who identifies as a woman, than not so much.

why not?

Because they have a wiener and it's an all girls college...seems kind of self explanatory

but if they dress and live as a female, what's the difference? I don't think Smith College is all women because they don't want to have penises on campus... well officially


DNA testing would solve this.
 
2013-05-03 2:00:24 PM  

serial_crusher: serpent_sky: I wonder what would happen if all applications (jobs, schools, etc) were anonymous and stood on their own merits.  Like resumes were considered without names/identifying anything, applications, the same.  People were just accepted on their merits.

I suppose with jobs, you could suss out age and probably even guess gender based on duties and such, but it could be an interesting experiment that would end a lot of this kind of crap. I mean, does the college really care what someone is biologically? Does it, or should it, matter?

In-person interviews might get a little tricky.

But yeah, I suggested that and heard some crazy conspiracy theories when I was in college and a big affirmative action debate was going on.
The school didn't do any sort of in-person admissions interviews, didn't even make you write essays.  Just a few multiple choice questions, high school transcripts, SAT and ACT scores.  People really wanted to believe the school was going to reject people based on their name being obviously "ethnic" or "urban".
When I suggested anonymizing the name and just using social security number or something, one of my classmates seriously attempted to argue that you could glean a general idea of somebody's place of birth and age from their SSN.  Ok fine, how about a randomly assigned GUID?


if the scores are right, you are more likely to get in being in the minority depending on the school and what your major is. Engineering Colleges are always wanting to get in more women and various minorities. Also, schools that receive government funding are required to ask those questions.
 
2013-05-03 2:00:45 PM  
Sounds like there's a bit of a pickle in that box.
 
2013-05-03 2:00:53 PM  

serpent_sky: EvilEgg: For an all girls college, yes it matters.

/Smith girls are great, the ones that aren't gay are really horny.

Somehow I missed the all girls college.  Why such places exist, I don't even know.  I went to a college that skewed almost all female. That was unpleasant to say the least, for someone who naturally gets along with guys better.  At least I was in NYC and not limited to some closed campus or anything annoying like that.


Mrs. Samurai went to an all-girls college.  She said it was strange but refreshing to see girls not have to worry about how they looked for class.

FWIW, that college went co-ed this year, and before Thanksgiving break they had an incident of a male student exposing themselves to female students.
 
2013-05-03 2:01:02 PM  

lockers: This is quite the pickle. I support a private college to discriminate based on gender, but I also decry discriminating against someone who sees themselves as an opposite gender. I hope smith doesn't get it hard on this one, because this really is a head scratcher.


This is pretty much the risk you run by having a same-sex school. Even if the law ultimately protects them in this and other cases, it's still going to be a continuing public relations nightmare.
 
2013-05-03 2:02:12 PM  
I like Northampton.  It has a good music scene.
 
2013-05-03 2:02:49 PM  
I've never understood why people want to be part of something that doesn't want them.
 
2013-05-03 2:03:18 PM  
Applicant checked the wong box.
 
2013-05-03 2:05:27 PM  
Do you have a Y chromosome? Yes? Than you're not a woman.
 
2013-05-03 2:05:32 PM  

thornhill: lockers: This is quite the pickle. I support a private college to discriminate based on gender, but I also decry discriminating against someone who sees themselves as an opposite gender. I hope smith doesn't get it hard on this one, because this really is a head scratcher.

This is pretty much the risk you run by having a same-sex school. Even if the law ultimately protects them in this and other cases, it's still going to be a continuing public relations nightmare.


Good. I'm tired of this "discrimination is bad unless it is the good kind of discrimination" bullshiat. A "women only" private college should get just as much bad press as a "whites only" private prom.
 
2013-05-03 2:05:40 PM  
Claire is gonna be pleased.
 
2013-05-03 2:06:35 PM  
Calliope said on the application forms that he identifies as male ... but wants to go to an all-female college. What happened to respect for people's right to choose their own gender identity?
 
2013-05-03 2:06:48 PM  

CrazyCracka420: So I'm gathering from the article, it's a person born with female parts, but identifies as a man?  Would be a lot easier to follow if they just said if the person has a penis or not.

If they have a vagina, they should be allowed to attend...if they are a man who identifies as a woman, than not so much.


If you define someone's sex by what sexual organs they have, you just don't understand.

/at least that's what some here on FARK would have you believe
//I'm old fashioned - penis = male, vagina = female AFAIC
 
2013-05-03 2:07:10 PM  

Thisbymaster: So transformers are OK but men are still not allowed? And they get federal money in top of that???????????? Sexism exists and this is it.


Huh?


Smith College is a private, independent women's liberal arts college located in Northampton, Massachusetts, United States.

The students get federal money not the school. Our are you trying to say anyone who gets indirect federal money is the same as getting as direct federal money?
 
2013-05-03 2:09:22 PM  
I'm a boy, I'm a boy but my Ma won't admit it
img2-2.timeinc.netView Full Size

I'm a boy - I'm a boy but if I say I am I get it
 
2013-05-03 2:09:22 PM  
They're called transgender, not trannies. Jeebus, you might as well go up to their face and call them a shemale.
 
2013-05-03 2:10:37 PM  
So do they accept pre-ops or post-ops? What if the pre-op decides that he doesn't want to go through with it and will spend the rest of his life as a man, is he kicked out?

What about a pre-op woman who wants to be a man?

What about Fallone Fox?
 
2013-05-03 2:10:57 PM  
divaliciousgifts.comView Full Size
 
2013-05-03 2:11:08 PM  

serpent_sky: EvilEgg: For an all girls college, yes it matters.

/Smith girls are great, the ones that aren't gay are really horny.

Somehow I missed the all girls college.  Why such places exist, I don't even know.  I went to a college that skewed almost all female. That was unpleasant to say the least, for someone who naturally gets along with guys better.  At least I was in NYC and not limited to some closed campus or anything annoying like that.


if there wasn't a demand for such schools they wouldn't exist. same for schools that cater to specific religious beliefs, ethnic backgrounds, minority based etcetera. i think maybe when mom/dad are footing the bill the student has limited choices.
 
2013-05-03 2:11:08 PM  

GanjSmokr: CrazyCracka420: So I'm gathering from the article, it's a person born with female parts, but identifies as a man?  Would be a lot easier to follow if they just said if the person has a penis or not.

If they have a vagina, they should be allowed to attend...if they are a man who identifies as a woman, than not so much.

If you define someone's sex by what sexual organs they have, you just don't understand.

/at least that's what some here on FARK would have you believe
//I'm old fashioned - penis = male, vagina = female AFAIC


To me, your sex is what parts you have.  Gender is what you identify yourself as.
 
2013-05-03 2:11:16 PM  

serpent_sky: I wonder what would happen if all applications (jobs, schools, etc) were anonymous and stood on their own merits.  Like resumes were considered without names/identifying anything, applications, the same.  People were just accepted on their merits.



The Blacks would complain. Like they did.
 
2013-05-03 2:11:28 PM  

skinink: They're called transgender, not transformers. Jeebus, you might as well go up to their face and call them a shemale.


it's pronounced 'she-ma-lay', and it's a brand, you idiot.
 
2013-05-03 2:11:37 PM  

skinink: They're called transgender, not transformers. Jeebus, you might as well go up to their face and call them a shemale.


Except we're having an informal discussion on a website so take your "might as wells" and go be offended somewhere else.
 
2013-05-03 2:12:25 PM  

Thisbymaster: So transformers are OK but men are still not allowed? And they get federal money in top of that???????????? Sexism exists and this is it.


Smith is a private college, not a public one. Private colleges get their funding through tuition costs, gifts, and donations from alumni and supporters.
 
2013-05-03 2:12:27 PM  

doubled99: I've never understood why people want to be part of something that doesn't want them.


After a semester she/he will get tired of not being liked, will sue for discrimination on some grounds, win, and will use the money to go to Hampshire College where all forms of confusion in life and gender identities go to spend the consequenceless years of their lives.
 
2013-05-03 2:12:47 PM  

umad: thornhill: lockers: This is quite the pickle. I support a private college to discriminate based on gender, but I also decry discriminating against someone who sees themselves as an opposite gender. I hope smith doesn't get it hard on this one, because this really is a head scratcher.

This is pretty much the risk you run by having a same-sex school. Even if the law ultimately protects them in this and other cases, it's still going to be a continuing public relations nightmare.

Good. I'm tired of this "discrimination is bad unless it is the good kind of discrimination" bullshiat. A "women only" private college should get just as much bad press as a "whites only" private prom.


It isn't the same thing, dude.
 
2013-05-03 2:12:48 PM  
Its funny because most people got to a college to gain a greater understanding of how things work.
Like when you graduate, and have to attend a sexual harassment training seminar for your employer, because so many people attended a college where being an ignorant fark is a requirement to be on the staff.
 
2013-05-03 2:12:52 PM  

skinink: They're called transgender, not transformers. Jeebus, you might as well go up to their face and call them a shemale.


img.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2013-05-03 2:13:52 PM  

airsupport: CrazyCracka420: skullkrusher: CrazyCracka420: So I'm gathering from the article, it's a person born with female parts, but identifies as a man?  Would be a lot easier to follow if they just said if the person has a penis or not.

If they have a vagina, they should be allowed to attend...if they are a man who identifies as a woman, than not so much.

why not?

Because they have a wiener and it's an all girls college...seems kind of self explanatory


But they've had their wieners turned inside out and their testicles amputated.  So they're women.


Right? Getting surgery and taking hormones doesn't make you the opposite sex. It makes you the same sex you always were but with mangled junk.
 
2013-05-03 2:14:09 PM  

farkingismybusiness: What's in the box?!?!?!


Nothing's in the "female" box; that's the problem.
 
2013-05-03 2:15:02 PM  

umad: thornhill: lockers: This is quite the pickle. I support a private college to discriminate based on gender, but I also decry discriminating against someone who sees themselves as an opposite gender. I hope smith doesn't get it hard on this one, because this really is a head scratcher.

This is pretty much the risk you run by having a same-sex school. Even if the law ultimately protects them in this and other cases, it's still going to be a continuing public relations nightmare.

Good. I'm tired of this "discrimination is bad unless it is the good kind of discrimination" bullshiat. A "women only" private college should get just as much bad press as a "whites only" private prom.


Context matters.

"Whites only" is historically associated with horrible treatment of Blacks. The effects of "Whites only" persist today.

"Women only" is historically associated with bathrooms and really boring parties.The effects of "women only" persist pretty much only in the minds of certain "men's rights" types.
 
2013-05-03 2:17:00 PM  

serial_crusher: Disallowing trans-women seems just as arbitrary and discriminatory as disallowing men.  Folks who want the school to be more open should be advocating opening it to everybody, imho, or get off their equality high horse.


Also, TFA's use of pronouns confuses me.

They use the word "he" to refer to this person, who is a student at the female-only school:
"They are taking steps to be more accommodating," Ollie J. Schwartz, a 22-year-old Smith senior and member of the organization, said of the administration.
He and other students said the college has agreed

But then they use "she" to refer to this person, who was rejected on grounds of being too male:
In rejecting Wong, Smith cited the fact that Wong had checked "male" on her FAFSA form


You're not confused by the fact that a male is a senior at an all-female college?
 
gja
2013-05-03 2:17:33 PM  
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.comView Full Size


/just cant wait for the usual "internet professors" to chime in on this thread
 
2013-05-03 2:17:44 PM  
Alright so she didn't go to college; she didn't go to Smith.
 
2013-05-03 2:17:54 PM  

serpent_sky: I wonder what would happen if all applications (jobs, schools, etc) were anonymous and stood on their own merits.  Like resumes were considered without names/identifying anything, applications, the same.  People were just accepted on their merits.

I suppose with jobs, you could suss out age and probably even guess gender based on duties and such, but it could be an interesting experiment that would end a lot of this kind of crap. I mean, does the college really care what someone is biologically? Does it, or should it, matter?


As a women's only college, so it does care about biology..

When are we goingto advance as a nations and get past the idea that there should even be women's only college. I though sexism was a thing of the past. Doesn't everyone deserve an education? Isn't that some kind of right these days?
 
2013-05-03 2:18:03 PM  

frepnog: It isn't the same thing, dude.


You're right. Discriminating against someone because of their genetic makeup is completely different than discriminating against someone because of their genetic makeup.
 
2013-05-03 2:18:20 PM  
So if I say I identify as a woman, I can shower with a bunch of young, nubile, college co-eds?

/sign me up! I want to be called Loretta
 
2013-05-03 2:18:23 PM  
And we all know 2 wongs don"t make a....
 
2013-05-03 2:19:15 PM  

show me: Calliope Wong

Well, there's your problem.


Yep. Two Wongs don't get a right.

/I apologize for nothing
 
2013-05-03 2:19:17 PM  

Frank N Stein: It's the fact that we have due process and dont immediately hang anyone accused of rape.


MRA-like typing detected.
 
2013-05-03 2:19:58 PM  

Frank N Stein: doubled99: Tatsuma When rape culture stops being so prominent in colleges and universities across America, and there is true gender-equality, then those won't be needed anymore.


What is  rape culture?

It's the fact that we have due process and dont immediately hang anyone accused of rape.


it means MISSIONARY
sex should be done standing up
like zoo animals
 
2013-05-03 2:20:29 PM  
First of all, let them in.  Second of all, why are they discriminating at all?  That goes for any college.  All male, or all female, it just doesn't seem to make any sense these days.
 
2013-05-03 2:21:04 PM  
Who are the two dudes in the photo?

imgick.masslive.comView Full Size
 
2013-05-03 2:21:18 PM  
Whenever I meet a new person I make them show me their genitals and DNA so that I know what their gender is.
 
2013-05-03 2:22:07 PM  

jaybeezey: As a women's only college, so it does care about biology..


which brings up a bit of an issue, there are women who externally are women in every way and were born that way but if you were to check their chromosomes you'd find XY not XX. So then Smith would be left arguing what counts is the body you're born with.
 
gja
2013-05-03 2:23:43 PM  

WhyteRaven74: jaybeezey: As a women's only college, so it does care about biology..

which brings up a bit of an issue, there are women who externally are women in every way and were born that way but if you were to check their chromosomes you'd find XY not XX. So then Smith would be left arguing what counts is the body you're born with.


And where would that leave folks who are XXY?
 
2013-05-03 2:24:29 PM  

karnal: DNA testing would solve this.


Yes.  Every college app should include  a poop smear for that purpose.
 
2013-05-03 2:24:30 PM  

Bathia_Mapes: Thisbymaster: So transformers are OK but men are still not allowed? And they get federal money in top of that???????????? Sexism exists and this is it.

Smith is a private college, not a public one. Private colleges get their funding through tuition costs, gifts, and donations from alumni and supporters.


Did you miss the part about the fafsa? The federal student aid form, your helping pay for this crap. Granted it is through loans but not a dime for private orgs that cut people out like this.
 
2013-05-03 2:24:48 PM  
FIRST WORLD PROBLEMS
Day 18,000
 
2013-05-03 2:24:52 PM  

gja: And where would that leave folks who are XXY?


And that.
 
2013-05-03 2:25:14 PM  
Wow... down the rabbit hole.

I can sort of see being reluctant to admit transwomen to an all-female university.  What if they back out of their transition, as unlikely as that seems?  Do you expel them?  That's not very fair.  But a transwoman is a woman, so what's the rationale for not admitting them?  And, what happens to a woman at Smith who realizes she is in fact a transman (i.e. a man) while attending the school?  Is she kicked out?  That seems pretty rotten too.

Anyway gender segregation in education seems silly and discriminatory at this point, just as it was silly and discriminatory back in the day when white males like me attended school surrounded by only other white males.
 
2013-05-03 2:25:17 PM  
$20 says that if a Smith College graduate were denied a transfer to another school on grounds of gender, there would be a lawsuit within 48 hours. It's why there are remarkably few "men-only" colleges. It really is hypocrisy at its finest.

I dated a girl at an all-girls college for a while. Honestly, I couldn't tell the difference between the guy in the article and some of her peers.

/stay away from Stephens
 
2013-05-03 2:26:08 PM  

umad: thornhill: lockers: This is quite the pickle. I support a private college to discriminate based on gender, but I also decry discriminating against someone who sees themselves as an opposite gender. I hope smith doesn't get it hard on this one, because this really is a head scratcher.

This is pretty much the risk you run by having a same-sex school. Even if the law ultimately protects them in this and other cases, it's still going to be a continuing public relations nightmare.

Good. I'm tired of this "discrimination is bad unless it is the good kind of discrimination" bullshiat. A "women only" private college should get just as much bad press as a "whites only" private prom.


Or a "traditionally" black college?
 
2013-05-03 2:26:10 PM  
I never understood transgenderism anyway.  If I "identify" as a tree, it doesn't make me a tree no matter how upset I might be if people don't address me as such.  The asylums are full of people who think they're something they're not.  How is thinking you're a female when you're really not any different than thinking you're Napolean?
 
2013-05-03 2:26:15 PM  

Carn: First of all, let them in.  Second of all, why are they discriminating at all?  That goes for any college.  All male, or all female, it just doesn't seem to make any sense these days.


Well, it doesn't.

Mostly it's a luxury employed by places which have the financial capacity to make changes.

The college I went to had an all womens dorm......until.....money got tight and they ran out of student housing for guys.  So they opened that dorm to all genders.

Guess what happened?  Go on.  Take a guess.....

Not a farking thing.  No one quit school, left campus, burned down a building, occupied an administrative meeting or smeared menstrual blood on windows.
 
2013-05-03 2:26:22 PM  

WhyteRaven74: jaybeezey: As a women's only college, so it does care about biology..

which brings up a bit of an issue, there are women who externally are women in every way and were born that way but if you were to check their chromosomes you'd find XY not XX. So then Smith would be left arguing what counts is the body you're born with.


outliers be outlying
 
2013-05-03 2:26:24 PM  

farkingismybusiness: What's in the box?!?!?!


NOTHING!!!! ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!

STUPIIIID!! YOU SO STUUUUPIIIDDD!!!!!
 
2013-05-03 2:26:30 PM  

Carn: First of all, let them in.  Second of all, why are they discriminating at all?  That goes for any college.  All male, or all female, it just doesn't seem to make any sense these days.


Here in Virginia there's Hampden-Sydney College, which is all men.  Every guy I've met who went there is either a colossal preppy douchecanoe or gay.  Sometimes they're both.
 
2013-05-03 2:26:55 PM  

serial_crusher: serpent_sky: I wonder what would happen if all applications (jobs, schools, etc) were anonymous and stood on their own merits.  Like resumes were considered without names/identifying anything, applications, the same.  People were just accepted on their merits.

I suppose with jobs, you could suss out age and probably even guess gender based on duties and such, but it could be an interesting experiment that would end a lot of this kind of crap. I mean, does the college really care what someone is biologically? Does it, or should it, matter?

In-person interviews might get a little tricky.

But yeah, I suggested that and heard some crazy conspiracy theories when I was in college and a big affirmative action debate was going on.
The school didn't do any sort of in-person admissions interviews, didn't even make you write essays.  Just a few multiple choice questions, high school transcripts, SAT and ACT scores.  People really wanted to believe the school was going to reject people based on their name being obviously "ethnic" or "urban".
When I suggested anonymizing the name and just using social security number or something, one of my classmates seriously attempted to argue that you could glean a general idea of somebody's place of birth and age from their SSN.  Ok fine, how about a randomly assigned GUID?


I met an autistic kid in Japan who told me the first five digits of my SSN when I told him my birthdate and home state.

/CSB?
 
2013-05-03 2:28:20 PM  
i41.tinypic.comView Full Size
 
2013-05-03 2:28:32 PM  

nyrB: If I "identify" as a tree, it doesn't make me a tree no matter how upset I might be if people don't address me as such.


I'd be more upset if someone decided to take an axe to me.
 
2013-05-03 2:29:03 PM  

nyrB: I never understood transgenderism anyway.  If I "identify" as a tree, it doesn't make me a tree no matter how upset I might be if people don't address me as such.  The asylums are full of people who think they're something they're not.  How is thinking you're a female when you're really not any different than thinking you're Napolean?


You can be surgically altered to become another sex. And since we're all very polite, if someone's adamant about their gender being different from what their physical equipment indicates we're all willing to play along since it really doesn't have any bearing on us at all.
 
2013-05-03 2:29:17 PM  
Let's go to the girls' college!

Stop it, that's just drunk talk!  Sweet, beautiful drunk talk.
 
2013-05-03 2:30:26 PM  

show me: Calliope Wong

Well, there's your problem.

WHOOOOOOOLLLEEEEEEE lotta ^^^^ THIS! ^^^^

 
2013-05-03 2:30:44 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: nyrB: I never understood transgenderism anyway.  If I "identify" as a tree, it doesn't make me a tree no matter how upset I might be if people don't address me as such.  The asylums are full of people who think they're something they're not.  How is thinking you're a female when you're really not any different than thinking you're Napolean?


You can be surgically altered to become another sex. And since we're all very polite, if someone's adamant about their gender being different from what their physical equipment indicates we're all willing to play along since it really doesn't have any bearing on us at all.

no you cant
 
2013-05-03 2:30:52 PM  
This is actually something I've not considered before. IMHO... same sex schools are arbitrary. I don't have a problem with them making an arbitrary decision either way. I can, however, see a lot of parents having a problem with a transgendered student.

As I've said before though, the whole transgender thing is whack-a-doodle to me. I will never understand it. I do my best to be tolerant and accepting but I will never be able to truly emphasize. I doubt very much that I'm alone there, and therein lies the problem.
 
2013-05-03 2:32:23 PM  

No Such Agency: Wow... down the rabbit hole.

I can sort of see being reluctant to admit transwomen to an all-female university.  What if they back out of their transition, as unlikely as that seems?  Do you expel them?  That's not very fair.  But a transwoman is a woman, so what's the rationale for not admitting them?  And, what happens to a woman at Smith who realizes she is in fact a transman (i.e. a man) while attending the school?  Is she kicked out?  That seems pretty rotten too.

Anyway gender segregation in education seems silly and discriminatory at this point, just as it was silly and discriminatory back in the day when white males like me attended school surrounded by only other white males.



Underlining shiat doesn't make it true.

A transwoman is a dude with serious mental issues and needs clinical help. To think otherwise is liberal dumbfarkery.
 
2013-05-03 2:32:38 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: nyrB: I never understood transgenderism anyway.  If I "identify" as a tree, it doesn't make me a tree no matter how upset I might be if people don't address me as such.  The asylums are full of people who think they're something they're not.  How is thinking you're a female when you're really not any different than thinking you're Napolean?

You can be surgically altered to become another sex. And since we're all very polite, if someone's adamant about their gender being different from what their physical equipment indicates we're all willing to play along since it really doesn't have any bearing on us at all.


Ah but we're expected to address transgendered people as the sex they identify with even if they aren't surgically altered.  And surgical alteration doesn't change your sex, really.  It may change your outward appearance but your DNA is still the same.
 
2013-05-03 2:33:37 PM  

Thisbymaster: Bathia_Mapes: Thisbymaster: So transformers are OK but men are still not allowed? And they get federal money in top of that???????????? Sexism exists and this is it.

Smith is a private college, not a public one. Private colleges get their funding through tuition costs, gifts, and donations from alumni and supporters.

Did you miss the part about the fafsa? The federal student aid form, your helping pay for this crap. Granted it is through loans but not a dime for private orgs that cut people out like this.


Yes, I saw that, but Smith doesn't get federal money directly, as would a public college. The federal money is going directly to the students, not the college itself.
 
2013-05-03 2:33:42 PM  
What's the problem? women force their way into men only groups all the damn time! These 2 should be let in immediately, even if they're 100% male! You want equal billing, ladies? Then welcome turnabout. If my boy wants to be a girl scout, He should have that option, by golly! You're not sexist, are you ladies? HUH?!!!
 
2013-05-03 2:34:07 PM  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZxv5WCWivM">http://www.youtube.com/wa tch?v=eZxv5WCWivM
 
2013-05-03 2:34:08 PM  

WhyteRaven74: AverageAmericanGuy: if someone's adamant about their gender being different from what their physical equipment indicates we're all willing to play along since it really doesn't have any bearing on us at all.

hey everyone, its a condescending asshole. Let's all say hi to the condescending asshole.


Hi entire population of Fark!
 
2013-05-03 2:34:15 PM  

Quigs: To think otherwise is liberal dumbfarkery.


Well any psychologist, psychiatrist or neuroscientist reading this thread just went to get very drunk at the nearest bar. Might you be a dear and post your contact info so they can send you their bar tabs?
 
2013-05-03 2:35:41 PM  

nyrB: AverageAmericanGuy: nyrB: I never understood transgenderism anyway.  If I "identify" as a tree, it doesn't make me a tree no matter how upset I might be if people don't address me as such.  The asylums are full of people who think they're something they're not.  How is thinking you're a female when you're really not any different than thinking you're Napolean?

You can be surgically altered to become another sex. And since we're all very polite, if someone's adamant about their gender being different from what their physical equipment indicates we're all willing to play along since it really doesn't have any bearing on us at all.

Ah but we're expected to address transgendered people as the sex they identify with even if they aren't surgically altered.  And surgical alteration doesn't change your sex, really.  It may change your outward appearance but your DNA is still the same.


Which is what I was getting at in the second sentence of my response. You had a sex change? That's very nice for you. Would you like a few more minutes to look at the menu?
 
2013-05-03 2:35:49 PM  

chairmenmeow47: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZxv5WCWivM">http://www.youtube.com/wa tch?v=eZxv5WCWivM


Exactly.
 
2013-05-03 2:36:36 PM  
Heshe should just go to Baylor, they are cool with it.
 
2013-05-03 2:37:20 PM  
When I was a kid in school, we'd take standardized testing that had demographic questions. Where it said race, I'd make another box that said "Human" and check that. Never once had anyone comment on it.

/has also argued with school admins over the sex/gender box on an application. If you want male or female, please use sex. If you use gender, prepare for answers like man, when it's a female, androgyne, gender queer, etc. p, especially if you're a liberal arts college
 
2013-05-03 2:38:16 PM  

Jument: This is actually something I've not considered before. IMHO... same sex schools are arbitrary. I don't have a problem with them making an arbitrary decision either way. I can, however, see a lot of parents having a problem with a transgendered student.

As I've said before though, the whole transgender thing is whack-a-doodle to me. I will never understand it. I do my best to be tolerant and accepting but I will never be able to truly emphasize. I doubt very much that I'm alone there, and therein lies the problem.


Smith doesn't screen transgender students; it screens male students.

Unisex schools aren't arbitrary; they are based on the same sound principles as gyms for fatties and shelters for domestic violence victims.
 
2013-05-03 2:38:41 PM  

halB: You're saying that someone's emotional stability, ability to interact with others, deal with questions put forth to them, and manner of dressing and presenting themselves to the world are not components of merit?

What kind of dream world do you live in where everything about a person can be sussed out on a form?


I said when assessing resumes and applications, they'd be blind, out of curiosity as to what happened.

If, in some fantasy world, this happened, ostensibly there would be interviews that followed where gender and other details would be revealed.  I just wonder if it would change who was getting the calls if people didn't know things like gender or race based on names and the like on applications.  It was kind of a random thought, really.
 
2013-05-03 2:39:03 PM  
i512.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2013-05-03 2:40:17 PM  
tshirtbordello.comView Full Size


Okay, transformers, if you're going to play that game play it well. A week ago I ran into what I suspect to be someone on the trans, but she/he/it still had a mustache and a voice that sounded falsetto.
 
2013-05-03 2:40:44 PM  

Tatsuma: chairmenmeow47: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZxv5WCWivM">http://www.youtube.com/wa tch?v=eZxv5WCWivM

Exactly.


I was hoping that cup was filled with warm water and he was going to put her fingers in it.....very disappointed.
 
2013-05-03 2:41:39 PM  

karnal: I was hoping that cup was filled with warm water and he was going to put her fingers in it.....very disappointed.


A gentleman always requests the golden showers, he just doesn't take them whenever he can.
 
2013-05-03 2:42:38 PM  
What are the reasons for Smith being a women's college?  Basically, to provide an educational environment better tailored to people who think and feel like women.  If that's applicable here, admit this student.
 
2013-05-03 2:43:00 PM  
I guess shim couldn't go to Thailand for higher education.
 
2013-05-03 2:43:45 PM  

gja: WhyteRaven74: jaybeezey: As a women's only college, so it does care about biology..

which brings up a bit of an issue, there are women who externally are women in every way and were born that way but if you were to check their chromosomes you'd find XY not XX. So then Smith would be left arguing what counts is the body you're born with.

And where would that leave folks who are XXY?


In the same position as those who can't play YYZ?

images3.wikia.nocookie.netView Full Size
 
2013-05-03 2:43:59 PM  

Jument: This is actually something I've not considered before. IMHO... same sex schools are arbitrary. I don't have a problem with them making an arbitrary decision either way. I can, however, see a lot of parents having a problem with a transgendered student.

As I've said before though, the whole transgender thing is whack-a-doodle to me. I will never understand it. I do my best to be tolerant and accepting but I will never be able to truly emphasize. I doubt very much that I'm alone there, and therein lies the problem.


Transgender issues are shrouded in so much academic soft-science gender studies jargon that it is damn near impossible for me to wrap my head around.

As a gay man, I've probably encountered more transgendered identified people than most, and while they have, by and large, been pretty generous in explaining some of this stuff to me, I always end up being advised to read at least two or three books.
 
2013-05-03 2:44:09 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: What are the reasons for Smith being a women's college? Basically, to provide an educational environment better tailored to people who think and feel like women. If that's applicable here, admit this student.


Clear thinking has no place on fark.
 
kg
2013-05-03 2:44:27 PM  
0.tqn.comView Full Size
 
2013-05-03 2:44:41 PM  

The Irresponsible Captain: Sounds like there's a bit of a pickle in that box.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhwbxEfy7fg&feature=player_detailpage" >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhwbxEfy7fg&feature=player_detailpage
 
2013-05-03 2:45:06 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: What are the reasons for Smith being a women's college?  Basically, to provide an educational environment better tailored to people who think and feel like women.  If that's applicable here, admit this student.


Or reject her. You don't have to let in every woman who applies.
 
2013-05-03 2:46:59 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: What are the reasons for Smith being a women's college?  Basically, to provide an educational environment better tailored to people who think and feel like women.  If that's applicable here, admit this student.


I think and feel women. Sounds like the place for me!
 
2013-05-03 2:48:49 PM  
penis goes where

/oblig
 
2013-05-03 2:49:59 PM  
Except for the morning after Ani Difranco singalongs, the quad held indecency parties of the early 2000's were A LOT of fun.
 
2013-05-03 2:51:04 PM  
Coffin said administrators had been worried that accepting a transgenderblack woman would jeopardize the college's legal and traditional status as a women'swhite college and might force it to admit menblacks.
Smith will not be co-edinterracial ever," Coffin said


Change a few words and suddenly it's not OK.
 
2013-05-03 2:51:16 PM  
jesus, posts being deleted left and right screws up trying to load the page.
 
2013-05-03 2:52:32 PM  

nyrB: AverageAmericanGuy: nyrB: I never understood transgenderism anyway.  If I "identify" as a tree, it doesn't make me a tree no matter how upset I might be if people don't address me as such.  The asylums are full of people who think they're something they're not.  How is thinking you're a female when you're really not any different than thinking you're Napolean?

You can be surgically altered to become another sex. And since we're all very polite, if someone's adamant about their gender being different from what their physical equipment indicates we're all willing to play along since it really doesn't have any bearing on us at all.

Ah but we're expected to address transgendered people as the sex they identify with even if they aren't surgically altered.  And surgical alteration doesn't change your sex, really.  It may change your outward appearance but your DNA is still the same.


The convention of addressing people based on their identity follows from the fact we don't force everyone to go around wearing their birth certificate pinned to their jacket. We don't know people's blood type, where they were born, etc. but we feel often feel comfortable addressing someone as a Southerner despite the fact their birth certificate says they were born in Augusta General Hospital in Maine or that people can be fans of sports teams without needing to be bedecked in paraphernalia. Similarly if they are wearing a hockey jersey or a t-shirt referencing an exclusively regional restaurant or gym, we assume they are from that place and treat them accordingly. The same thing is true of accents.

It is generally true that SRS alters the subject's sex since sex is customarily defined by their primary sexual characteristics. P or V, if you will. It doesn't work out as well for trans men, but the quality of surgery for trans women is often very striking. A certificate testifying the surgery had been undergone is also usually sufficient to have your birth certificate changed. DNA is a bad judge for this sort of thing, both from the multiple combinations or variants of sex chromosomes, most commonly X- and XXY. Having red hair, extremely pale skin, and freckles may be a good indicator but it doesn't make you Irish. Being a third or fourth generation American of Japanese descent doesn't mean you get treated like you are Japanese if you go to Tokyo. Genetics really isn't a good way to define it.
 
2013-05-03 2:53:54 PM  

lockers: This is quite the pickle. I support a private college to discriminate based on gender, but I also decry discriminating against someone who sees themselves as an opposite gender. I hope smith doesn't get it hard on this one, because this really is a head scratcher.


What you did there, I see it.
 
2013-05-03 2:54:16 PM  

Frank N Stein: Do you have a Y chromosome? Yes? Than you're not a woman.


Androgen insensitivity syndrome begs to differ.

Also, interestingly, the SRY gene can translocate to other chromosomes and still be active, and apparently, this can happen relatively frequently. So, there's a more than negligible chance that you, Frank, have no Y chromosome.
 
2013-05-03 2:56:27 PM  

Begoggle: Coffin said administrators had been worried that accepting a transgenderblack woman would jeopardize the college's legal and traditional status as a women'swhite college and might force it to admit menblacks.
Smith will not be co-edinterracial ever," Coffin said

Change a few words and suddenly it's not OK.


because changing those words make it mean something else
 
2013-05-03 2:56:46 PM  

Begoggle: Coffin said administrators had been worried that accepting a transgenderblack woman would jeopardize the college's legal and traditional status as a women'swhite college and might force it to admit menblacks.
Smith will not be co-edinterracial ever," Coffin said

Change a few words and suddenly it's not OK.


If only the people involved, the motivations, and the setting were all different, then this would be wrong? Is that your argument?
 
2013-05-03 2:57:49 PM  

skullkrusher: Begoggle: Coffin said administrators had been worried that accepting a transgenderblack woman would jeopardize the college's legal and traditional status as a women'swhite college and might force it to admit menblacks.
Smith will not be co-edinterracial ever," Coffin said

Change a few words and suddenly it's not OK.

because changing those words make it mean something else


19 seconds!

/Shakes tiny fist.
 
2013-05-03 2:58:24 PM  

Zombie Eater: gja: WhyteRaven74: jaybeezey: As a women's only college, so it does care about biology..

which brings up a bit of an issue, there are women who externally are women in every way and were born that way but if you were to check their chromosomes you'd find XY not XX. So then Smith would be left arguing what counts is the body you're born with.

And where would that leave folks who are XXY?

In the same position as those who can't play YYZ?

[images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 371x481]


dee do dee dee do dee deee deee do dee dee!
 
2013-05-03 2:59:01 PM  

Begoggle: Coffin said administrators had been worried that accepting a transgenderblackwhite woman would jeopardize the college's legal and traditional status as a women'swhiteblack college and might force it to admit menblackswhites.
Smith will not be co-edinterracial ever," Coffin said

Change a few words and suddenly it's not OK.


Change those few words again, and it is okay.
 
2013-05-03 3:00:09 PM  

Begoggle: Coffin said administrators had been worried that accepting a transgenderblack woman would jeopardize the college's legal and traditional status as a women'swhite college and might force it to admit menblacks.
Smith will not be co-edinterracial ever," Coffin said

Change a few words and suddenly it's not OK.


There's some sort of legal privilege for women's colleges?
 
2013-05-03 3:02:43 PM  
Just need a transgender college.

/problem solved.

Do I have to figure out EVERYTHING for you?!?!?
 
2013-05-03 3:02:48 PM  

draypresct: skullkrusher: Begoggle: Coffin said administrators had been worried that accepting a transgenderblack woman would jeopardize the college's legal and traditional status as a women'swhite college and might force it to admit menblacks.
Smith will not be co-edinterracial ever," Coffin said

Change a few words and suddenly it's not OK.

because changing those words make it mean something else

19 seconds!

/Shakes tiny fist.


I have no idea why people are whining about single gender educational institutions. It's pretty farking common for private high schools but suddenly all these asshats want to take a seminar on Feminist Motifs in Gallic Cave Drawings from Pre-history to Charlemagne at Smith College
 
2013-05-03 3:04:06 PM  
 
2013-05-03 3:08:15 PM  
For those of you talking about the prevalence of Sex disorders, it's actually fairly low.

CAIS is estimated to occur in 1 out of every 20,400 46,XY births.
A nationwide survey in The Netherlands based on patients with of the diagnosis estimates that the minimal incidence of CAIS is 1 in 99,000.
The incidence of PAIS is estimated to be 1 in 130,000.

Relocation of the Male Determination system is also Rare.

Rare rearrangements: A "jumping satellite" in one family and autosomal location of theSRY gene in an XX male.

From the article.

Only one de novo case of Yps has been documented.
 
2013-05-03 3:08:28 PM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size


/Not obscure...
 
2013-05-03 3:09:07 PM  
Quigs:
Underlining shiat doesn't make it true.

A transwoman is a dude with serious mental issues and needs clinical help. To think otherwise is liberal dumbfarkery.


Sadly for you, the American Medical Association, the APA, and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders do not agree with you.
 
2013-05-03 3:09:21 PM  

Theaetetus: Begoggle: Coffin said administrators had been worried that accepting a transgenderblackwhite woman would jeopardize the college's legal and traditional status as a women'swhiteblack college and might force it to admit menblackswhites.
Smith will not be co-edinterracial ever," Coffin said

Change a few words and suddenly it's not OK.

Change those few words again, and it is okay.


While I disagree with Begoggle (see my reply to him upthread), your link indicates that historically Black colleges have lots of White students. In several of them, the White students are the majority. I'm not sure this was the point you were trying to make.
 
2013-05-03 3:10:21 PM  

gja: [encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 220x168]

/just cant wait for the usual "internet professors" to chime in on this thread


The first problem is that sex is not a binary male or female, as most people assume.  Since single-sex schools are based on this flawed assumption, they're up a creek without a proverbial paddle.
The second problem is that sex can be based on at least six different characteristics, which can lead to different conclusions (or no conclusion) for the same person.
https://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/gbooker/is.zip
 
2013-05-03 3:13:14 PM  

EvilEgg: serpent_sky: I wonder what would happen if all applications (jobs, schools, etc) were anonymous and stood on their own merits.  Like resumes were considered without names/identifying anything, applications, the same.  People were just accepted on their merits.

I suppose with jobs, you could suss out age and probably even guess gender based on duties and such, but it could be an interesting experiment that would end a lot of this kind of crap. I mean, does the college really care what someone is biologically? Does it, or should it, matter?

For an all girls college, yes it matters.

/Smith girls are great, the ones that aren't gay are really horny.


QFT.   I knew a Smith girl once, it eventually just became ridiculous.
 
2013-05-03 3:14:11 PM  

serpent_sky: I wonder what would happen if all applications (jobs, schools, etc) were anonymous and stood on their own merits.  Like resumes were considered without names/identifying anything, applications, the same.  People were just accepted on their merits.


I will tell you that one thing I know is that women instrumentalists had a really hard time breaking into orchestras until orchestras started holding blind auditions."Using data from audition records, the researchers found that blind auditions increased the probability that a woman would advance from preliminary rounds by 50 percent. The likelihood of a woman's ultimate selection is increased several fold, although the competition is extremely difficult and the chance of success still low."

I don't think that a blind interview would work for many or most jobs, but it is... an interesting thing to think about.
 
2013-05-03 3:17:38 PM  

Quigs: A transwoman is a dude with serious mental issues and needs clinical help. To think otherwise is liberal dumbfarkery.


Translation: "I find something icky and weird, therefore it must in fact be in outright abomination!".
 
2013-05-03 3:18:16 PM  

thismomentinblackhistory: Jument: This is actually something I've not considered before. IMHO... same sex schools are arbitrary. I don't have a problem with them making an arbitrary decision either way. I can, however, see a lot of parents having a problem with a transgendered student.

As I've said before though, the whole transgender thing is whack-a-doodle to me. I will never understand it. I do my best to be tolerant and accepting but I will never be able to truly emphasize. I doubt very much that I'm alone there, and therein lies the problem.

Transgender issues are shrouded in so much academic soft-science gender studies jargon that it is damn near impossible for me to wrap my head around.

As a gay man, I've probably encountered more transgendered identified people than most, and while they have, by and large, been pretty generous in explaining some of this stuff to me, I always end up being advised to read at least two or three books.


Why, as a gay man, have you "encountered more transgendered identified people than most"?
 
2013-05-03 3:18:34 PM  
in=an

my typing, however, is something of an affront to decency.
 
2013-05-03 3:18:53 PM  
Why not?  All-Black associations often allow people in blackface to join since there is no physical, social or psychological difference between a black person and a non-black person with makeup.
 
2013-05-03 3:18:56 PM  

draypresct: Theaetetus: Begoggle: Coffin said administrators had been worried that accepting a transgenderblackwhite woman would jeopardize the college's legal and traditional status as a women'swhiteblack college and might force it to admit menblackswhites.
Smith will not be co-edinterracial ever," Coffin said

Change a few words and suddenly it's not OK.

Change those few words again, and it is okay.

While I disagree with Begoggle (see my reply to him upthread), your link indicates that some historically Black colleges have lots of White students. In several of them, the White students are the majority. I'm not sure this was the point you were trying to make.


Not all.
 
2013-05-03 3:20:16 PM  

Zombie Eater: gja: WhyteRaven74: jaybeezey: As a women's only college, so it does care about biology..

which brings up a bit of an issue, there are women who externally are women in every way and were born that way but if you were to check their chromosomes you'd find XY not XX. So then Smith would be left arguing what counts is the body you're born with.

And where would that leave folks who are XXY?

In the same position as those who can't play YYZ?

[images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 371x481]


Neal Peart stands alone.
 
2013-05-03 3:20:39 PM  

karnal: Why, as a gay man, have you "encountered more transgendered identified people than most"?


I'll go out on a limb and say the most people don't go to LGBT events, even if they support equality in general.
 
2013-05-03 3:21:06 PM  
In before "CIS-SCUM!!1!"
 
2013-05-03 3:22:36 PM  

Frank N Stein: skinink: They're called transgender, not transformers. Jeebus, you might as well go up to their face and call them a shemale.

Except we're having an informal discussion on a website so take your "might as wells" and go be offended somewhere else.


so being an asshole to someone is ok as long as you're informally being an asshole?
 
2013-05-03 3:22:50 PM  
Killer Cars:
Quigs: A transwoman is a dude with serious mental issues and needs clinical help. To think otherwise is liberal dumbfarkery.

Translation: "I find something icky and weird secretly masturbate to this, therefore it must in fact be in outright abomination!".


I mean, yeah Quigs is just trolling his/her ass off here, but still, food for thought.
 
2013-05-03 3:23:36 PM  

Shadow Blasko: [i.imgur.com image 304x233]

/Not obscure...


I'm afraid it is to me...
 
2013-05-03 3:26:26 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Frank N Stein: skinink: They're called transgender, not transformers. Jeebus, you might as well go up to their face and call them a shemale.

Except we're having an informal discussion on a website so take your "might as wells" and go be offended somewhere else.

so being an asshole to someone is ok as long as you're informally being an asshole?


I think it is more like being an asshole on fark is like being wet in water. It kinda goes with the territory.
 
2013-05-03 3:27:20 PM  

No Such Agency: I mean, yeah Quigs is just trolling his/her ass off here, but still, food for thought.


I'll admit I've met some transgendered women who were hot enough that I could deal with their having a penis, and I think all this boils down to is escaping an ideal of victorian era sexual repression and conservative sex-for-reproduction-not-for-fun in favor of accepting that a person can love another person, regardless of who they are or what they were born as.

I've genuinely loved some guys. Not that I wanted to sleep with them because I wasn't sexually attracted to them, but love knows no bounds, and you should be whatever your heart tells you you want to be (I reserve the right to call you a moron, however, in the event that you choose to follow your heart and become, say, a turtle.)
 
2013-05-03 3:27:34 PM  

skinink: They're called transgender, not transformers. Jeebus, you might as well go up to their face and call them a shemale.


It's pronounced "sha-mali"

blog.zap2it.comView Full Size
 
2013-05-03 3:28:24 PM  

No Such Agency: Quigs:
Underlining shiat doesn't make it true.

A transwoman is a dude with serious mental issues and needs clinical help. To think otherwise is liberal dumbfarkery.

Sadly for you, the American Medical Association, the APA, and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders do not agree with you.


I'm not saying either of you is right or wrong (though quigs seems to be a jackass), but my point would be that psych literature is really very flimsy stuff to go waving and saying "I told you so" about. Psych is an incredibly valuable field of research, but we're really, really bad at fixing anything, because we can't identify the biological underpinnings of anything. The "truth" of that science is liable to be very different in 50 years. It's not really fair to scream "science" when this is less a science than a guess. Physics is science. What we know won't change in 50 years... it will be more detailed and nuanced, but it won't change at the level we experience it at.

As for transgenders-- what about this disorder is entirely different from people who want to surgically change their bodies in other ways? There is a psych disorder where people want to cut off their limbs. I do agree that lacking good psych treatments, the surgeries and hormone treatments are the best options for these people, and we should do what we can to help them and otherwise facilitate their happiness.

Legally, transgenders should have the status of whatever gender they switch to. It seems to me that Smith should admit this person if the law says they are a woman.
 
2013-05-03 3:29:05 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Unisex schools aren't arbitrary; they are based on the same sound principles as gyms for fatties and shelters for domestic violence victims.


That's fair enough.  If people have some psychological condition that makes them not feel comfortable studying with people of their opposite gender, and you want to give them a school where they can work around that issue instead of confronting it, that's fine.
But, seems like you'd be ok with a school that provides similar opportunities for people whose psychological condition makes them uncomfortable studying with transgender people, no?
 
2013-05-03 3:29:17 PM  

No Such Agency: Translation: "I find something icky and weird secretly masturbate to this, therefore it must in fact be in outright abomination!".

I mean, yeah Quigs is just trolling his/her ass off here, but still, food for thought.


I THOUGHT "T-GIRL" MEANT TANNED GIRL!
 
2013-05-03 3:29:23 PM  

Bravo Two: No Such Agency: I mean, yeah Quigs is just trolling his/her ass off here, but still, food for thought.

I'll admit I've met some transgendered women who were hot enough that I could deal with their having a penis, and I think all this boils down to is escaping an ideal of victorian era sexual repression and conservative sex-for-reproduction-not-for-fun in favor of accepting that a person can love another person, regardless of who they are or what they were born as.

I've genuinely loved some guys. Not that I wanted to sleep with them because I wasn't sexually attracted to them, but love knows no bounds, and you should be whatever your heart tells you you want to be (I reserve the right to call you a moron, however, in the event that you choose to follow your heart and become, say, a turtle.)


So no turtloplasty? DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!!!
 
2013-05-03 3:29:45 PM  

Bravo Two: Shadow Blasko: [i.imgur.com image 304x233]

/Not obscure...

I'm afraid it is to me...


Its Claire from the webcomic Questionable Content. She's trans and is a student at Smith (Smif in the comic)
 
2013-05-03 3:31:44 PM  

Carn: Bravo Two: No Such Agency: I mean, yeah Quigs is just trolling his/her ass off here, but still, food for thought.

I'll admit I've met some transgendered women who were hot enough that I could deal with their having a penis, and I think all this boils down to is escaping an ideal of victorian era sexual repression and conservative sex-for-reproduction-not-for-fun in favor of accepting that a person can love another person, regardless of who they are or what they were born as.

I've genuinely loved some guys. Not that I wanted to sleep with them because I wasn't sexually attracted to them, but love knows no bounds, and you should be whatever your heart tells you you want to be (I reserve the right to call you a moron, however, in the event that you choose to follow your heart and become, say, a turtle.)

So no turtloplasty? DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!!!


Some people are just intolerant of alternative lifestyles.
 
2013-05-03 3:32:05 PM  

No Such Agency: Quigs:
Underlining shiat doesn't make it true.

A transwoman is a dude with serious mental issues and needs clinical help. To think otherwise is liberal dumbfarkery.

Sadly for you, the American Medical Association, the APA, and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders do not agree with you.


it is not politically correct to say such things, however if I go around telling people that I am Jesus Christ trapped in this mortal body EVEN IF I BELIEVE IT TO BE TRUE they will still say I am nuckin' futz.

I know this pisses people off.  I still say that the majority of trans people are just gay people that can't make peace with it.  I realize that they say that trans brains have things in common with the opposite sex and all.  I can even believe that is true.  It also completely explains effeminate gay men and seriously butch gay women.

I don't have any problems with gay or trans people.  I think people should make peace with themselves and be who they are without hacking things off.

If I go to the doctor and tell him I want my arms cut off, I have always felt like an amputee trapped in a limbed body, even if I believe it fully, they will still think I am nuts.
 
2013-05-03 3:32:09 PM  

Qellaqan: No Such Agency: Quigs:
Underlining shiat doesn't make it true.

A transwoman is a dude with serious mental issues and needs clinical help. To think otherwise is liberal dumbfarkery.

Sadly for you, the American Medical Association, the APA, and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders do not agree with you.

I'm not saying either of you is right or wrong (though quigs seems to be a jackass), but my point would be that psych literature is really very flimsy stuff to go waving and saying "I told you so" about. Psych is an incredibly valuable field of research, but we're really, really bad at fixing anything, because we can't identify the biological underpinnings of anything. The "truth" of that science is liable to be very different in 50 years. It's not really fair to scream "science" when this is less a science than a guess. Physics is science. What we know won't change in 50 years... it will be more detailed and nuanced, but it won't change at the level we experience it at.

As for transgenders-- what about this disorder is entirely different from people who want to surgically change their bodies in other ways? There is a psych disorder where people want to cut off their limbs. I do agree that lacking good psych treatments, the surgeries and hormone treatments are the best options for these people, and we should do what we can to help them and otherwise facilitate their happiness.

Legally, transgenders should have the status of whatever gender they switch to. It seems to me that Smith should admit this person if the law says they are a woman.


mmm to be clear I should say I don't agree with quigs at all. Definitely not, I sort of glazed past the derpitude. But I think shouting down people who still have their reservations about how to handle transpeople "cuz psych!!" isn't very productive.
 
2013-05-03 3:33:02 PM  
If you are genetically male you should be considered male since you are one. Why the confusion?
 
2013-05-03 3:33:25 PM  

karnal: Why, as a gay man, have you "encountered more transgendered identified people than most"?


Transgender folk tend to frequent gay bars more than BW3's in the Midwest. I'm sure SF can support a Transgender Dance Club/Bowling Alley but the rest of the country isn't really there yet...
 
2013-05-03 3:34:27 PM  

Qellaqan: No Such Agency: Quigs:
Underlining shiat doesn't make it true.

A transwoman is a dude with serious mental issues and needs clinical help. To think otherwise is liberal dumbfarkery.

Sadly for you, the American Medical Association, the APA, and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders do not agree with you.

I'm not saying either of you is right or wrong (though quigs seems to be a jackass), but my point would be that psych literature is really very flimsy stuff to go waving and saying "I told you so" about. Psych is an incredibly valuable field of research, but we're really, really bad at fixing anything, because we can't identify the biological underpinnings of anything. The "truth" of that science is liable to be very different in 50 years. It's not really fair to scream "science" when this is less a science than a guess. Physics is science. What we know won't change in 50 years... it will be more detailed and nuanced, but it won't change at the level we experience it at.

As for transgenders-- what about this disorder is entirely different from people who want to surgically change their bodies in other ways? There is a psych disorder where people want to cut off their limbs. I do agree that lacking good psych treatments, the surgeries and hormone treatments are the best options for these people, and we should do what we can to help them and otherwise facilitate their happiness.

Legally, transgenders should have the status of whatever gender they switch to. It seems to me that Smith should admit this person if the law says they are a woman.


That, and psychology, unlike any other substantial science (and I mean in that in a way denoting a study of something that is observable and consistent, not subjective and vague in many cases) rapidly evolves based as much on opinion and social norms as it does on actual data. How long was Multiple Personality Disorder recognized as a thing before it was debunked enough that it became out of favor? Likewise, how long have we recognized homosexuality as a thing rather than something requiring electro-shock therapy?

Likewise, some of us who deal with things like PTSD and Aspergers, we get flavor of the month treatment where how its defined and how the treatment is done varies as people change their opinions on how to treat it, much less whether or not it even exists.

Another case in point: how many kids are diagnosed as Autistic, when that alone covers several disorders that all get lumped together?
 
2013-05-03 3:34:34 PM  

Airportmatt: It's pronounced "sha-mali"


too late, wrong pronunciation

Tatsuma: it's pronounced 'she-ma-lay', and it's a brand, you idiot.

 
2013-05-03 3:36:33 PM  

Molavian: Carn: Bravo Two: No Such Agency: I mean, yeah Quigs is just trolling his/her ass off here, but still, food for thought.

I'll admit I've met some transgendered women who were hot enough that I could deal with their having a penis, and I think all this boils down to is escaping an ideal of victorian era sexual repression and conservative sex-for-reproduction-not-for-fun in favor of accepting that a person can love another person, regardless of who they are or what they were born as.

I've genuinely loved some guys. Not that I wanted to sleep with them because I wasn't sexually attracted to them, but love knows no bounds, and you should be whatever your heart tells you you want to be (I reserve the right to call you a moron, however, in the event that you choose to follow your heart and become, say, a turtle.)

So no turtloplasty? DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!!!

Some people are just intolerant of alternative lifestyles.


Didn't say I wouldn't tolerate it, just said I reserved the right to call you a moron. Why be a turtle when you could aspire to be a dragon or a cat? :P
 
2013-05-03 3:38:27 PM  

frepnog: I still say that the majority of trans people are just gay people that can't make peace with it.


They can't deal coming out to freinds and family so they go through surgery to be better accepted? That's weapons grade delusional.
 
2013-05-03 3:39:12 PM  

Shadow Blasko: Bravo Two: Shadow Blasko: [i.imgur.com image 304x233]

/Not obscure...

I'm afraid it is to me...

Its Claire from the webcomic Questionable Content. She's trans and is a student at Smith (Smif in the comic) as well as another of the writer's lazy mary-sues.



FTFE
 
2013-05-03 3:40:22 PM  
This person should murder someone in MA and then the jail system will pay for the surgery. Hooray for America!
 
2013-05-03 3:42:04 PM  

serial_crusher: BarkingUnicorn: Unisex schools aren't arbitrary; they are based on the same sound principles as gyms for fatties and shelters for domestic violence victims.

That's fair enough.  If people have some psychological condition that makes them not feel comfortable studying with people of their opposite gender, and you want to give them a school where they can work around that issue instead of confronting it, that's fine.
But, seems like you'd be ok with a school that provides similar opportunities for people whose psychological condition makes them uncomfortable studying with transgender people, no?


I think universities catering to alternative sexual orientations is an idea as legit as unisex schools.  I'm sure we'll see them soon.
 
2013-05-03 3:42:49 PM  

Bravo Two: Molavian: Carn: Bravo Two: No Such Agency: I mean, yeah Quigs is just trolling his/her ass off here, but still, food for thought.

I'll admit I've met some transgendered women who were hot enough that I could deal with their having a penis, and I think all this boils down to is escaping an ideal of victorian era sexual repression and conservative sex-for-reproduction-not-for-fun in favor of accepting that a person can love another person, regardless of who they are or what they were born as.

I've genuinely loved some guys. Not that I wanted to sleep with them because I wasn't sexually attracted to them, but love knows no bounds, and you should be whatever your heart tells you you want to be (I reserve the right to call you a moron, however, in the event that you choose to follow your heart and become, say, a turtle.)

So no turtloplasty? DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!!!

Some people are just intolerant of alternative lifestyles.

Didn't say I wouldn't tolerate it, just said I reserved the right to call you a moron. Why be a turtle when you could aspire to be a dragon or a cat? :P


ahhhhhhhhh but what about A DRAGON TURTLE!!!

I know I know, I just blew your mind.
 
2013-05-03 3:44:49 PM  

lockers: frepnog: I still say that the majority of trans people are just gay people that can't make peace with it.

They can't deal coming out to freinds and family so they go through surgery to be better accepted? That's weapons grade delusional.


hey, it's a perfectly cromulent point. I remember as a kid being afraid to tell my mom that I broke her windshield so instead I cut off my junk and started living as a woman.
 
2013-05-03 3:45:02 PM  

WhippingBoy: So if I say I identify as a woman, I can shower with a bunch of young, nubile, college co-eds?


Somehow I don't think Smithies can be called 'co-eds'...

/yeesh, people still use that term?
 
2013-05-03 3:48:37 PM  

Whodat: If you are genetically male you should be considered male since you are one. Why the confusion?


Define "genetically male".  Are you simply referring to people with XY chromosomes?  What about people with a SRY gene on their Y chromosome that isn't expressing, so they appear as women (Swyer syndrome)?  What about people where a SRY gene somehow attached to one of their two X chromosomes, so they appear as men (Chapelle syndrome)?  Or people with XXY chromosomes (Klinefelter syndrome)?

If you claim that people born with a penis are male, what about people who only have two XX chromosomes, no genetic abnormalities (textbook genetic female), but are exposed to hormones or pharmaceuticals that result in hermaphrodism?

There is confusion because the difference between male and female isn't as clear-cut as some people would like it to be.
 
2013-05-03 3:49:33 PM  

rat_creature: WhippingBoy: So if I say I identify as a woman, I can shower with a bunch of young, nubile, college co-eds?

Somehow I don't think Smithies can be called 'co-eds'...

/yeesh, people still use that term?


yes but I thought it was relegated to late night Cinemax movie descriptions
 
2013-05-03 3:50:03 PM  

Dinjiin: If you claim that people born with a penis are male, what about people who only have two XX chromosomes, no genetic abnormalities (textbook genetic female), but are exposed to hormones or pharmaceuticals that result in hermaphrodism?


I think we can all agree that they are just trying to have it both ways.
 
2013-05-03 3:52:46 PM  
frepnog:
I still say that the majority of trans people are just gay people that can't make peace with it.

This kind of thing is why gays and trans don't automatically march together.  Hell I've heard gays state that bisexuals don't really exist, which just goes to show, intolerance is a universal constant :/

I think psychological explanations for non-hetero-sexuality and gender dysmorphia are probably horribly imperfect, but at the moment, are at least becoming humane.  I.e. we don't drag trans or gay people off to asylums to be lobotomized any more, even if many of us are still hell-bent on oppressing them politically.

What science does understand is that these things are not a choice, they are an integral part of someone's identity that should be respected.  Which is a good start, since "it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my arm" if a genetic woman feels that she is really a man and wants to live as one.
 
2013-05-03 3:57:40 PM  

Nhaima: It is generally true that SRS alters the subject's sex since sex is customarily defined by their primary sexual characteristics. P or V, if you will.


The only reason it's "customarily defined" that way is because it's a easy shortcut.  It doesn't matter whether you have 3 Ps, 12 Vs and a silent Q  - biologically you're either male or female based on very precise scientific standards.
 
2013-05-03 4:00:13 PM  

Bathia_Mapes: Thisbymaster: Bathia_Mapes: Thisbymaster: So transformers are OK but men are still not allowed? And they get federal money in top of that???????????? Sexism exists and this is it.

Smith is a private college, not a public one. Private colleges get their funding through tuition costs, gifts, and donations from alumni and supporters.

Did you miss the part about the fafsa? The federal student aid form, your helping pay for this crap. Granted it is through loans but not a dime for private orgs that cut people out like this.

Yes, I saw that, but Smith doesn't get federal money directly, as would a public college. The federal money is going directly to the students, not the college itself.


It may be private, but it's not okay. If every male college in America was pressured into letting women onto campus in the 70s, then the reverse needs to happen as well.
 
2013-05-03 4:00:59 PM  
Bailey Jay is hot!
 
2013-05-03 4:01:23 PM  

skullkrusher: lockers: frepnog: I still say that the majority of trans people are just gay people that can't make peace with it.

They can't deal coming out to freinds and family so they go through surgery to be better accepted? That's weapons grade delusional.

hey, it's a perfectly cromulent point. I remember as a kid being afraid to tell my mom that I broke her windshield so instead I cut off my junk and started living as a woman.


Did it work?
 
gja
2013-05-03 4:01:54 PM  

Just_a_Bear: gja: [encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 220x168]

/just cant wait for the usual "internet professors" to chime in on this thread

The first problem is that sex is not a binary male or female, as most people assume.  Since single-sex schools are based on this flawed assumption, they're up a creek without a proverbial paddle.
The second problem is that sex can be based on at least six different characteristics, which can lead to different conclusions (or no conclusion) for the same person.
https://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/gbooker/is.zip


DON'T go linking to unknown ZIP files. Not very good form, and anyone who would open such a file is a fool of galactic proportions.
 
2013-05-03 4:03:02 PM  

nyrB: Nhaima: It is generally true that SRS alters the subject's sex since sex is customarily defined by their primary sexual characteristics. P or V, if you will.

The only reason it's "customarily defined" that way is because it's a easy shortcut.  It doesn't matter whether you have 3 Ps, 12 Vs and a silent Q  - biologically you're either male or female based on very precise scientific standards.


Take a look upthread - Dinjiin's post, for example. It's not necessarily true that someone is strictly 'either male or female based on very precise scientific standards.'
 
2013-05-03 4:03:04 PM  

lockers: skullkrusher: lockers: frepnog: I still say that the majority of trans people are just gay people that can't make peace with it.

They can't deal coming out to freinds and family so they go through surgery to be better accepted? That's weapons grade delusional.

hey, it's a perfectly cromulent point. I remember as a kid being afraid to tell my mom that I broke her windshield so instead I cut off my junk and started living as a woman.

Did it work?


nah, she saw the windshield when she left to go to the store and there I was wearing high heels and a skirt with my severed manhood in hand. It was a bad day
 
2013-05-03 4:03:43 PM  

No Such Agency: frepnog:
I still say that the majority of trans people are just gay people that can't make peace with it.

This kind of thing is why gays and trans don't automatically march together.  Hell I've heard gays state that bisexuals don't really exist, which just goes to show, intolerance is a universal constant :/

I think psychological explanations for non-hetero-sexuality and gender dysmorphia are probably horribly imperfect, but at the moment, are at least becoming humane.  I.e. we don't drag trans or gay people off to asylums to be lobotomized any more, even if many of us are still hell-bent on oppressing them politically.

What science does understand is that these things are not a choice, they are an integral part of someone's identity that should be respected.  Which is a good start, since "it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my arm" if a genetic woman feels that she is really a man and wants to live as one.


first, the studies show that true bi-sexuality IS in fact so rare that it may as well not exist.

second  - the other things I said have dick-all to do with what anyone else thinks.  Internally, feeling like you are attracted to the same sex HAS to be confusing.  So confusing that I'd wager that some people decide that they CAN'T POSSIBLY be gay - they MUST be a woman trapped in a man's body!  CUT IT OFF!

My ex-wife used to talk about cutting off her fat with a knife.  She was a thin person trapped in a fat body.

Is she crazy?

Look at the butchered faces that roam hollywood and tell me those people didn't have some farking issues.

Gay, straight, trans, whatever.  Be yourself.  Being yourself should not EVER include genital self mutilation, because that is the point when you have truly lost sight.

SEE - Mr. Garrison's trans plight on South Park.  tell me it doesn't have the ring of truth.
 
2013-05-03 4:05:17 PM  

No Such Agency: This kind of thing is why gays and trans don't automatically march together. Hell I've heard gays state that bisexuals don't really exist, which just goes to show, intolerance is a universal constant


Some homosexuals want to exclude transsexuals from their fight for equality because they fear that the public's view of transsexuals would torpedo the whole effort.  In short, homosexuals are right on the cusp of acceptance by society and they don't want transsexuals to ruin it, so they throw them under the bus.

On the flip side, some homosexuals dislike the idea of bisexuals because they believe that it waters down their identity.  Part of it stems from the circle-the-wagons mentality that the gay community has had to adopt because of attacks from anti-gay groups, and they view bisexuals as people who are able to walk in and out of hostile territory.  Another part is that for some people, being gay is more than just a sexual identity - it is an entire lifestyle - and they look at bisexuals as being more aligned with heterosexuals.  There are probably entire books that could be written on the relationship between homosexuals and bisexuals.
 
2013-05-03 4:06:04 PM  

frepnog: No Such Agency: frepnog:
I still say that the majority of trans people are just gay people that can't make peace with it.

This kind of thing is why gays and trans don't automatically march together.  Hell I've heard gays state that bisexuals don't really exist, which just goes to show, intolerance is a universal constant :/

I think psychological explanations for non-hetero-sexuality and gender dysmorphia are probably horribly imperfect, but at the moment, are at least becoming humane.  I.e. we don't drag trans or gay people off to asylums to be lobotomized any more, even if many of us are still hell-bent on oppressing them politically.

What science does understand is that these things are not a choice, they are an integral part of someone's identity that should be respected.  Which is a good start, since "it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my arm" if a genetic woman feels that she is really a man and wants to live as one.

first, the studies show that true bi-sexuality IS in fact so rare that it may as well not exist.

second  - the other things I said have dick-all to do with what anyone else thinks.  Internally, feeling like you are attracted to the same sex HAS to be confusing.  So confusing that I'd wager that some people decide that they CAN'T POSSIBLY be gay - they MUST be a woman trapped in a man's body!  CUT IT OFF!

My ex-wife used to talk about cutting off her fat with a knife.  She was a thin person trapped in a fat body.

Is she crazy?

Look at the butchered faces that roam hollywood and tell me those people didn't have some farking issues.

Gay, straight, trans, whatever.  Be yourself.  Being yourself should not EVER include genital self mutilation, because that is the point when you have truly lost sight.

SEE - Mr. Garrison's trans plight on South Park.  tell me it doesn't have the ring of truth.


Personally, I don't care. I just want a tell, is all. Like how gay dudes did the right-ear piercing thing.
 
2013-05-03 4:06:53 PM  

Dinjiin: Whodat: If you are genetically male you should be considered male since you are one. Why the confusion?

Define "genetically male".  Are you simply referring to people with XY chromosomes?  What about people with a SRY gene on their Y chromosome that isn't expressing, so they appear as women (Swyer syndrome)(

1 in 30,000 people)?  What about people where a SRY gene somehow attached to one of their two X chromosomes, so they appear as men (Chapelle syndrome)(four or five in 100,000 individuals )?  Or people with XXY chromosomes (Klinefelter syndrome)(This chromosome constitution (karyotype) exists in roughly between 1:500 to 1:1000 live male births)(My Note on this, Y determines male developmental traits and excess X's are converted to Barr Bodies. This is a case of Missegregation and all Klinefelters do not respond the same due to the variable nature of their X chromosomes [Namely, is the X chromosome 'Extremely' female]?

If you claim that people born with a penis are male, what about people who only have two XX chromosomes, no genetic abnormalities (textbook genetic female), but are exposed to hormones or pharmaceuticals that result in hermaphrodism?

There is confusion because the difference between male and female isn't as clear-cut as some people would like it to be.


It's fairly clear cut. As was mentioned above, outliers are outliers.
 
2013-05-03 4:06:56 PM  
Dinjiin,
If it is a male only college or a female only college (private of course) then hermaphrodites wouldn't count as they would not fall into either category. You seem to be arguing that a private college should have to change their admissions policy based on a possibility of 0.33 to 0.05% of the population (percentage of hermaphroditism in humans) wanting to apply to their institution. Swyer occurs 1 in 30000 Klinefelter is 1 in 1000 etc. Bringing up rare, remote possibilities would fall under the category of "reductio ad absurdum".

BTW, Are you saying Dave Chapelle is actually a woman!?!?
 
2013-05-03 4:10:59 PM  

Marine1: Bathia_Mapes: Thisbymaster: Bathia_Mapes: Thisbymaster: So transformers are OK but men are still not allowed? And they get federal money in top of that???????????? Sexism exists and this is it.

Smith is a private college, not a public one. Private colleges get their funding through tuition costs, gifts, and donations from alumni and supporters.

Did you miss the part about the fafsa? The federal student aid form, your helping pay for this crap. Granted it is through loans but not a dime for private orgs that cut people out like this.

Yes, I saw that, but Smith doesn't get federal money directly, as would a public college. The federal money is going directly to the students, not the college itself.

It may be private, but it's not okay. If every male college in America was pressured into letting women onto campus in the 70s, then the reverse needs to happen as well.


Why?

A) You've gone through the arguments that led to women in the 70's getting into colleges that traditionally banned them, and you have reason to believe that some of the important ones also apply to men getting into women's colleges today?

B) You have an entirely original argument?

I'm guessing it isn't:
C) There is a specific women's college that isn't admitting you, personally?
 
2013-05-03 4:19:22 PM  

gja: Just_a_Bear: gja: [encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 220x168]

/just cant wait for the usual "internet professors" to chime in on this thread

The first problem is that sex is not a binary male or female, as most people assume.  Since single-sex schools are based on this flawed assumption, they're up a creek without a proverbial paddle.
The second problem is that sex can be based on at least six different characteristics, which can lead to different conclusions (or no conclusion) for the same person.
https://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/gbooker/is.zip

DON'T go linking to unknown ZIP files. Not very good form, and anyone who would open such a file is a fool of galactic proportions.


Yes, that's a great policy.  In this case, I know it's legit, but I could be an otter for all you know.
 
2013-05-03 4:20:50 PM  

Just_a_Bear: Yes, that's a great policy.  In this case, I know it's legit, but I could be an otter for all you know.


In which case we should all address you as an otter cos god knows we don't want to appear to be politically incorrect.
 
2013-05-03 4:22:35 PM  
Just because my computer can run an SNES emulator doesn't mean I get to call it a Super Nintendo.
 
2013-05-03 4:23:15 PM  

Marine1: It may be private, but it's not okay. If every male college in America was pressured into letting women onto campus in the 70s, then the reverse needs to happen as well.


Wasn't that only the public universities?  Are students at the currently-existing all men's colleges prevented from applying for fafsa financial aid?
 
2013-05-03 4:27:56 PM  
25.media.tumblr.comView Full Size
 
2013-05-03 4:29:34 PM  

Tatsuma: Airportmatt: It's pronounced "sha-mali"

too late, wrong pronunciation

Tatsuma: it's pronounced 'she-ma-lay', and it's a brand, you idiot.


Yeah, but you didn't include a picture.  So there.
 
2013-05-03 4:30:18 PM  

umad: I'm tired of this "discrimination is bad unless it is the good kind of discrimination" bullshiat. A "women only" private college should get just as much bad press as a "whites only" private prom.


u sound mad.
 
2013-05-03 4:31:15 PM  

Kinek: It's fairly clear cut. As was mentioned above, outliers are outliers.


 

Whodat: Bringing up rare, remote possibilities would fall under the category of "reductio ad absurdum".



I'm guessing Dinjin is addressing the argument upthread that gender is  entirely determined by genetics. I'm glad we all agree now that it isn't; we're now debating "to what extent". The argument has moved forward. Yay?

I'm hoping we can agree now that there are millions of people who are 'genetically' one gender but who appear and act the other. I'll assert further that many of these people are probably not even aware of their genetics; their gender identity is entirely independent of their genetics.

Let's move the argument forward another notch: would either of you mind expressing your position? I'm guessing it's something along the lines of "Gender identity is largely determined by genetics," but I'm not certain if you mean self-identity or something else.
 
2013-05-03 4:32:31 PM  

nyrB: Just_a_Bear: Yes, that's a great policy.  In this case, I know it's legit, but I could be an otter for all you know.

In which case we should all address you as an otter cos god knows we don't want to appear to be politically incorrect.


Nah. Just remember to "do onto otters as you would have them do onto you."

/Yes, I stole that from Pratchett.
 
2013-05-03 4:41:54 PM  
You'd think Smith would have been smarter just letting the application go through and simply deny her application along with the hundreds of other women who don't get accepted each year.  It's not like rejection letters specify a reason.
 
2013-05-03 4:44:24 PM  

serpent_sky: I wonder what would happen if all applications (jobs, schools, etc) were anonymous and stood on their own merits.  Like resumes were considered without names/identifying anything, applications, the same.  People were just accepted on their merits.


I've wondered about this, too.

When I was in a position to hire, the HR department very explicitly reminded me that I must not discriminate based on gender or ethnicity... and then handed me a stack of resumes where the most prominent piece of information, the candidates' names, revealed their gender and ethnicity with fairly strong accuracy.

Now that I'm in a position to be seeking a job, I wonder how much my unusual name is affecting my chances of being selected for an interview.

/"I'm not going to hire someone named Poot Rootbeer!"
 
2013-05-03 4:49:01 PM  

draypresct: Kinek: It's fairly clear cut. As was mentioned above, outliers are outliers.

 Whodat: Bringing up rare, remote possibilities would fall under the category of "reductio ad absurdum".


I'm guessing Dinjin is addressing the argument upthread that gender is  entirely determined by genetics. I'm glad we all agree now that it isn't; we're now debating "to what extent". The argument has moved forward. Yay?

I'm hoping we can agree now that there are millions of people who are 'genetically' one gender but who appear and act the other. I'll assert further that many of these people are probably not even aware of their genetics; their gender identity is entirely independent of their genetics.

Let's move the argument forward another notch: would either of you mind expressing your position? I'm guessing it's something along the lines of "Gender identity is largely determined by genetics," but I'm not certain if you mean self-identity or something else.


I'm a geneticist. While I understand that people can self-determine self-identity and more power to them, as a biological species, it's egg and sperm. Do you have a functioning SRY gene cluster? Then you're a male. Default position is female. Aberrations in this system are not indicative that the system doesn't exist. Bringing up Klinefelters, Chapelle's, etc is like saying that because there are Thalidomide children, that human's don't have four main limbs.

As for Gender, I literally couldn't give two craps. Unless I personally know you, you're a bag of genes to me, no more, no less. No offense. I'm a bag of genes too. I just hate when the psychology of Gender gets to make calls in hard science. If you want to self-identify as a gender, more power to you. But don't start dragging science into it unless you want it to go all the way and start genetic testing on everybody who wants to identify as a way to prove what you're saying objectively.
 
2013-05-03 4:49:47 PM  

FreetardoRivera: AverageAmericanGuy: nyrB: I never understood transgenderism anyway.  If I "identify" as a tree, it doesn't make me a tree no matter how upset I might be if people don't address me as such.  The asylums are full of people who think they're something they're not.  How is thinking you're a female when you're really not any different than thinking you're Napolean?

You can be surgically altered to become another sex. And since we're all very polite, if someone's adamant about their gender being different from what their physical equipment indicates we're all willing to play along since it really doesn't have any bearing on us at all.

no you cant


True that, looking like a vagina and being a vagina are 2 totally different things.

biatches always be trying to trick a ninja for his money...even biatches that was born punks.
 
2013-05-03 4:51:59 PM  
You don't even have to get to the merits of the issue.  The box labeled male was checked.  That's it, case closed, end of story.
 
2013-05-03 4:55:22 PM  
i141.photobucket.comView Full Size


1) Cut a hole in the box
...
 
2013-05-03 5:00:30 PM  

draypresct: Marine1: Bathia_Mapes: Thisbymaster: Bathia_Mapes: Thisbymaster: So transformers are OK but men are still not allowed? And they get federal money in top of that???????????? Sexism exists and this is it.

Smith is a private college, not a public one. Private colleges get their funding through tuition costs, gifts, and donations from alumni and supporters.

Did you miss the part about the fafsa? The federal student aid form, your helping pay for this crap. Granted it is through loans but not a dime for private orgs that cut people out like this.

Yes, I saw that, but Smith doesn't get federal money directly, as would a public college. The federal money is going directly to the students, not the college itself.

It may be private, but it's not okay. If every male college in America was pressured into letting women onto campus in the 70s, then the reverse needs to happen as well.

Why?

A) You've gone through the arguments that led to women in the 70's getting into colleges that traditionally banned them, and you have reason to believe that some of the important ones also apply to men getting into women's colleges today?

B) You have an entirely original argument?

I'm guessing it isn't:
C) There is a specific women's college that isn't admitting you, personally?


Women weren't allowed into male schools, and it adversely impacted the education of women, because the schools weren't of as good of quality... most were finishing schools. Now that there are more women than men at colleges of all types, what's the reason to keep men out of women's colleges? Some have good theater and fashion departments (at least the one near me does), and some men might want to pursue a degree there in those subjects. Why can't they?
 
2013-05-03 5:06:14 PM  
So, I'm the only one that read the headline as "litter box", and was totally confused about the joke subby was going for?
 
2013-05-03 5:15:42 PM  
2 sexes. Male. Female. Chose one.
 
2013-05-03 5:22:42 PM  

Kinek: draypresct: Kinek: It's fairly clear cut. As was mentioned above, outliers are outliers.

 Whodat: Bringing up rare, remote possibilities would fall under the category of "reductio ad absurdum".


I'm guessing Dinjin is addressing the argument upthread that gender is  entirely determined by genetics. I'm glad we all agree now that it isn't; we're now debating "to what extent". The argument has moved forward. Yay?

I'm hoping we can agree now that there are millions of people who are 'genetically' one gender but who appear and act the other. I'll assert further that many of these people are probably not even aware of their genetics; their gender identity is entirely independent of their genetics.

Let's move the argument forward another notch: would either of you mind expressing your position? I'm guessing it's something along the lines of "Gender identity is largely determined by genetics," but I'm not certain if you mean self-identity or something else.

I'm a geneticist. While I understand that people can self-determine self-identity and more power to them, as a biological species, it's egg and sperm. Do you have a functioning SRY gene cluster? Then you're a male. Default position is female. Aberrations in this system are not indicative that the system doesn't exist. Bringing up Klinefelters, Chapelle's, etc is like saying that because there are Thalidomide children, that human's don't have four main limbs.

As for Gender, I literally couldn't give two craps. Unless I personally know you, you're a bag of genes to me, no more, no less. No offense. I'm a bag of genes too. I just hate when the psychology of Gender gets to make calls in hard science. If you want to self-identify as a gender, more power to you. But don't start dragging science into it unless you want it to go all the way and start genetic testing on everybody who wants to identify as a way to prove what you're saying objectively.


First, you are looking at this through a specific paradigm. That immediately renders it to be subjective fact. Secondly, basing the assignment on gametes is still problematic. Does someone stop being male if their testicles stop working or are otherwise removed, or a woman and her eggs or her ovaries? What if permanent sterilization is put in place to simply render the gametes infertile? I'm guessing it would still from your argument that temporary sterilization, such as tube tying, doesn't affect the viability of the gametes and it preserves their sex.
 
2013-05-03 5:24:10 PM  
AverageAmericanGuy:

You can be surgically altered to become another sex. And since we're all very polite, if someone's adamant about their gender being different from what their physical equipment indicates we're all willing to play along since it really doesn't have any bearing on us at all.

I think that about sums it up.  I will never really believe transwomen are women, but it costs me nothing to play along if that's what makes them feel good.
 
2013-05-03 5:29:42 PM  
I think vagina havers should be able to have spaces reserved only for themselves no matter what penis havers say they are. It's the biology that matters here.

There's a simple solution: let the penis havers in as long as they can pass 100%. first time a vagina haver calls them out as a penis haver - bye bye.

What's wrong with that? Its tolerant, it addresses everyone's feeling of who they THINK they are, and it everyone elses' feeling about who they ACTUALLY are
 
2013-05-03 5:35:50 PM  

Kinek: I'm a geneticist. While I understand that people can self-determine self-identity and more power to them, as a biological species, it's egg and sperm. Do you have a functioning SRY gene cluster? Then you're a male. Default position is female. Aberrations in this system are not indicative that the system doesn't exist. Bringing up Klinefelters, Chapelle's, etc is like saying that because there are Thalidomide children, that human's don't have four main limbs.

As for Gender, I literally couldn't give two craps. Unless I personally know you, you're a bag of genes to me, no more, no less. No offense. I'm a bag of genes too. I just hate when the psychology of Gender gets to make calls in hard science. If you want to self-identify as a gender, more power to you. But don't start dragging science into it unless you want it to go all the way and start genetic testing on everybody who wants to identify as a way to prove what you're saying objectively.


No offense taken - I've attended a talk by someone who started out saying that he saw the audience as big sacks of bacteria since, by cell count, we're more bacteria than human.

If you're trying to guess someone's job, salary, and social position, you'd be better off taking the sociological gender, instead of the genetic sex. And yes, the studies (e.g. using identical resumes with male and female names) that show that gender is predictive in these areas are scientific.

If you're trying to determine the probability of certain diseases, you'd be better off with the genetics.

Both concepts are useful, but they are useful in different contexts. Most people aren't all that concerned with their own genetics, unless they're looking for medical reasons. Our day-to-day lives are much more influenced by the visible "race", "gender", "height", etc. instead of what our genes might indicate for each.
 
2013-05-03 5:41:46 PM  

cs30109: AverageAmericanGuy:

You can be surgically altered to become another sex. And since we're all very polite, if someone's adamant about their gender being different from what their physical equipment indicates we're all willing to play along since it really doesn't have any bearing on us at all.

I think that about sums it up.  I will never really believe transwomen are women, but it costs me nothing to play along if that's what makes them feel good.


It costs us as a society to play along because the more we reinforce the idea that such things are ok, the more we have to do to accommodate them.  You don't like the fact I'm using up 3 seats on an airplane?  Tough - I identify as a tree, and I need to lie flat at all times.  You don't like the fact I got to cut in front of you at the lineup at the bank?  Too bad - I identify as a fruit fly and therefore my life span is only a couple of days compared with yours and thus my time is much more important.  You don't like the fact boys are changing alongside your daughter at school?  Too bad - you have no right to complain, those boys identify as girls.
 
2013-05-03 5:43:38 PM  

Kinek: Dinjiin: Whodat: If you are genetically male you should be considered male since you are one. Why the confusion?

Define "genetically male".  Are you simply referring to people with XY chromosomes?  What about people with a SRY gene on their Y chromosome that isn't expressing, so they appear as women (Swyer syndrome)(1 in 30,000 people)?  What about people where a SRY gene somehow attached to one of their two X chromosomes, so they appear as men (Chapelle syndrome)(four or five in 100,000 individuals )?  Or people with XXY chromosomes (Klinefelter syndrome)(This chromosome constitution (karyotype) exists in roughly between 1:500 to 1:1000 live male births)(My Note on this, Y determines male developmental traits and excess X's are converted to Barr Bodies. This is a case of Missegregation and all Klinefelters do not respond the same due to the variable nature of their X chromosomes [Namely, is the X chromosome 'Extremely' female]?

If you claim that people born with a penis are male, what about people who only have two XX chromosomes, no genetic abnormalities (textbook genetic female), but are exposed to hormones or pharmaceuticals that result in hermaphrodism?

There is confusion because the difference between male and female isn't as clear-cut as some people would like it to be.

It's fairly clear cut. As was mentioned above, outliers are outliers.


The population of Earth is upwards of 6 billion people.  As in, 6,000,000,000.  Going by your numbers, this means there are upwards of 200,000 Swyer cases, 240,000 to 300,000 Chapelle cases, and 3,000,000 to 6,000,000 Kleinfelter cases (assuming roughly equal numbers of male and female births) in the world.  Outliers or not, that's a significant number of people with sexual abnormalities, wouldn't you say?  Simply writing them off as an "outlier" and thus unworthy of consideration is not only a cop-out, but deeply unjust.
 
2013-05-03 5:53:46 PM  

Dinjiin: some homosexuals dislike the idea of bisexuals because they believe that it waters down their identity.


I think they fear bisexuality gives ammo to the "sexuality is a choice" gang.  Bisexuals choose which sex to fark and change their choices. Of course, that doesn't mean they choose to be that way.
 
2013-05-03 5:56:15 PM  

farkingismybusiness: What's in the box?!?!?!


s16.postimg.orgView Full Size
 
2013-05-03 6:08:46 PM  

Dinjiin: Whodat: If you are genetically male you should be considered male since you are one. Why the confusion?

Define "genetically male".  Are you simply referring to people with XY chromosomes?  What about people with a SRY gene on their Y chromosome that isn't expressing, so they appear as women (Swyer syndrome)?  What about people where a SRY gene somehow attached to one of their two X chromosomes, so they appear as men (Chapelle syndrome)?  Or people with XXY chromosomes (Klinefelter syndrome)?

If you claim that people born with a penis are male, what about people who only have two XX chromosomes, no genetic abnormalities (textbook genetic female), but are exposed to hormones or pharmaceuticals that result in hermaphrodism?

There is confusion because the difference between male and female isn't as clear-cut as some people would like it to be.


No, there is confusion because ordinary people use ordinary sexual characteristics to make ordinary social distinctions.  Social issues are perceived on the macro level.  You'd have a hard time selling rain forest conservation if you relied on the subatomic differences between rosewood and pine.
 
2013-05-03 6:08:56 PM  
I worked with a transgender gal. She was great, really smart, probably the best person in the field. It sort of bums women out when they find out the successful woman was really a man...or used to be a man...or whatever.
 
2013-05-03 6:19:13 PM  

gja: Just_a_Bear: gja: [encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 220x168]

/just cant wait for the usual "internet professors" to chime in on this thread

The first problem is that sex is not a binary male or female, as most people assume.  Since single-sex schools are based on this flawed assumption, they're up a creek without a proverbial paddle.
The second problem is that sex can be based on at least six different characteristics, which can lead to different conclusions (or no conclusion) for the same person.
https://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/gbooker/is.zip

DON'T go linking to unknown ZIP files. Not very good form, and anyone who would open such a file is a fool of galactic proportions.


punkasspunk.comView Full Size
 
2013-05-03 6:26:52 PM  

Nhaima: Kinek: draypresct: Kinek: It's fairly clear cut. As was mentioned above, outliers are outliers.

 Whodat: Bringing up rare, remote possibilities would fall under the category of "reductio ad absurdum".


I'm guessing Dinjin is addressing the argument upthread that gender is  entirely determined by genetics. I'm glad we all agree now that it isn't; we're now debating "to what extent". The argument has moved forward. Yay?

I'm hoping we can agree now that there are millions of people who are 'genetically' one gender but who appear and act the other. I'll assert further that many of these people are probably not even aware of their genetics; their gender identity is entirely independent of their genetics.

Let's move the argument forward another notch: would either of you mind expressing your position? I'm guessing it's something along the lines of "Gender identity is largely determined by genetics," but I'm not certain if you mean self-identity or something else.

I'm a geneticist. While I understand that people can self-determine self-identity and more power to them, as a biological species, it's egg and sperm. Do you have a functioning SRY gene cluster? Then you're a male. Default position is female. Aberrations in this system are not indicative that the system doesn't exist. Bringing up Klinefelters, Chapelle's, etc is like saying that because there are Thalidomide children, that human's don't have four main limbs.

As for Gender, I literally couldn't give two craps. Unless I personally know you, you're a bag of genes to me, no more, no less. No offense. I'm a bag of genes too. I just hate when the psychology of Gender gets to make calls in hard science. If you want to self-identify as a gender, more power to you. But don't start dragging science into it unless you want it to go all the way and start genetic testing on everybody who wants to identify as a way to prove what you're saying objectively.

First, you are looking at this through a specific paradigm. That ...


You skimmed over what I said. I should have been more clear. For the purposes of biology, SRY is the key. Not functionality of your sexual organs. Our sexual determination system is governed by genes that are on the Y chromosome.
 
2013-05-03 6:33:46 PM  
Waitaminute, you mean a transgender "female" is just a man with a mutilated penis and mental issues?
 
2013-05-03 6:37:09 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Kinek: Dinjiin: Whodat: If you are genetically male you should be considered male since you are one. Why the confusion?

Define "genetically male".  Are you simply referring to people with XY chromosomes?  What about people with a SRY gene on their Y chromosome that isn't expressing, so they appear as women (Swyer syndrome)(1 in 30,000 people)?  What about people where a SRY gene somehow attached to one of their two X chromosomes, so they appear as men (Chapelle syndrome)(four or five in 100,000 individuals )?  Or people with XXY chromosomes (Klinefelter syndrome)(This chromosome constitution (karyotype) exists in roughly between 1:500 to 1:1000 live male births)(My Note on this, Y determines male developmental traits and excess X's are converted to Barr Bodies. This is a case of Missegregation and all Klinefelters do not respond the same due to the variable nature of their X chromosomes [Namely, is the X chromosome 'Extremely' female]?

If you claim that people born with a penis are male, what about people who only have two XX chromosomes, no genetic abnormalities (textbook genetic female), but are exposed to hormones or pharmaceuticals that result in hermaphrodism?

There is confusion because the difference between male and female isn't as clear-cut as some people would like it to be.

It's fairly clear cut. As was mentioned above, outliers are outliers.

The population of Earth is upwards of 6 billion people.  As in, 6,000,000,000.  Going by your numbers, this means there are upwards of 200,000 Swyer cases, 240,000 to 300,000 Chapelle cases, and 3,000,000 to 6,000,000 Kleinfelter cases (assuming roughly equal numbers of male and female births) in the world.  Outliers or not, that's a significant number of people with sexual abnormalities, wouldn't you say?  Simply writing them off as an "outlier" and thus unworthy of consideration is not only a cop-out, but deeply unjust.


I'm not arguing that they should be ignored. But run the math. That is .1083% of everyone currently alive.   That's assuming that all Kleinfelter people present, and they don't in many cases, depending on various factors. That cuts down the percentages even more. It is almost by definition an outlier. Just because a system does not work 100% of the time does not mean that the system is there.

As for social policy, that's someone else's job. Not mine. I'm just on a rant due to people justifying self-identification through genetic abnormalities.
 
2013-05-03 6:37:28 PM  
BarkingUnicorn: Social issues are perceived on the macro level.

It has nothing to do with scale. Social issues are perceived based on socially-defined distinctions, which rarely have any basis whatever in physical science. Nature rarely creates fully distinct groups with clear-cut differences -- the differences among groups are all a matter of how you decide to classify.

If you decide there are 2 categories for a particular topic you can design criteria that put everything you examine in exactly 1 of those 2 categories. But that's just a question of which criteria you select not evidence of some fundamental basis for those two categories.

There's clear evidence of this arbitrary categorization for almost all social distinctions. Ask people what defines "black" or "family" or even "barbecue" and you'll get wildly varying answers based on their culture. Where (and if) we draw lines between people speaks much more to our own beliefs than to any underlying differences.
 
2013-05-03 6:40:27 PM  

Kinek: HeartBurnKid: Kinek: Dinjiin: Whodat: If you are genetically male you should be considered male since you are one. Why the confusion?

Define "genetically male".  Are you simply referring to people with XY chromosomes?  What about people with a SRY gene on their Y chromosome that isn't expressing, so they appear as women (Swyer syndrome)(1 in 30,000 people)?  What about people where a SRY gene somehow attached to one of their two X chromosomes, so they appear as men (Chapelle syndrome)(four or five in 100,000 individuals )?  Or people with XXY chromosomes (Klinefelter syndrome)(This chromosome constitution (karyotype) exists in roughly between 1:500 to 1:1000 live male births)(My Note on this, Y determines male developmental traits and excess X's are converted to Barr Bodies. This is a case of Missegregation and all Klinefelters do not respond the same due to the variable nature of their X chromosomes [Namely, is the X chromosome 'Extremely' female]?

If you claim that people born with a penis are male, what about people who only have two XX chromosomes, no genetic abnormalities (textbook genetic female), but are exposed to hormones or pharmaceuticals that result in hermaphrodism?

There is confusion because the difference between male and female isn't as clear-cut as some people would like it to be.

It's fairly clear cut. As was mentioned above, outliers are outliers.

The population of Earth is upwards of 6 billion people.  As in, 6,000,000,000.  Going by your numbers, this means there are upwards of 200,000 Swyer cases, 240,000 to 300,000 Chapelle cases, and 3,000,000 to 6,000,000 Kleinfelter cases (assuming roughly equal numbers of male and female births) in the world.  Outliers or not, that's a significant number of people with sexual abnormalities, wouldn't you say?  Simply writing them off as an "outlier" and thus unworthy of consideration is not only a cop-out, but deeply unjust.

I'm not arguing that they should be ignored. But run the math. That is .1083% ...


Additionally. Taking the math even further, if I went around and pointed at someone and said 'You have tits and are therefore XX, you have a penis and are therefore XY' I'd be right 99.9% of the time. 99.9%.
 
2013-05-03 6:51:53 PM  

Kinek: That is .1083% of everyone currently alive.


Which is more than 0, which makes it a perfectly valid counter-example to the claim that genetics provides an underlying basis for social distinctions of gender.

And this discussion is about social distinctions of gender, even if your day job isn't.
 
2013-05-03 6:55:00 PM  

Kinek: Kinek: HeartBurnKid: Kinek: Dinjiin: Whodat: If you are genetically male you should be considered male since you are one. Why the confusion?

Define "genetically male".  Are you simply referring to people with XY chromosomes?  What about people with a SRY gene on their Y chromosome that isn't expressing, so they appear as women (Swyer syndrome)(1 in 30,000 people)?  What about people where a SRY gene somehow attached to one of their two X chromosomes, so they appear as men (Chapelle syndrome)(four or five in 100,000 individuals )?  Or people with XXY chromosomes (Klinefelter syndrome)(This chromosome constitution (karyotype) exists in roughly between 1:500 to 1:1000 live male births)(My Note on this, Y determines male developmental traits and excess X's are converted to Barr Bodies. This is a case of Missegregation and all Klinefelters do not respond the same due to the variable nature of their X chromosomes [Namely, is the X chromosome 'Extremely' female]?

If you claim that people born with a penis are male, what about people who only have two XX chromosomes, no genetic abnormalities (textbook genetic female), but are exposed to hormones or pharmaceuticals that result in hermaphrodism?

There is confusion because the difference between male and female isn't as clear-cut as some people would like it to be.

It's fairly clear cut. As was mentioned above, outliers are outliers.

The population of Earth is upwards of 6 billion people.  As in, 6,000,000,000.  Going by your numbers, this means there are upwards of 200,000 Swyer cases, 240,000 to 300,000 Chapelle cases, and 3,000,000 to 6,000,000 Kleinfelter cases (assuming roughly equal numbers of male and female births) in the world.  Outliers or not, that's a significant number of people with sexual abnormalities, wouldn't you say?  Simply writing them off as an "outlier" and thus unworthy of consideration is not only a cop-out, but deeply unjust.

I'm not arguing that they should be ignored. But run the math. That is ...


what exactly is the point you're trying to make from all that math: yes, sexual abnormalities are rare. So is being transgendered ( somewhere under 1% sounds about right) - but it does happen. Autism is also fairly rare, so is that a reason to think that it's not real and that the people are diagnosed with it are somehow "faking it" ?

Moreover, just because it's rare, is that a reason to be a jerk to somebody with a rare condition?
 
2013-05-03 6:56:38 PM  

Kinek: Kinek: HeartBurnKid: Kinek: Dinjiin: Whodat: If you are genetically male you should be considered male since you are one. Why the confusion?

Define "genetically male".  Are you simply referring to people with XY chromosomes?  What about people with a SRY gene on their Y chromosome that isn't expressing, so they appear as women (Swyer syndrome)(1 in 30,000 people)?  What about people where a SRY gene somehow attached to one of their two X chromosomes, so they appear as men (Chapelle syndrome)(four or five in 100,000 individuals )?  Or people with XXY chromosomes (Klinefelter syndrome)(This chromosome constitution (karyotype) exists in roughly between 1:500 to 1:1000 live male births)(My Note on this, Y determines male developmental traits and excess X's are converted to Barr Bodies. This is a case of Missegregation and all Klinefelters do not respond the same due to the variable nature of their X chromosomes [Namely, is the X chromosome 'Extremely' female]?

If you claim that people born with a penis are male, what about people who only have two XX chromosomes, no genetic abnormalities (textbook genetic female), but are exposed to hormones or pharmaceuticals that result in hermaphrodism?

There is confusion because the difference between male and female isn't as clear-cut as some people would like it to be.

It's fairly clear cut. As was mentioned above, outliers are outliers.

The population of Earth is upwards of 6 billion people.  As in, 6,000,000,000.  Going by your numbers, this means there are upwards of 200,000 Swyer cases, 240,000 to 300,000 Chapelle cases, and 3,000,000 to 6,000,000 Kleinfelter cases (assuming roughly equal numbers of male and female births) in the world.  Outliers or not, that's a significant number of people with sexual abnormalities, wouldn't you say?  Simply writing them off as an "outlier" and thus unworthy of consideration is not only a cop-out, but deeply unjust.

I'm not arguing that they should be ignored. But run the math. That is ...


So in other words, you're not saying they should be ignored, but you're going to ignore them, regardless.
 
2013-05-03 6:57:20 PM  

profplump: Kinek: That is .1083% of everyone currently alive.

Which is more than 0, which makes it a perfectly valid counter-example to the claim that genetics provides an underlying basis for social distinctions of gender.

And this discussion is about social distinctions of gender, even if your day job isn't.


HeartBurnKid: Kinek: Dinjiin: Whodat: If you are genetically male you should be considered male since you are one. Why the confusion?

Define "genetically male".  Are you simply referring to people with XY chromosomes?  What about people with a SRY gene on their Y chromosome that isn't expressing, so they appear as women (Swyer syndrome)(1 in 30,000 people)?  What about people where a SRY gene somehow attached to one of their two X chromosomes, so they appear as men (Chapelle syndrome)(four or five in 100,000 individuals )?  Or people with XXY chromosomes (Klinefelter syndrome)(This chromosome constitution (karyotype) exists in roughly between 1:500 to 1:1000 live male births)(My Note on this, Y determines male developmental traits and excess X's are converted to Barr Bodies. This is a case of Missegregation and all Klinefelters do not respond the same due to the variable nature of their X chromosomes [Namely, is the X chromosome 'Extremely' female]?

If you claim that people born with a penis are male, what about people who only have two XX chromosomes, no genetic abnormalities (textbook genetic female), but are exposed to hormones or pharmaceuticals that result in hermaphrodism?

There is confusion because the difference between male and female isn't as clear-cut as some people would like it to be.

It's fairly clear cut. As was mentioned above, outliers are outliers.

The population of Earth is upwards of 6 billion people.  As in, 6,000,000,000.  Going by your numbers, this means there are upwards of 200,000 Swyer cases, 240,000 to 300,000 Chapelle cases, and 3,000,000 to 6,000,000 Kleinfelter cases (assuming roughly equal numbers of male and female births) in the world.  Outliers or not, that's a significant number of people with sexual abnormalities, wouldn't you say?  Simply writing them off as an "outlier" and thus unworthy of consideration is not only a cop-out, but deeply unjust.


That's what I'm responding to. Make social policy based on self-determination all you'd like, but arguing that Sex by bits isn't part of a system because of outliers like Klinefelter's and Chappelle's and I'll make the counter-argument.
 
2013-05-03 7:02:12 PM  

sudo give me more cowbell: Kinek: Kinek: HeartBurnKid: Kinek: Dinjiin: Whodat: If you are genetically male you should be considered male since you are one. Why the confusion?

Define "genetically male".  Are you simply referring to people with XY chromosomes?  What about people with a SRY gene on their Y chromosome that isn't expressing, so they appear as women (Swyer syndrome)(1 in 30,000 people)?  What about people where a SRY gene somehow attached to one of their two X chromosomes, so they appear as men (Chapelle syndrome)(four or five in 100,000 individuals )?  Or people with XXY chromosomes (Klinefelter syndrome)(This chromosome constitution (karyotype) exists in roughly between 1:500 to 1:1000 live male births)(My Note on this, Y determines male developmental traits and excess X's are converted to Barr Bodies. This is a case of Missegregation and all Klinefelters do not respond the same due to the variable nature of their X chromosomes [Namely, is the X chromosome 'Extremely' female]?

If you claim that people born with a penis are male, what about people who only have two XX chromosomes, no genetic abnormalities (textbook genetic female), but are exposed to hormones or pharmaceuticals that result in hermaphrodism?

There is confusion because the difference between male and female isn't as clear-cut as some people would like it to be.

It's fairly clear cut. As was mentioned above, outliers are outliers.

The population of Earth is upwards of 6 billion people.  As in, 6,000,000,000.  Going by your numbers, this means there are upwards of 200,000 Swyer cases, 240,000 to 300,000 Chapelle cases, and 3,000,000 to 6,000,000 Kleinfelter cases (assuming roughly equal numbers of male and female births) in the world.  Outliers or not, that's a significant number of people with sexual abnormalities, wouldn't you say?  Simply writing them off as an "outlier" and thus unworthy of consideration is not only a cop-out, but deeply unjust.

I'm not arguing that they should be ignored. But run the math. ...


The point I'm making is that Sex isn't some continuum. Sex /IS/ binary. Abnormalities are abberations in a system. We're not e.coli. Or Yeast. 

That being said, what you make of your bits is between you and society. There are as many genders as there are people. I wasn't making the argument that people who want to self-identify one way or the other should be ignored. I'm saying that keep Sex Chromosome disorders the fark out of the gender crusade. Sex is determined by genetics. Cases where there isn't a clear borderline are abnormalities in the system.
 
2013-05-03 7:04:24 PM  

Kinek: That's what I'm responding to. Make social policy based on self-determination all you'd like, but arguing that Sex by bits isn't part of a system because of outliers like Klinefelter's and Chappelle's and I'll make the counter-argument.


Is categorizing everyone into "male" or "female" a workable model for understanding human behaviour? -most of the time, yes, it works fairly well -most of the time; but it clearly breaks down in many situations. When you encounter such exceptions, why would you insist on dismissing those examples as "outliers" (as if they are somehow not as much a part of human society as the rest of us) and not just acknowledge that there's a problem with the model?
 
2013-05-03 7:05:44 PM  

profplump: BarkingUnicorn: Social issues are perceived on the macro level.

It has nothing to do with scale. Social issues are perceived based on socially-defined distinctions, which rarely have any basis whatever in physical science. Nature rarely creates fully distinct groups with clear-cut differences -- the differences among groups are all a matter of how you decide to classify.

If you decide there are 2 categories for a particular topic you can design criteria that put everything you examine in exactly 1 of those 2 categories. But that's just a question of which criteria you select not evidence of some fundamental basis for those two categories.

There's clear evidence of this arbitrary categorization for almost all social distinctions. Ask people what defines "black" or "family" or even "barbecue" and you'll get wildly varying answers based on their culture. Where (and if) we draw lines between people speaks much more to our own beliefs than to any underlying differences.


Social issues are defined on the macro level by ordinary people.  You are preaching to the choir.
 
2013-05-03 7:12:23 PM  

sudo give me more cowbell: Kinek: That's what I'm responding to. Make social policy based on self-determination all you'd like, but arguing that Sex by bits isn't part of a system because of outliers like Klinefelter's and Chappelle's and I'll make the counter-argument.

Is categorizing everyone into "male" or "female" a workable model for understanding human behaviour? -most of the time, yes, it works fairly well -most of the time; but it clearly breaks down in many situations. When you encounter such exceptions, why would you insist on dismissing those examples as "outliers" (as if they are somehow not as much a part of human society as the rest of us) and not just acknowledge that there's a problem with the model?


Ah, now we're getting into things that are not my field, and are also soft and squishy. I'm not taking up these arguments. I can't make any judgement calls based on someone's bits. Human behavior is someone else's problem. I'm merely pointing out that arguing that sex is not binary is like arguing that humans are not meant to have 4 limbs. And bringing up sex chromosomal disorders as justification for nuances in gender is not the correct way to go about defending your position.
 
2013-05-03 7:30:01 PM  

Kinek: sudo give me more cowbell: Kinek: That's what I'm responding to. Make social policy based on self-determination all you'd like, but arguing that Sex by bits isn't part of a system because of outliers like Klinefelter's and Chappelle's and I'll make the counter-argument.

Is categorizing everyone into "male" or "female" a workable model for understanding human behaviour? -most of the time, yes, it works fairly well -most of the time; but it clearly breaks down in many situations. When you encounter such exceptions, why would you insist on dismissing those examples as "outliers" (as if they are somehow not as much a part of human society as the rest of us) and not just acknowledge that there's a problem with the model?

Ah, now we're getting into things that are not my field, and are also soft and squishy. I'm not taking up these arguments. I can't make any judgement calls based on someone's bits. Human behavior is someone else's problem. I'm merely pointing out that arguing that sex is not binary is like arguing that humans are not meant to have 4 limbs. And bringing up sex chromosomal disorders as justification for nuances in gender is not the correct way to go about defending your position.


ok, then forget about human behaviour and gender, let's stick to biology and sex if that was what you intended.
My point is that outliers are data -sometimes they're the most important piece of data because they teach us something about general principles in a domain of parameter space outside of our confirmation bias.

Put it this way: Newtonian physics is perfectly sufficient to describe 99.9% of the situations you're likely to encounter and think about on a daily basis -but there are outliers, funny situations where Newtonian physics breaks down in weird ways. We could dismiss those phenomena as "outliers", or we could try to learn from and understand them. The people who did the latter discovered quantum mechanics and relativity, but it required a certain amount of intellectual curiosity. If they had approached physics the same way you're approaching gender and sex we would have never discovered quantum mechanics or relativity -which means no lasers, no CD players, no satellite communications, etc., etc.

Looking at Gender and sex as a binary is like thinking that F=ma is physical "theory of everything" -it works pretty well most of the time, but it is an ultimately impoverished understanding of the world.
By taking outliers seriously, we develope a much richer understanding of the world.
 
2013-05-03 7:50:00 PM  

sudo give me more cowbell: Kinek: sudo give me more cowbell: Kinek: That's what I'm responding to. Make social policy based on self-determination all you'd like, but arguing that Sex by bits isn't part of a system because of outliers like Klinefelter's and Chappelle's and I'll make the counter-argument.

Is categorizing everyone into "male" or "female" a workable model for understanding human behaviour? -most of the time, yes, it works fairly well -most of the time; but it clearly breaks down in many situations. When you encounter such exceptions, why would you insist on dismissing those examples as "outliers" (as if they are somehow not as much a part of human society as the rest of us) and not just acknowledge that there's a problem with the model?

Ah, now we're getting into things that are not my field, and are also soft and squishy. I'm not taking up these arguments. I can't make any judgement calls based on someone's bits. Human behavior is someone else's problem. I'm merely pointing out that arguing that sex is not binary is like arguing that humans are not meant to have 4 limbs. And bringing up sex chromosomal disorders as justification for nuances in gender is not the correct way to go about defending your position.

ok, then forget about human behaviour and gender, let's stick to biology and sex if that was what you intended.
My point is that outliers are data -sometimes they're the most important piece of data because they teach us something about general principles in a domain of parameter space outside of our confirmation bias.

Put it this way: Newtonian physics is perfectly sufficient to describe 99.9% of the situations you're likely to encounter and think about on a daily basis -but there are outliers, funny situations where Newtonian physics breaks down in weird ways. We could dismiss those phenomena as "outliers", or we could try to learn from and understand them. The people who did the latter discovered quantum mechanics and relativity, but it required a certain amount of i ...


Your analogy breaks down. Here's why.

Newtonian physics is capable of describing 99.9% of the situations (as is Pv=nrt) that one would encounter normally. Einsteinian physics (or whatever) incorporates more into its ruleset. I'm not sure of the details, as it's been a few years since I took physics. Einstenian physics works by increasing the number of entities, pushing Occam's razor back a bit.

Now, with with the XY Sex determination system, it's not that I need additional entities to deal with abnormalities, it's that the entities that exist have been altered. I know why a Klinefelter patient develops differently due to X chromosome dosage problems. I know why an Androgen insensitivity patient does not develop male sexual characteristics due to an insensitivity in the molecular pathway. These systems were not meant to operate this way. It's not an impoverished view of the world. It means I understand the system and how it malfunctions. Defining a system by its outliers is not a prudent course of action. Germans are Neo-nazis. People are functionally retarded. The earth is 120 degrees fahrenheit. I can say that the system works to characterize the male/female sex determination system because I know how the problems arose. If I couldn't explain the problems and incorporate them, then there'd be an issue.

Gender is /again/ another issue. A societal and behavioral one.
 
2013-05-03 7:50:41 PM  

garkola: I worked with a transgender gal. She was great, really smart, probably the best person in the field. It sort of bums women out when they find out the successful woman was really a man...or used to be a man...or whatever.


Yet secretly I bet they're not surprised.
 
2013-05-03 8:01:34 PM  

Kinek: Defining a system by its outliers is not a prudent course of action.


So it's a better idea to select out only the data that fit our neat trend-line and pretend that those other dots on the paper just aren't there?
/sigh, I'm not going to dig in on this one.

Kinek: . It's not an impoverished view of the world.


Yes, it really is. And now we've gotten into an adversarial position, so you're digging your heels in. I'll never understand why this idea bothers you so much.
 
gja
2013-05-03 8:02:31 PM  

Jon iz teh kewl: gja: Just_a_Bear: gja: [encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 220x168]

/just cant wait for the usual "internet professors" to chime in on this thread

The first problem is that sex is not a binary male or female, as most people assume.  Since single-sex schools are based on this flawed assumption, they're up a creek without a proverbial paddle.
The second problem is that sex can be based on at least six different characteristics, which can lead to different conclusions (or no conclusion) for the same person.
https://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/gbooker/is.zip

DON'T go linking to unknown ZIP files. Not very good form, and anyone who would open such a file is a fool of galactic proportions.

[www.punkasspunk.com image 640x480]


I'm a douche for pointing out good security dogma?
Then you are ignorant.
 
2013-05-03 8:04:44 PM  

nyrB: I never understood transgenderism anyway.  If I "identify" as a tree, it doesn't make me a tree no matter how upset I might be if people don't address me as such.  The asylums are full of people who think they're something they're not.  How is thinking you're a female when you're really not any different than thinking you're Napolean?


There's some scientific evidence that a transsexual person has a female brain in a male body, or vice-versa.  There's no scientific evidence that a person who thinks he's a tree has xylem in his brain.

And before somebody screams "That's not proof!" i didn't say it was.  I said there was "some evidence" which is no the same thing as absolute proof.
 
2013-05-03 8:08:18 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Quigs: To think otherwise is liberal dumbfarkery.

Well any psychologist, psychiatrist or neuroscientist reading this thread just went to get very drunk at the nearest bar. Might you be a dear and post your contact info so they can send you their bar tabs?


You seem to have forgotten that science is a liberal conspiracy nowadays.  Real Americans don't listen to that pansy neuroscience crap.
 
2013-05-03 8:16:31 PM  
Can't have an all-male institution, re: "The Citadel", or any of the military academies, but can have all female, or all black ? Racism and Sexism are alive and well all over the world.
 
2013-05-03 8:16:53 PM  
It sickens me that we live in a world where the minority get to dictate policy to the majority.
 
2013-05-03 8:26:12 PM  

sudo give me more cowbell: Kinek: Defining a system by its outliers is not a prudent course of action.

So it's a better idea to select out only the data that fit our neat trend-line and pretend that those other dots on the paper just aren't there?
/sigh, I'm not going to dig in on this one.

Kinek: . It's not an impoverished view of the world.

Yes, it really is. And now we've gotten into an adversarial position, so you're digging your heels in. I'll never understand why this idea bothers you so much.


When 99.9 percent of the data suggests that yes, there are two sexes, I don't think it's me that's cherry-picking data points.
 
2013-05-03 8:29:13 PM  
What the flip is wrong with people? YOU AREN'T A WOMAN. Period. Actually, no period. That's another reason you aren't a woman. You weren't born a woman. You dont have a womb. You'll never carry a child in your non-existant womb. All you have is a mutilated penis shaped into a vagina, and possible hormone therapy. Hey. guess what, the bodybuilder chicks who pump testosteoento themselves aren't men so you pumping yourself full of estrogen doesn't make you a woman. It's cosmetic. Just because you will it to be so and do all sorts of shenanigans to your body makeup and body chry does not mean you are a woman. Tired of this politically correct nonsense. Get over yourselves. You were born a man, and you will forever be a man unless you alter your DNA.
 
2013-05-03 8:33:36 PM  

thismomentinblackhistory: As a gay man, I've probably encountered more transgendered identified people than most, and while they have, by and large, been pretty generous in explaining some of this stuff to me, I always end up being advised to read at least two or three books.


Transsexualism is very simple.  You're a woman, but you have or had at one time a penis.  Or, you're a man, but you have or had at one time a vagina.  It's not complicated or difficult to understand.

Transgender is a much broader category, and therefore more difficult to comprehend.
 
2013-05-03 8:34:25 PM  

Kinek: sudo give me more cowbell: Kinek: Defining a system by its outliers is not a prudent course of action.

So it's a better idea to select out only the data that fit our neat trend-line and pretend that those other dots on the paper just aren't there?
/sigh, I'm not going to dig in on this one.

Kinek: . It's not an impoverished view of the world.

Yes, it really is. And now we've gotten into an adversarial position, so you're digging your heels in. I'll never understand why this idea bothers you so much.

When 99.9 percent of the data suggests that yes, there are two sexes, I don't think it's me that's cherry-picking data points.


The reason why I oppose this so heavily is because if you start bringing in objective observations such as the status of sex chromosomes into gender assignment as proof, then guess what? Someone is going to call it. And if transgender people in fact, don't always have an intersex sex chromosomal disorder, it's going to look farking terrible. Moreso than it already does. Don't place your bets on objective fact when dealing with something as sticky as gender. And stay out of commandeering genetics for social politics.
 
2013-05-03 8:34:29 PM  

CrazyCracka420: So I'm gathering from the article, it's a person born with female parts, but identifies as a man?  Would be a lot easier to follow if they just said if the person has a penis or not.

If they have a vagina, they should be allowed to attend...if they are a man who identifies as a woman, than not so much.


My opinion, go by their identity, no matter what is between the legs. "Wanna be a man, then you can't come here."
 
2013-05-03 8:43:41 PM  
Well, how else can these gals get the level of education only Smith can offer?
 
2013-05-03 8:56:14 PM  

Kinek: I'm just on a rant due to people justifying self-identification through genetic abnormalities.


I think you're missing the point.  Genetics should really play second fiddle to the gender identity of the person in their present state.  The reason I even bring up all of the genetic variances is because too many people have a zero tolerance binary position on the subject.  While most people fall onto either end of the spectrum, there are many shades of gray that nature has provided that fall between.  IMHO, that lessens the weight that genetics alone should carry because the whole thing is so muddled.

Even Smith College's requirements that all documentation show as female has faults.  What if somebody transitions during preadolescence, going through puberty in their new gender, but lacks the funds in early adulthood for SRS?  In many ways they're going to present more as female than somebody who started transitioning at 18 and happens to have the funds to do SRS at 19.
 
2013-05-03 9:47:01 PM  

farkingismybusiness: What's in the box?!?!?!


a penis
 
2013-05-03 9:49:33 PM  

Lord Farkwad: farkingismybusiness: What's in the box?!?!?!

[s16.postimg.org image 519x542]


It's a dick in a box!
 
2013-05-03 9:51:46 PM  

Dinjiin: Kinek: I'm just on a rant due to people justifying self-identification through genetic abnormalities.

I think you're missing the point.  Genetics should really play second fiddle to the gender identity of the person in their present state.  The reason I even bring up all of the genetic variances is because too many people have a zero tolerance binary position on the subject.  While most people fall onto either end of the spectrum, there are many shades of gray that nature has provided that fall between. IMHO, that lessens the weight that genetics alone should carry because the whole thing is so muddled.

Even Smith College's requirements that all documentation show as female has faults.  What if somebody transitions during preadolescence, going through puberty in their new gender, but lacks the funds in early adulthood for SRS?  In many ways they're going to present more as female than somebody who started transitioning at 18 and happens to have the funds to do SRS at 19.


I might have gotten off topic, but this is still not true. Most of the intersex disorders come with serious health problems due to the fact that the Human body is not meant to have an odd number of chromosomes. Gender is shades of grey because people are, sex is not shaded for a very good reason. It's not muddled. Not at all. This is like arguing about how muddled the consensus on Global warming or the age of the earth is. Argue about social policy and gender to your hearts content. That's not written in stone and none of my business. What you and Sudo seem to be arguing that Down's syndrome, diabetes, congenital heart defects are all 'natural' variation. While it's true that biology is messy, when 99.9 percent of a species follows a systems, and when the last percent usually comes with health problems, that's not natural variation. That's just a defect in the machinery in making a person. If it helps, I'm also defective in my own special ways. Doesn't make it any less defective.
 
2013-05-03 10:01:29 PM  

Kinek: Kinek: sudo give me more cowbell: Kinek: Defining a system by its outliers is not a prudent course of action.

So it's a better idea to select out only the data that fit our neat trend-line and pretend that those other dots on the paper just aren't there?
/sigh, I'm not going to dig in on this one.

Kinek: . It's not an impoverished view of the world.

Yes, it really is. And now we've gotten into an adversarial position, so you're digging your heels in. I'll never understand why this idea bothers you so much.

When 99.9 percent of the data suggests that yes, there are two sexes, I don't think it's me that's cherry-picking data points.

The reason why I oppose this so heavily is because if you start bringing in objective observations such as the status of sex chromosomes into gender assignment as proof, then guess what? Someone is going to call it. And if transgender people in fact, don't always have an intersex sex chromosomal disorder, it's going to look farking terrible. Moreso than it already does. Don't place your bets on objective fact when dealing with something as sticky as gender. And stay out of commandeering genetics for social politics.


I think, when it comes to genetics, and this is strctly from an amateur point of view, in cases like these, the presence of abnormalities that you view as flaws in the code, reasons why the system failed to function as designed, are justifications to bolster the fact (or idea, depending on your personal vantage point) that perceived gender and all that occur and are natural.

Looking at the system from a more, ah, lay person's point of view, I would say that the genetics of the machine and the sum of the parts are separate issues. How a body devoid of anything else develops is a pretty well understood process, and we have a fairly good grasp on the mechanics of that, as you clearly demonstrate.  However, the hardware can have flaws/variations based on mutation or other reasons, which result in non-normal conditions arising.

I think that it's valuable to understand the mechanics of the body and how biology determines sexuality and the like, but I think it's equally valuable that we acknowledge that how a person perceives themselves and develops beyond the point of biological development, is less easily defined as it begins to deal with less tangible parts of the human unit.

I think we can all agree that genetics plays a part, but is not going to be the holy grail of saying "look, there's definitely a case to be made for this particular happenstance" because the outcome of the biology doesn't always mesh with the outcome of the development of the self and how one perceives "gender".

But I'm tired, and reading about physics and not genetics or psychology. Frankly, I think that there should be no need to justify how one views themselves and decides to live. You want to be surgically made to be a woman? Go for it. want to become a guy? Go for it. Not my job to question the plumbing.
 
2013-05-03 10:11:47 PM  

Bravo Two: Kinek: Kinek: sudo give me more cowbell: Kinek: Defining a system by its outliers is not a prudent course of action.

So it's a better idea to select out only the data that fit our neat trend-line and pretend that those other dots on the paper just aren't there?
/sigh, I'm not going to dig in on this one.

Kinek: . It's not an impoverished view of the world.

Yes, it really is. And now we've gotten into an adversarial position, so you're digging your heels in. I'll never understand why this idea bothers you so much.

When 99.9 percent of the data suggests that yes, there are two sexes, I don't think it's me that's cherry-picking data points.

The reason why I oppose this so heavily is because if you start bringing in objective observations such as the status of sex chromosomes into gender assignment as proof, then guess what? Someone is going to call it. And if transgender people in fact, don't always have an intersex sex chromosomal disorder, it's going to look farking terrible. Moreso than it already does. Don't place your bets on objective fact when dealing with something as sticky as gender. And stay out of commandeering genetics for social politics.

I think, when it comes to genetics, and this is strctly from an amateur point of view, in cases like these, the presence of abnormalities that you view as flaws in the code, reasons why the system failed to function as designed, are justifications to bolster the fact (or idea, depending on your personal vantage point) that perceived gender and all that occur and are natural.

Looking at the system from a more, ah, lay person's point of view, I would say that the genetics of the machine and the sum of the parts are separate issues. How a body devoid of anything else develops is a pretty well understood process, and we have a fairly good grasp on the mechanics of that, as you clearly demonstrate.  However, the hardware can have flaws/variations based on mutation or other reasons, which result in non-normal conditions ...


This is true. And also why I can't comment on Gender. Social issues are even more complex than the messes of genetics. Self-perception and self-identity are rolled into gender, which is one of the reasons why I've been sticking firmly and one part.

As for this particular situation, hold a referendum among the people in charge of the university for a special case basis.
 
2013-05-03 11:29:35 PM  
Those boxes look pretty fark'in light to have 4,000 of anything in there.
 
2013-05-03 11:30:45 PM  

Thisbymaster: Did you miss the part about the fafsa? The federal student aid form, your helping pay for this crap. Granted it is through loans but not a dime for private orgs that cut people out like this.


It seems they are allowed to exclude 50% of the population. What's the big deal about their excluding another 0.1%?
 
2013-05-03 11:33:14 PM  

WhippingBoy: BarkingUnicorn: What are the reasons for Smith being a women's college?  Basically, to provide an educational environment better tailored to people who think and feel like women.  If that's applicable here, admit this student.

I think and feel women. Sounds like the place for me!


I am a male lesbian

I breathe through my ears

ABCDEFG
 
2013-05-03 11:34:32 PM  

nyrB: How is thinking you're a female when you're really not any different than thinking you're Napolean?


It's not, really. But it's fairly easy to let someone wear a dress and take some hormones; it's a lot harder to give them an army and directions to Moscow.
 
2013-05-03 11:55:21 PM  

profplump: Which is more than 0, which makes it a perfectly valid counter-example to the claim that genetics provides an underlying basis for social distinctions of gender.


99.9% is a pretty good underlying basis.
 
2013-05-04 12:35:21 AM  

serpent_sky: I wonder what would happen if all applications (jobs, schools, etc) were anonymous and stood on their own merits.  Like resumes were considered without names/identifying anything, applications, the same.  People were just accepted on their merits.

I suppose with jobs, you could suss out age and probably even guess gender based on duties and such, but it could be an interesting experiment that would end a lot of this kind of crap. I mean, does the college really care what someone is biologically? Does it, or should it, matter?


Perhaps the feminist, man-hating harpies who attend a womyn-only college would object to there being a penis (whether it be attached to a member of the phallocracy or otherwise) in their dorm room.
 
2013-05-04 1:06:53 AM  

Kinek: the fact that the Human body is not meant to have an odd number of chromosomes.


I'm not a mathematician, but I think 23 is an odd number. You're pretty odd yourself... Are you saying that the human body keeps count of how many cells it has and makes sure the total is never an odd number? Or did you mean individual cells?
 
2013-05-04 1:31:56 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Kinek: the fact that the Human body is not meant to have an odd number of chromosomes.

I'm not a mathematician, but I think 23 is an odd number. You're pretty odd yourself... Are you saying that the human body keeps count of how many cells it has and makes sure the total is never an odd number? Or did you mean individual cells?


23 is the number of pairs of chromosomes...
 
2013-05-04 2:11:21 AM  

karnal: skullkrusher: CrazyCracka420: skullkrusher: CrazyCracka420: So I'm gathering from the article, it's a person born with female parts, but identifies as a man?  Would be a lot easier to follow if they just said if the person has a penis or not.

If they have a vagina, they should be allowed to attend...if they are a man who identifies as a woman, than not so much.

why not?

Because they have a wiener and it's an all girls college...seems kind of self explanatory

but if they dress and live as a female, what's the difference? I don't think Smith College is all women because they don't want to have penises on campus... well officially

DNA testing would solve this.


Not exactly. There was a lady from Australia that lost her medals because despite being biologically female (even had a kid), her DNA was male.
 
2013-05-04 3:55:18 AM  
I think all the emphasis on the physical characteristics of Smith applicants is misplaced.   Smith isn't in business to train students to use their bodies, so physical characteristics are irrelevant as admission criteria.  It is a place for people who plan to function in society as women.
 
2013-05-04 1:22:49 PM  

Bathia_Mapes: Thisbymaster: Bathia_Mapes: Thisbymaster: So transformers are OK but men are still not allowed? And they get federal money in top of that???????????? Sexism exists and this is it.

Smith is a private college, not a public one. Private colleges get their funding through tuition costs, gifts, and donations from alumni and supporters.

Did you miss the part about the fafsa? The federal student aid form, your helping pay for this crap. Granted it is through loans but not a dime for private orgs that cut people out like this.

Yes, I saw that, but Smith doesn't get federal money directly, as would a public college. The federal money is going directly to the students, not the college itself.


It's going to the students for the purpose of getting an education, in this case at a discriminatory institution.  If the student weren't going to school, the federal government wouldn't be handing out that money.  And even for going to school, the feds restrict which schools are eligible to have their students receive student aid.  A college that decided to refuse to admit students of a certain race would be ineligible.  A college that does the same thing because of gender gets a pass.  That should not happen.
 
2013-05-04 2:21:43 PM  
23 is the haploid number of chromosomes.

46 is the number of chromosomes that a normal human cell has.
 
2013-05-04 10:06:15 PM  

Qellaqan: Legally, transgenders should have the status of whatever gender they switch to. It seems to me that Smith should admit this person if the law says they are a woman.


Well, there's the rub. In this case, the student has not actually had a sex change of any sort and therefore is legally a man.  That came out on the FAFSA.  However anyone feels about post-SRS people "really" changing sex or not, this student hasn't even done that, and will not before the time for college is over.  So, no dice. I don't see how this is a controversial decision, given the current rules.

/it's been all over tumblr, of course...
 
2013-05-04 10:21:56 PM  

Dinjiin: What if somebody transitions during preadolescence, going through puberty in their new gender, but lacks the funds in early adulthood for SRS?  In many ways they're going to present more as female than somebody who started transitioning at 18 and happens to have the funds to do SRS at 19.


No SRS, no gender marker change, no Smith.  They can go present as feminine at some other college that isn't restricted to women (legal women).  There are plenty of colleges out there that accept transgender students and even let them use aliases so that the fact they've not legally transitioned is hidden.
 
2013-05-04 11:08:08 PM  
Smith College is a WOMEN ONLY school.

Transgender women DO NOT want to be WOMEN.

Therefore, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. Or let MEN ENROLL as well.

You want your PIE, and to eat it too... (lmao)

And you CAN NOT have surgery to make you another sex. Your chromosomes STILL SAY FEMALE. So no matter what you do, you are still a girl. With a penis. And facial hair. But you are still a girl. Period. Science RULES ALL.
 
Displayed 274 of 274 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.