How’s it going in America

[Conchonius]

While I understand the distinction such is not acceptable from a medical professional. I personally do not want my doctor catering to the gender identity language and associated agendas. We all know we are genetically set at conception as XX or XY, Female or male. Females are called women or girls or lady or miss and so on. Males are called boys, men, Mr. gentlemen and such.

Oh, that is not quite the case. There are many cases of men having XX chromosomes, and women with XY chromosomes.

During their early development, our embryos follow a female-ish template by default. Male-associated features require a protein (SRY) to go into the nucleus and "awaken" a set of regulatory genes, which will then go about the business of converting the embryo into a male (SRY and similar proteins are called transcription factors and are extremely important for hereditary diseases, since they control all other genes). SRY is normally encoded in the Y-chromosome, so under ordinary circumstances if you have a Y you're a man, and if you don't you're a woman.

But there are billions of people, and embryonic development is a messy process. Mistakes happen. What if, say, your SRY mutates so that it no longer functions? Well, then you follow the default female path of development, and end up a woman with XY chromosomes (and some developmental defects, as two X chromosomes are in fact needed for some parts of gonadal development). What happens if SRY gets "lost" and transferred to the X chromosome, which is partially identical to Y and recombines with it during meiosis? Well, the embryo in question becomes a man, despite having XX chromosomes.

These cases are usually infertile, but very rarely they can have children - see here, for example. Should we say in these cases that a woman has sired a child, or a man has bore one? Similarly, a related disease involves a defect in the receptor that senses and responds to testosterone, so even though the person is XY and SRY is functional, you end up with an externally (and in rare cases functionally) female individual. If such a person gives birth, can the child go on to kill Macbeth?

However, I generally agree that "can a man give birth?" is a question along the lines of "is a rat bigger than a dog?". Yes, there are cloud-rats in the rainforest and pouched rats in the savanna that grow to be larger than many breeds, but if your child asks such a question you should not be blamed for answering "no".

In addition, the issue of transgender people in sports is a different matter. Leaving aside existential questions about what is and isn't a woman, the influence of pre-transition hormonal development is massive. It's as if you've taken a baby and gave her doping for twenty years before letting her loose into the competition. If we don't allow Russia to produce doped-up babies for the Olympics, we shouldn't allow transgender women either.

(Transgender men, in contrast, should probably be allowed to compete in men's sports as they don't have an unfair advantage).

 

[dogofwar]

Great information!

Before the bans, less than 10 of ~500,000 US collegiate athletes were trans (.002%) and even fewer recent Olympians (.001%).

https://www.sf.gov/trans-women-in-sports-facts-over-fear

Why people spend as much time, energy and money working to keep these these *less than 10 people* from playing games probably says as much about how it's going in the US as anything else.

 

[skjl47]

"cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) would result in roughly 13.7 million people losing their health insurance by 2034."

Hello; From a link posted in this thread today. The link allows that 13.7 million would lose by 2034. That is a span of almost nine years. Not a loss in January of 2026.
Not sure what the point is other than to inflame. The main tenant of my take is that people who truly qualify for Medicaid will not lose the coverage. It is my understanding only those who would not qualify will lose the extra money to help pay for coverage.

I do not argue that some number will lose the subsidy. Those folks were never supposed to get the subsidy in the first place. They were added on during the pandemic by the same legislators who set an end date for the unwarranted subsidy. The program is back to what was normal requirements before the pandemic.

 

[skjl47]

I'm getting the feeling that one poster here, who apparently has a considerable amount of experience with banning, suspension, etc. is manipulating this conversation in a way intended to lure others into a political debate...all the while claiming that he is the one who has suffered mightily due to a double standard in the way that these things are handled here on MFK.

Hello; Go back to the first few posts in this thread. Find the posts which clearly ventured into political debate. It was not me.

 

[skjl47]

Oh, that is not quite the case. There are many cases of men having XX chromosomes, and women with XY chromosomes.

During their early development, our embryos follow a female-ish template by default. Male-associated features require a protein (SRY) to go into the nucleus and "awaken" a set of regulatory genes, which will then go about the business of converting the embryo into a male (SRY and similar proteins are called transcription factors and are extremely important for hereditary diseases, since they control all other genes). SRY is normally encoded in the Y-chromosome, so under ordinary circumstances if you have a Y you're a man, and if you don't you're a woman.

But there are billions of people, and embryonic development is a messy process. Mistakes happen. What if, say, your SRY mutates so that it no longer functions? Well, then you follow the default female path of development, and end up a woman with XY chromosomes (and some developmental defects, as two X chromosomes are in fact needed for some parts of gonadal development). What happens if SRY gets "lost" and transferred to the X chromosome, which is partially identical to Y and recombines with it during meiosis? Well, the embryo in question becomes a man, despite having XX chromosomes.

These cases are usually infertile, but very rarely they can have children - see here, for example. Should we say in these cases that a woman has sired a child, or a man has bore one? Similarly, a related disease involves a defect in the receptor that senses and responds to testosterone, so even though the person is XY and SRY is functional, you end up with an externally (and in rare cases functionally) female individual. If such a person gives birth, can the child go on to kill Macbeth?

However, I generally agree that "can a man give birth?" is a question along the lines of "is a rat bigger than a dog?". Yes, there are cloud-rats in the rainforest and pouched rats in the savanna that grow to be larger than many breeds, but if your child asks such a question you should not be blamed for answering "no".

In addition, the issue of transgender people in sports is a different matter. Leaving aside existential questions about what is and isn't a woman, the influence of pre-transition hormonal development is massive. It's as if you've taken a baby and gave her doping for twenty years before letting her loose into the competition. If we don't allow Russia to produce doped-up babies for the Olympics, we shouldn't allow transgender women either.

(Transgender men, in contrast, should probably be allowed to compete in men's sports as they don't have an unfair advantage).

Hello; true that there are genetic anomalies in a small percentage of embryos. Even a few individuals born with both male & female genitals. It has been my understanding these cases are considered to not be normal but mistakes. Male being XY and female being XX are considered to be normal has been my take.

I also do not think the issue before the court was about such anomalies. As far as I now know the males in question have been normal XY sorts.

I agree with your take that what are called transgender men can play in men's sports. Not only they do not have an advantage over other men, they are in fact men.

 

[dogofwar]

"cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) would result in roughly 13.7 million people losing their health insurance by 2034."

Hello; From a link posted in this thread today. The link allows that 13.7 million would lose by 2034. That is a span of almost nine years. Not a loss in January of 2026.
Not sure what the point is other than to inflame. The main tenant of my take is that people who truly qualify for Medicaid will not lose the coverage. It is my understanding only those who would not qualify will lose the extra money to help pay for coverage.

I do not argue that some number will lose the subsidy. Those folks were never supposed to get the subsidy in the first place. They were added on during the pandemic by the same legislators who set an end date for the unwarranted subsidy. The program is back to what was normal requirements before the pandemic.

1.4 million Americans don't have health insurance in Jan 2026 as a result of ACA price hikes: https://abcnews.go.com/Health/14-million-fewer-people-enrolled-aca-plans-premiums/story?id=129221228

In 2026, an estimated 5 million of the total would lose Medicaid: https://www.rwjf.org/en/insights/ou...medicaid-under-federal-work-requirements.html

How many Australians are losing health insurance this year and over the upcoming years?

 

[skjl47]

Why people spend as much time, energy and money working to keep these these *less than 10 people* from playing games probably says as much about how it's going in the US as anything else.

Hello; The common reasons given the last few years fall into at least two categories. One is the loss of opportunity by biological females in terms of scholarships and titles because biological males have a clear physical advantage.

Another is again the clear physical advantage of biological males has already resulted in injury to biological females. One such case was that a girl on a volleyball team was hit hard enough by a biological male allowed to be on the opposing team so as to have a serious concussion which resulted in ongoing brain damage to the biological girl.

There can be other arguments made on the topic. It took a long time for women to get to have their own sports teams in public schools and in college. I forget which title it is. Maybe title nine. It is just plain unfair and wrong for men to be able to step into women's sports and become swimming or weightlifting champions. We would not allow college athletes play against grade school athletes. Same difference.

 

[skjl47]

1.4 million Americans don't have health insurance in Jan 2026 as a result of ACA price hikes: https://abcnews.go.com/Health/14-million-fewer-people-enrolled-aca-plans-premiums/story?id=129221228

In 2026, an estimated 5 million of the total would lose Medicaid: https://www.rwjf.org/en/insights/ou...medicaid-under-federal-work-requirements.html

How many Australians are losing health insurance this year and over the upcoming years?

Hello; At last something we can agree about. It is my understanding the USA spends more per capita on health care than any other country around the world. Another way to frame it is in total expenditures of the USA are greater than any other country. So yes, in those terms we spend much more than anyone else and get less health care in terms of both actual care as well as insurance coverage. Note I throw in health CARE and not just insurance coverage.

I already pointed out a major flaw in the ACA as it was initially written. The unconstitutional bit which tried to force everyone to buy insurance. Unconstitutional by being struck down by the supreme court. There are other problems with the ACA and in addition with health care in the USA.

To the point. It is not that not enough money is being spent on health care in the USA. It is where the money winds up or rather who winds up getting the bulk of it.

It has been my understanding the health insurance companies pretty much wrote the ACA. That was back some 15 plus years. I do recall the gist of the arguments being made at the time, but the details escape me at the moment. A thing is whatever is bad or good about that ACA is on the shoulders of only one side of the power divide from that time in conjunction with the medical industrial complex.

Briefly about universal health care in other countries such as Australia and the UK among others. Those systems also have their flaws. I dug into such those 15 plus years ago. They are not without very serious issues. I do not know if this still happens but not so long-ago folks from Cannada and other places who could afford to do so would come to the USA for specialized treatments rather than use the "free" healthcare at home. Just a thought.

 

[dogofwar]

The girl was injured in 2022 by someone who "It is not possible to verify ... was trans." : https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/03/12/payton-mcnabb-volleyball-trans/

Let's assume that the girl is among more than 214,000 high school and college female athletes injured while playing volleyball since 2012. The vast majority of these injuries and accidents involve cisgender competitors and teammates. No one is calling for cisgender athletes involved in injuries and accidents to be banned from sports.

At the end of the day, ask yourself: How did *this* become the issue that activates you?

 

[skjl47]

The girl was injured in 2022 by someone who "It is not possible to verify ... was trans." : https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/03/12/payton-mcnabb-volleyball-trans/

Let's assume that the girl is among more than 214,000 high school and college female athletes injured while playing volleyball since 2012. The vast majority of these injuries and accidents involve cisgender competitors and teammates. No one is calling for cisgender athletes involved in injuries and accidents to be banned from sports.

At the end of the day, ask yourself: How did *this* become the issue that activates you?

Hello; Interesting. I do not know if the person was verified. The reports of the time indicated the player was a biological male. I did see the film of the incident. That player was very much larger than the other player. But I am not in a position to prove or disprove either way.

Not clear as to how it changes the fact that overall biological males are physically bigger and stronger that biological females. Such was the point. If I used a flawed example that is my bad, but the facts are not changed.

I reverse the question. How can the issue not trigger anyone? It is wrong for bigger & stronger men to take advantage of women and girls. Humans for perhaps millions of years have worked this out. Men overall look out for women. There are male brutes who do beat up smaller women. I look down on them.