The Republican Utopia

[Archy1221]

5 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

My relative did not have biological organs developed to produce sperm to fertilize the ova.

 

Not sure what's confusing about that.

So your relative was born without testicles or had undescended testicles? 

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

So your relative was born without testicles or had undescended testicles? 

I don't know what all was developed and what wasn't.  But, he can not produce sperm.  He has 4 amazing adopted children though and is a great father....even though MTG doesn't think so.

[ZRod]

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

https://apnews.com/article/transgender-rights-bathroom-law-kansas-b3d068afa2bc02bb15314ee04e8e3899

 

 

I know women who do not ovulate and they can not get pregnant. 

I also have a relative who is male and can not produce sperm to fertilize the ova.

So....I guess they can use whatever bathroom they want?

What if you're born with both???

[Guy Chamberlin]

Honestly, I've been a bit of a traditionalist on this. There are biological differences between men and women. There are different behavioral tendencies between men and women, and certainly social and cultural difference, mostly based on the ancient division of physical child birth. Nature appears to have built in a solid 8 - 10% of sexual preference and gender anomalies to create plenty of exceptions to the rule, so tolerance applies to all sides of the statistics.

 

As mentioned, I have my own pronoun struggle in my family -- not a big deal, honestly and it's mostly on me. At first I contended there remain a lot of situations where you want to know if the person you're talking to or about to meet identifies as a woman or a man. I got thinking about it some more and thought....why? In what situations do I really need to know someone is a man or a woman before engaging with them?  I came up with "fornication" and not much else. 

[BigRedBuster]

 

[Archy1221]

3 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

I don't know what all was developed and what wasn't.  But, he can not produce sperm.  He has 4 amazing adopted children though and is a great father....even though MTG doesn't think so.

The bill doesn’t care if you can or can’t produce sperm.  And if he was born without testies the bill accounts for those situations.  
 

the bill has nothing to do with adoption. Which is great btw

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

The bill doesn’t care if you can or can’t produce sperm.  And if he was born without testies the bill accounts for those situations.  
 

the bill has nothing to do with adoption. Which is great btw

His body was not developed in a way to fertilize ova.  Does the bill say something different than what is stated here?

 

Quote

The new law declares that females have a reproductive system at birth “developed to produce ova,” while males have one “developed to fertilize the ova.”

 

 

I also know women who can not have babies because they do not ovulate.  Some, never have.  So, they do not produce ova.

[Archy1221]

6 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

10 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

 

His body was not developed in a way to fertilize ova.  Does the bill say something different than what is stated here?

I understand you are just trying to be difficult, or do you not understand the difference between design to and ability to.   
 

 

9 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

I also know women who can not have babies because they do not ovulate.  Some, never have.  So, they do not produce ova

Again, that doesn’t matter.   

[funhusker]

2 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I understand you are just trying to be difficult, or do you not understand the difference between design to and ability to.   
 

 

Again, that doesn’t matter.   

You'd have a point if the bill used that word.  But the word is "developed".

 

 

[funhusker]

1 hour ago, ZRod said:

What if you're born with both???

What we are all missing is that, as far as I know, no child has ever been born with a "developed" reproductive system...

 

No public bathrooms until middle school!!!

[BigRedBuster]

9 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I understand you are just trying to be difficult, or do you not understand the difference between design to and ability to.   
 

 

Again, that doesn’t matter.   

That's not what the bill says.  Or, do you have other wording that you can provide that says that?  Someone that points out how a bad bill is written is, "just trying to be difficult"?

 

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, funhusker said:

You'd have a point if the bill used that word.  But the word is "developed".

 

 

That changes nothing 

[commando]

are they afraid of the students?  

 

 

[ZRod]

2 minutes ago, commando said:

are they afraid of the students?  

 

 

Uh... 1st amendment?

[knapplc]