Auntie Tranny Dannie vs Tea-Sipper Libruls

Kuffner's type of people are why Democraps are still behind the curve on culture war battles. Kuff's friend "Ginger in Dallas" does a weekly blog spot for Kuff. Last week, she had this to say at the end:

Last, but not least, a story that made me laugh: somebody put up stickers in the stalls at DFW about so-called electronic genital verification by our only Lt. Governor, Dan Patrick, notorious worrier about trans folks. Reddit has a photo. The phone number to call on the sticker is Dan Patrick’s office. This is not a nice prank, but Dan Patrick’s war on trans kids isn’t nice either.

Setting aside the fact that I don't know — and that Dan Patrick aka Danny Goeb and Ginger both don't and won't make clear — whether we're talking about transgender or transsexual kids, in part because both of the two sides of a non-twosider issue have a vested interest in obscuring fuzzing that, that's why Democrats are behind the curve on the culture wars battle. "This is not a nice prank" is such a boo-hoo, pinky lifted from cup, Libruls from Tea-Sipper Land statement.

Back to the issue at real hand. This non-twosider knows sex is not gender — as does the Biden-era National Institutes of Health — and on would-be sexually transitioning juveniles, knows what the Mayo Clinic says. More here. I doubt Ginger does. 

Note: This is not to say that both transgender and transsexual people don't have certain legal and civil rights. They do. That said, they may not always be the same.

Edit: I'm not alone by any means. Read the thoughts of dual-PhD Massimo Pigliucci (evolutionary biology and philosophy) on this issue, on Part 1 and Part 2 of his Substack.

Per Part 1, I noted:

Big kudos to Massimo for wading into this issue — JUST biological sex, as an “eliminative” position on this issue leads to other issues, like sex-gender entanglement, and that’s the right phraseology as I see it. On the issue of how sex is not gender, I’m very much in agreement with the likes of him and the late Frans de Waal. I’m also in agreement with him that this does not preclude civil or legal rights for transgendering or transsexual individuals. (I presume Massimo separates the two.)

With a follow-up:

Indeed. And, on this issue, I’ve read what the Mayo Clinic says about when Lupron and generic equivalent is indicated AND contraindicated for minors, and other issues. Like possible overuse of antidepressants (cue old friend John Horgan!), we have real medical issues involved. On the political side, as a third-party voter, I’ve seen this cause even more turmoil in the Green Party than with Democrats.

There's that.

Part 2 has some philosophers doubling down on wrongness. On it, I noted:

Cloning does NOT eliminate biological sex! Per Massimo, philosophers who think or claim it does need to stop writing about evolutionary biology. (I’ve seen New Mexico whiptails and other lizards that — at TIMES — reproduce clonally. It’s a selective, evolutionary driven reproductive strategy that, as i know Massimo knows, isn’t always used.)

Indeed. (Cloning, while more commonly used either in the laboratory or to reference plants, is an acceptable definition for "asexual reproduction." On the "selective" issue? Within the various classes of animals, it's only in reptiles, and I presume, amphibians, and birds.)

Massimo deals further with that, in detail of his Part 2:

Last time we began a discussion of a recent paper in the philosophy of biology, authored by Aja Watkins and Marina DiMarco, suggesting that it would be better for biologists to do away with the notion of sex.

Part of their argument was that there are exceptions in the biological world, species for which the concept of sex seems problematic. For instance: “In some shark species, many reptiles, and some birds, egg-producing individuals can reproduce asexually via parthenogenesis. New Mexico whiptail lizards (Aspidoscelis neomexicanus) now only reproduce this way; there are no remaining ‘males.’” (p. 5)

The implication seems to be that these cases are somehow problematic for the gametic view of sex. They aren’t. There are species of birds who have lost the ability to fly (e.g., penguins), which doesn’t negate the broad generalization that birds, usually, are flying vertebrates. Again, in biology exceptions are understood from an evolutionary perspective, within general frameworks provided by concepts like “sex,” “species,” “flying vertebrates,” and so forth.

It paywalls shortly after that, but all of Part 1 is open to the public. 

The idea is that we should take an "eliminative" view of what sex is, and Massimo is showing in detail that's wrong.