Rand Paul questions Dr. Rachel Levine on puberty blockers for minors with gender dysphoria

When the question is irrelevant, it is a strawman to project your agenda.

 

do his chromosomes show him a male? Yes they do, thus he is a male. Just because I dress as a parrot and want to be treated as a parrot does not make me a parrot

 

Oh, you did a genetic profile for her? Pretty sure it's a HIPAA violation for you to go blabbing the results around the internet.

 

What was he born? How can someone in a on HIPAA compliant field break it? How is stating someones sex breaking HIPAA?

 

Try reading sec's post again. Maybe look up genotype and phenotype if you need additional context.

 

If Rachel was born a woman she would not be Transgendered.... use your own logic FFS.

 

She was assigned male at birth, based on her genitalia. Like I've mentioned earlier in this thread, some folks with two X chromosomes are nevertheless born with fully functional penises, and some with a Y chromosome are born with vaginas. The science on gender is not as clear-cut <COMMENTS EDITED>

 

She was Born a He based on science... She was not assigned anything... Thanks for calling me a hateful bigot though it shows you are losing any semblance of an arguement.

 

Idiotic. He is a HE. Because HE likes to dress up like a woman doesn't make him one. The guy should be seeking psychiatric help.

 

I was actually refering to folks who have called her "it" and implied she isn't a person, not you. But now I'm reminded of a saying about a guilty dog...

 

In all likelihood she has gotten psychiatric help, along with the medical treatment she's received. Standard therapy for trans individuals includes both mental and physical aspects. Anyway, the only idiocy I see in this thread is all the concern from folks getting themselves worked up about what is or was between another person's legs. Maybe y'all have a good point to make, but it's lost in the pitiful vitriol and hatred.

 

Can a person born with a functional penis impregnate a person born with a functional vagina and ovaries? Science says yes (unless either have abnormalities). The person with the functioning penis might produce more estrogen than testosterone, making them feel lady like, however science states that the person with a functioning penis was born male. A doctor doesn't pull the child from the womb and go "Whelp, it has a penis but I bet he really wants to be a female."

 

Well at least beta male athletes now have a league they can dominate in. So stunning, so brave, totally not clown world.

 

I didn't say anything about functioning ovaries, and you're missing a couple other organs if you think that only a functional penis is necessary from that side of the pregnancy equation.

 

Let me ask you this... If a person born with a functional penis, who then gets sex reassignment surgery to become a women, can that now women give birth to a child? And vice versus?

 

Please explain the relevancy of the question to the topic.

 

It is part of the scientific equation that determines male and female. The hill you seem to want to die on is gender identity and has little to do with what the scientific definition of what sex you were born as.

 

Oh, just read back about 4 pages of you trying to defend gender identity versus everyone else talking about the scientific definition of what defines what sex you were born as. Your gender identity can surely change after you are born, but science dictates what pieces and parts you come out of the womb with.

 

I apologize for not being clear, but I've only been talking about the fluidity of gender identity and how it's different than sex. My arguments about chromosomes and genitalia are only meant to lead people to separating sex from gender, and directed at the folks who brought them up in the first place. If you agree that gender identity can change, then we don't have anything to argue about.

 

Your comment that "no one is talking about gender change surgery for anyone under the age of 18" is a strawman fallacy." The issue at the hearing was would the nominee go on record as being against such surgery. And of course he/she would not go on record with an opinion. By implication therefore, the nominee can be presumed to favor such surgery at least in some cases.

 

That's like saying child abuse is for the parents to ultimately decide.

 

How did you fail to notice that the freak being interviewed refused to state a position on sex change operations for minors? And why do you suppose he/she refused to answer the question?

 

How is someone who was licensed to practice medicine a fake doctor?

 

I see you just want to smear people.