A Trans EMT Tried To Use His Medical Training To Prove That Sex Is Not Binary

This is the best example of sanity that I have seen in a long time. To most people, it is pretty simple. It is really freeking easy to know the definitions of what a Man and a Woman are.

I do enjoy it when we see these people try to use logic to explain the illogical and of course, the illogical arguments have no standing and make no sense.

This is good.

twitter.com...

a reply to: infolurker

How insulting by the transgender person to say that females that can not get pregnant, are not women

Do they not sense how insulting this is? So a biological, long haired, make up wearing male thinks he has the right to say something like that? And thinks it's helping his cause to be accepted as a woman?

You can't make this # up, really

a reply to: TDDAgain

I work in medical publishing. We had a male patient mistakenly scheduled for both prostate and ovarian consults this week. Either he was intersex or someone messed up (the latter), but there are just things one sex has that the other doesn't.

It used to be science.

a reply to: infolurker

LOLOLOL


Good one

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: TDDAgain

I work in medical publishing. We had a male patient mistakenly scheduled for both prostate and ovarian consults this week. Either he was intersex or someone messed up (the latter), but there are just things one sex has that the other doesn't.

It used to be science.

we traded "science" for "witchcraft". One was just too "absolute". Now we don't need to be so rigid in our definitions.

I seen this the other day. It just shows the delusional thoughts of these trans sex impersonators.

a reply to: infolurker

That was both hilarious and painful to watch. I almost -- almost -- feel sorry for the woefully unprepared EMT.

Joe's right of course. And I very much appreciate his approach to the issue, focusing on the fundamental definitions and objective facts.

I do wish that Matt would take it one step further and drive home that "male" and "female" are entirely dependent on reproductive function (even when deviations or deformities are present), and that only "male" and "female" in combination are capable of reproducing. There is no other sex that can reproduce with either "male" nor "female." Hence, sex is necessarily binary.

Sex is science because it is objective, tangible, observable, and measurable. Gender is NOT science because it is subjective, intangible, unknowable, and immeasurable.

This is how and why an EMT would know without a doubt that a male patient could not be pregnant and therefore could not be miscarrying, and would not waste time to check the patient for that.

We have to force that distinction first and foremost: the objective, tangible, observable, and measurable nature of sex, as opposed to the feelz of Gender woo. And by forcing that distinction, forcing the Trans Activists to acknowledge that truth.

One does wonder how badly corrupted medical training schools are, if people come out with a fundamental misunderstanding of biology.

a reply to: network dude

No, not absolute - It was white supremacy. Get on the right side of history.

originally posted by: paraphi
One does wonder how badly corrupted medical training schools are, if people come out with a fundamental misunderstanding of biology.

I know. This stuff is like the flat earth of medical science.

originally posted by: TDDAgain
a reply to: infolurker

How insulting by the transgender person to say that females that can not get pregnant, are not women

Do they not sense how insulting this is? So a biological, long haired, make up wearing male thinks he has the right to say something like that? And thinks it's helping his cause to be accepted as a woman?

You can't make this # up, really

It is like a full on psychotic mental disorder at this point and it seems to be by design and only getting worse.

Which it is, and I know why because it is written.

I'm never going to laugh about medieval peasants again. Or ignorant Victorians or anyone in history who believed dumb stuff.
It seems to be that a big majority of human kind will always regress and believe the unbelievable.

Even looking through posts on ATS, I see many talking about witchcraft and demonic stuff, when they actually mean nasty human behaviour. In 2023!
It would only take an extraordinary circumstance and we will be a blink away from the mob burning people again because of something their perceived masters tell them. Regardless how absurd.

Covid has brought this all into the open again. How quickly the masses believe the unbelievable.
Now even the so called scientifically or medically minded are regressing to coo-coo lala land. There really is no hope.

Imagine a world full with logical humans. It will never happen. Monkeys we are. Sigh.

Before long, we'll just describe everything like:

"The thing that did the thing for the thing that made the thing do the thing".

That about sums it all up. No more confusion!

a reply to: infolurker

So watched the video, and have read the posts to your OP.

The argument seems to be, basically, that there are only two sexes/genders: male and female. The two terms are often used (incorrectly IMO) interchangeably. The "default" factor used to determine whether a person is male or female, at least as Mr. Walsh in the video (and many of the posts on this thread) is concerned, is the genitalia with which that person was born.


But what happens if, let's say by traumatic accident or injury, a person loses those genitals. For example, a soldier, born with male genitalia, has the misfortune to step on a mine and, among other injuries, suffers a traumatic loss of external genitalia.

Is that soldier still "Male"?

How so, in the context of the "simple" parameters set forth in the video.


One could argue that the poor soldier would still test as a male through his DNA, but then you would have to concede fact that sex/gender is not determined by genitalia; at least not by genitalia alone.

But then it would be necessary to test the DNA of every new person one meets to properly ascertain their "true" sex/gender, wouldn't it? Hardly convenient. And terribly intrusive.

I know I certainly would not be comfortable submitting a sample of my DNA to any stranger who asked for it. How do I know what they're going to do with it? I could wind up being suspected of a crime I didn't commit; or, at least in some shady government/commercial database.


And if genitalia is the determinant, what now is the poor soldier? An "ex-Male"? A "non-Male"?

Good thing we currently have an understanding of DNA so that our soldier can fall back on his XY chromosome status as "proof" of "its" now questionable sex/gender....if a gene sequencer happens to be handy.


So the dilemma seems to be that "gender" entails far more, both physically and psychologically, than merely the "sex" of the genitalia we happen to be born with.

And yet, there seems to be a great deal of resistance to the idea of "Not judging a Book (solely) by its cover".

originally posted by: Timber13
Before long, we'll just describe everything like:

"The thing that did the thing for the thing that made the thing do the thing".

That about sums it all up. No more confusion!

Ummm...but then...the thing...will be offended for being labeled a...thing...and sue the pants off...the other thing...and expose for all the world to see that...a thing...is indeed a thing...or not a thing...

Thing about that is that exposing...the thing...in court...will prolly result in the bailiff having to..."wap" the things...thing...


Gavel drop...

All the worlds a thing...



YouSir

a reply to: YouSir

..and we are merely things!


That's a great point. This changes everything. I guess we should just all agree that we're &#$@'ed!

a reply to: GoShredAK

It's getting worse and worse. And the ones that are homo or bisexual who want to be left alone with LGBTQsth.sth. are the ones that suffer the most from the crazy-ness. Because they still have reputation because they won't drag out their sexual preferences in public but just want to live their live. And know not to rub it under everyones noses constantly and cry for acceptance when actually very very few people really hate on the topic.

Most just want nothing to do with it. But that's not enough for those crazy militant people. They want to enforce acceptance and that is not possible.

a reply to: Mantiss2021

You didn't watch it did you? Mr. Walsh goes into that. That would be the exception that proves the rule.

Humans have two legs. What you're saying is that if you find a human who got one leg blown off by a landmine that suddenly humans have a spectrum of legs, maybe even as many as 100. No. Humans are always intended to have two, even when things go horribly wrong for whatever reason.

originally posted by: Mantiss2021
a reply to: infolurker

But what happens if, let's say by traumatic accident or injury, a person loses those genitals. For example, a soldier, born with male genitalia, has the misfortune to step on a mine and, among other injuries, suffers a traumatic loss of external genitalia.

Is that soldier still "Male"?

Yes. Of course. Obviously.

Next question?

Or rather...

Stop saying stupid stuff.

a reply to: ketsuko
Used to be

Sanity is out the window.