Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score 1) 381

That's what sex means in a medical context, though: your equipment. Your doctor is on the short list of people who have a need to care about that, because it's one of the rare places where anatomy matters.

I'm fairly far right on a lot of matters (and just spent a few ammo boxes hunting the elusive wild skeet this weekend). I'm socially liberal in the classic sense, though, in that I don't care what people do if it doesn't affect me. Want to smoke pot? Marry your gay partner? Go by a gender different from your biological sex (or even something totally different)? I couldn't care less. That's between you and your loved ones.

Comment Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score 1, Flamebait) 381

They are not medically or legally different things.

I grew up in a medical family and I've worked in healthcare in various capacities for a couple of decades now. In any organization I've dealt with, "sex" or "biological" sex explicitly refers to your anatomy. That's important because biological males can't get cervical cancer and biological females can't get testicular cancer, for instance. They're the words used on the occasions when anatomy are relevant. Most medical organizations I've been around in the last decade or so distinguish between "sex" and "gender", which is what the patient presents themselves as. Sure, they're most commonly the same value, but they are separate database fields referring to different concepts.

But what you and other extreme liberals

LOL. You presume much, and wrongly. But con/lib aside, I've never encountered a single problem with referring to someone by their gender. The people who care to distinguish between sex and gender appreciate the respect, and understand when medical decisions require healthcare providers to discuss their sex instead. It's easy to be nice to people, so why not do so? It doesn't cost us anything.

Comment Re:Best fucking part (Score 1) 381

Assange's largest immediate problem are that British authorities will grab him if ever tries to leave the Embassy in anything other than a coffin, and then he will doubtless spend some time in a British prison for evading arrest and defying a British court, before being trundled off to Sweden. Now maybe there's some secret deal between Sweden and the United States, but Assange has never actually provided such evidence, despite being a guy who prides himself on knowing all the secrets. From what I can see, the whole point of the conspiracy theory is that Assange needs to preserve his cult of personality by trying to bury his own alleged misconduct in Sweden with grand tales of conspiracy.

Comment Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score 1) 381

Except science studies gender dysphoria and has found some evidence that gender identity is more complex than your simplistic view of things. In other words, your view isn't scientific, it's merely a comfortable fable you tell yourself because you don't want to deal with what science actually has to say. But that's your problem, not Manning's.

Comment Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score 1) 381

The fact is that there are some people here who sit some distance along the autism spectrum, probably more than a few people with Asperger's, who are neurologically wired to view the world in very narrow and rigid ways. They need to define gender in the simplest form possible, it's just the way their brains work. They don't want to see the world as nuanced, it's too hard, and it's just much easier to demand, no matter ludicrously, that the world fit into the confines they are emotionally comfortable with. Stack that group along side the religious nuts for which sexuality is something to be feared, and you have a social movement who insists that if you have a penis or a vagina or XX or XY chromosomes, then that's the beginning and the end, and doubtless where the sex chromosomes don't jive with the external genitalia, I'm sure they'll just insist that that person is a freak.

Comment Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score 1) 381

Because he's a fucking asshole, and wants the whole world to know that he's a fucking asshole. This is the Age of Asshole, where freedom of speech means freedom from consequences, where being rude and demeaning must be celebrated, and where anyone who thinks there should be some decorum is an SJW warrior whose trying to keep the Asshole down!!!!

Except of course we know these brave warriors of assholeishness probably aren't talking to their landlords, loans officers, bosses like that, or their coworkers, or their moms and dads, because if they did, they'd be unemployed and homeless, which is where people who don't have the emotional control or wits to moderate tone and speech often end up.

Comment Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score 2) 381

So decorum and manners are of no value at all to you? You basically feel entitled to be as rude and awful as you please? Well go for it. Yes, the government won't haul your ass into court for being an asshole, but I think you'll find your life will be worse for it. Because of course even someone like you knows there are social rules.

Comment Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score 1) 381

And since the power is so broadly defined, each President must decide their own standard. There may be some some argument that Obama's position on the use of the pardon may amount to something of a constitutional convention surrounding who is eligible for a pardon (I've never made much study of pardons in particular, but I'm assuming some scholars have done the work), but constitutional conventions only apply so long as everyone decides they apply, and since the power of pardon has only one person at a time interpreting it; that is the President himself, Obama is free to abide by his predecessors' views on pardons, or reject it, so long as he doesn't overreach (which, so far as I can tell, would only apply if he attempted to pardon someone who had impeached and convicted). I suppose that means if Nixon had stuck around to be impeached and removed from office, then Ford could not have pardoned him, but because Nixon resigned before the inevitable happened, Ford was able to give him an unlimited blanket pardon, and since so far as I'm aware Nixon broke no state laws (Washington DC not being a state, and basically being under Federal jurisdiction), he had no worry of ever having to face a trial for any crimes he may have committed while in office.

Comment Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score 3, Insightful) 381

What special privilege is Chelsea asking for? She wants to be called by her gender (not biological sex; those are medically and legally different things). She's not asking to go to an all-girls high school or otherwise do anything controversial. In what remote sense does her request harm you in any way?

Comment Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score 1) 381

Indeed. There have been some links found between gender dysphoria and genetics and/or developmental variables - http://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/art...

Now obviously I can't can say if Manning's gender dysphoria (that is believe what she was diagnosed with) has its roots in this, but the "feeling" that some people have of being one gender when their apparent physical gender is the opposite has been known for quite some time. As it is, if someone has gone through some degree of gender reassignment, insisting upon calling them by a pronoun that no longer describes their psychological or physical gender as it stands now seems rather absurd.

Slashdot Top Deals

The absent ones are always at fault.

Working...