 The topic of gender is not something I should take on, but if I do, consider this an ill-informed attempt. Someone (s) unnamed should do a proper take. Maybe I can just provide some of the back scene. “There are just two genders”, is not really how conversations (disputations?) would have started, except that apparently that is Texas’ official stand. I think it would be more likely to want to counter some adult’s fear that school, or social media, etc, is going to turn, or has turned, their child’s ideas about their gender, or sexual interest in the wrong direction. Maybe there is something in the nerdy part below to help you guide them toward professional consultation and away from blaming others. This essay is mainly about the reasons why we have people who want to transition, not about age of transitioning, or public support of medical procedures. And I would like us to lead people on the sidelines away from stigmatizing others based on gender pigeon holes. It would be best if we could say that gender discussion is best left to the experts. It’s a private affair that society does not need to intrude on. But we are already over that line. How to convince your conversation opponent….. I. This is a “culture war” topic manufactured as a wedge. It would be good if we could just point that out and be done with it. “Can we agree that this is not as important an issue to you, yourself, as other policies that affect your wellbeing, like healthcare, and get on with other topics?” “Uh, OK. So what’s your stand on _______?” Unlikely conversation. For some of my friends, the gender topic triggers a fall-back to religious dogma (OK, I should say the teachings of their religion, their faith.) I want to suggest to them that fundamentalists are essentially saying that God stopped talking way back when people didn’t know much about biology, etc. (A bit more think at the end.) …. But it might be better just to argue that they do everyone harm by trying to impose their private understanding of the world based on faith into the world of others. So, what follows are a couple of nerdy bits which might serve to move a conversation away from stereotypes when you have someone whose feelings have been nudged in a wrong direction. II. Going to school in the late 1950’s - 1960’s, I wasn’t aware that any of my classmates might not be any other than girl-boy. Being called “homo” was a petty bad insult, so it would have been hard for anyone to “come out” (we would have said come out of the closet). And beyond sexual proclivities, would I have known of schoolmates uneasy about their assigned gender? No. Some girls were tomboys, some guys were a little “swishy”, but I was busy with my own interests and gave them little thought. Coming of age these days and dealing with issues connected with sex (that are usually underserved by our parents), it has to be confusing or hard to accept that there are schoolmates who could be unsure or unhappy with their gender, or their perceived gender. (I didn’t have to deal with that confusion at a tender age. I’m glad that whatever exposure I had to history or philosophy or accepting people, I was able to be an accepting adult.) And so, a conversation based on personal exposure… “There are two genders…”
Most of us, as young people, would have thought of the above various types as “not like me”. But they are all like me in most respects: they are people with the same needs as I have (if not more). And as a young person we would have seen each of these as “they are who they are”. I don’t have to be friends with them, so go back to my own thoughts And for us as adults, we can grow that thought, going from “I can’t do anything about it” to “I don’t need to try to do anything about it (unless we are professionals or enlisted to help). Our ethical obligation is to do right by each type of person we find ourself dealing with. OK, so remember I’m talking about different people in general who are not exactly like me, but I’m focused especially on people who differ in one way: because I’m not seeing the person gender-wise they see themselves as. What I have is my confusion, misled by appearances, not their confusion. My ethical obligation is to do right by each type of person I’m dealing with. IV. When I took Genetics in college, we were still mainly concerned with chromosomes. We knew then that there was more than XX and XY. It was known that there were a few people with uncommon sex chromosome configurations: XXY, XYY. And there were hints that hereditary material outside the nucleus could affect various traits. Much more has been learned since then. Biological sex itself is not strictly binary — it’s determined by a combination of chromosomes, hormones, gonads, and secondary sex characteristics, which don’t always align neatly. Intersex people, for example, make up about 1–2% of the population, showing that nature already provides diversity beyond a simple male/female framework. For a graphic that illustrates the possible complexities involved with gender: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/beyond-xx-and-xy-the-extraordinary-complexity-of-sex-determination/ From a FB post June 28, 2025 Rebecca Helm, a biologist and an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina, Asheville US writes: Friendly neighborhood biologist here. I see a lot of people are talking about biological sexes and gender right now. Lots of folks make biological sex sex seem really simple. Well, since it’s so simple, let’s find the biological roots, shall we? Let’s talk about sex...[a thread] If you know a bit about biology you will probably say that biological sex is caused by chromosomes, XX and you’re female, XY and you’re male. This is “chromosomal sex” but is it “biological sex”? Well... Turns out there is only ONE GENE on the Y chromosome that really matters to sex. It’s called the SRY gene. During human embryonic development the SRY protein turns on male-associated genes. Having an SRY gene makes you “genetically male”. But is this “biological sex”? Sometimes that SRY gene pops off the Y chromosome and over to an X chromosome. Surprise! So now you’ve got an X with an SRY and a Y without an SRY. What does this mean? A Y with no SRY means physically you’re female, chromosomally you’re male (XY) and genetically you’re female (no SRY). An X with an SRY means you’re physically male, chromsomally female (XX) and genetically male (SRY). But biological sex is simple! There must be another answer... Sex-related genes ultimately turn on hormones in specifics areas on the body, and reception of those hormones by cells throughout the body. Is this the root of “biological sex”?? “Hormonal male” means you produce ‘normal’ levels of male-associated hormones. Except some percentage of females will have higher levels of ‘male’ hormones than some percentage of males. Ditto ditto ‘female’ hormones. And... ...if you’re developing, your body may not produce enough hormones for your genetic sex. Leading you to be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally non-binary, and physically non-binary. Well, except cells have something to say about this... Maybe cells are the answer to “biological sex”?? Right?? Cells have receptors that “hear” the signal from sex hormones. But sometimes those receptors don’t work. Like a mobile phone that’s on “do not disturb’. Call and cell, they will not answer. What does this all mean? It means you may be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally male/female/non-binary, with cells that may or may not hear the male/female/non-binary call, and all this leading to a body that can be male/non-binary/female. Try out some combinations for yourself. Notice how confusing it gets? Can you point to what the absolute cause of biological sex is? Is it fair to judge people by it? Of course you could try appealing to the numbers. “Most people are either male or female” you say. Except that as a biologist professor I will tell you... The reason I don’t have my students look at their own chromosome in class is because people could learn that their chromosomal sex doesn’t match their physical sex, and learning that in the middle of a 10-point assignment is JUST NOT THE TIME. Biological sex is complicated. Before you discriminate against someone on the basis of “biological sex” & identity, ask yourself: have you seen YOUR chromosomes? Do you know the genes of the people you love? The hormones of the people you work with? The state of their cells? Since the answer will obviously be no, please be kind, respect people’s right to tell you who they are, and remember that you don’t have all the answers. Again: biology is complicated. Kindness and respect don’t have to be. Note: Biological classifications exist. XX, XY, XXY XXYY and all manner of variation which is why sex isn't classified as binary. You can't have a binary classification system with more than two configurations even if two of those configurations are more common than others. Biology is a shitshow. Be kind to people. *************** Back to the impact religion has had on the discussion. We go back to Genesis, a great and eternally problematic book. I think my grandfather may have just been baiting me when he claimed that men had one fewer rib bones than women, because of some words in Genesis, but I wasn’t sure. God created man and woman. OK, that is He created these biological beings that have a tremendously complex inner working that we are still working to understand. And some of that product of omniscient creation has produced results that we discuss here. Also, we speak of God-given talent, etc. Let’s then allow God-given other. Lady GaGa sings: “Baby, I was born this way”. There are some people who worry that the power of exposure to alternative gender ideas leads to young people “deciding” to change genders. I think there is some scholarly debate, nature vs nurture, even on this topic. However, the hearing from people who want to or are in process of “transitioning” leads me to believe that usually the seeds of gender dysphoria are there at the start of life. Have an open mind. Do not close your heart. Other sources: https://www.hrc.org/resources/get-the-facts-on-gender-affirming-care https://www.apa.org/news/press/op-eds/gender-affirming-care https://www.aamc.org/news/what-gender-affirming-care-your-questions-answered A medical reviewer provided some additional comments: One small but important clarification I’d offer is that “gender dysphoria” isn’t quite the same as being transgender or non-binary. It’s a clinical term used to describe the distress someone might feel when their gender identity doesn’t align with their body or the sex they were assigned at birth. Not all trans or non-binary people experience that distress — and many people who do experience it find it resolves or lessens when they can express or live as their true gender. So gender diversity itself isn’t a disorder; the distress sometimes associated with it is what’s recognized medically. The comparison to ADHD, autism, depression, and schizophrenia is understandable as a way to express prevalence, but it can be misleading. Those are neurological or psychiatric conditions, while gender identity is not. The World Health Organization actually moved “gender incongruence” out of the mental-disorder section of its international classification system (ICD-11) in 2019, recognizing that it’s a matter of identity, not pathology. So while “male and female” can describe common biological categories, gender refers to identity, roles, and expression — a social and psychological construct that can vary across cultures and individuals. It’s why the concept of “two genders” doesn’t fully reflect human reality, even though it’s the view most of us grew up with. Today’s science sees gender diversity as a normal part of human variation, not a symptom or trend. The more we learn, the clearer it becomes that supporting people in living authentically is what actually reduces distress, rather than causing it. A search on “biological gender determination” will bring you more aspects of the discussion. Examples: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11771763/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780128159682000098 DABWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.
0 Comments
 Photo by Carol Highsmith, 7/7/2016 Wikipedia defines the H-1B visa as “a classification of non-immigrant visa in the United States that allows U.S. employers to hire foreign workers in specialty occupations, as well as fashion models [fourteen year-olds?], or persons who are engaged in Department of Defense projects who meet certain conditions.” Wikipedia goes on to detail the history, pertinent laws, and usage of the visas. The visas are recently in the news because of an executive order increasing the fee for a specialty occupation visa by bunches, to $100,000. This may be overturned or changed, but that is not my focus. For good or half-baked reasons, I want us to change the script. That the current administration is targeting H-1b visas seems baffling, given that big tech companies are reportedly the biggest users of the program. (Qualifying foreign workers have to be sponsored by an employer, the workers are not given the visa on their own.) The administration wants to support big tech, and some very large campaign donations came from that channel (doesn’t really matter now, does it—the election is over, suckers), so how does that fit? The administration has a basic anti-immigrant focus; we see that side overcoming a pro-industry stand. But that is not the focus of this opinion either. We have benefitted greatly from the contributions of immigrant workers in all fields. I valued my interactions with foreign workers personally. The shift in emphasis I want to take here does not mean I want to diminish that program at all. I just want to say that the impetus for making an H-1b visa worker harder to obtain is a wrong-headed approach to the claimed basic aim of making more jobs available to “Americans”. Where I worked, at a state agency, some of my co-workers were from south Asia, here on a work visa. They came better qualified than other applicants. Some potential applicants from Texas with better qualifications may have not bothered to apply, as they opted to try for better paying positions at a big, private firm. Typically, state and federal agencies, as well as smaller businesses and other tech outfits, are constrained in the salaries they can offer. As an aside, you can get an infusion of new ideas, new ways of looking at a problem, from any new worker, but more so from someone educated in a different system. But, shift focus. Let’s say we want more “Americans” hired in the positions now filled in some proportion by foreign-born workers. (And not to imply that this is an either them or us issue—it can be both.) You can’t achieve good ends by just cutting out foreign workers. If you want to fill tech positions with a higher proportion of local talent, you have to give local talent a chance to acquire the skills to do the work. You can open the tap fully at the sink, but if the valve coming into the house is almost closed, you won’t see a good stream of water. If we don’t have a good pipeline for supply of young talent, cutting out foreign talent won’t help: we just sink. That talented young man riding his bike to his part time barista job could become your future surgeon. But unless one of his professors is insightful and unusually well connected, he’ll never get the chance. No way would he get into medical school with his background and financial ability, even with reasonable good grades. That young woman would like to become an full-on engineer, but looks toward engineering work as an assistant, because she can’t afford the cost of the UT program, even though her math and physics grades would let her in. So, the current administration’s approach to foreign workers is wrong-headed and tainted with the poison that pervades the team. Don’t stop there. We should use this as a lever to advocate for less expensive higher education. In the case of people with medical specialties—doctors—there is great concern. Impacts from the the administration’s bludgeon approach may be severe, especially in rural areas. This is worthy of consideration in itself. Foreign-born doctors have been more open to working in rural areas. Our rural areas have a health crisis. We are headed in the wrong direction. (But how to get people to see that perspective, instead of fuming against a mythical medical conspiracy?) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_visa https://www.aamc.org/news/1-5-us-physicians-was-born-and-educated-abroad-who-are-they-and-what-do-they-contribute In 2021 approx 1 in 5 physicians practicing in the US were born and attended medical school outside the US. “That’s important because the United States is grappling with severe physician shortages. Already, the country lacks more than 17,000 primary care practitioners and more than 8,000 mental health practitioners, for example. By 2034, the U.S. is expected to face a shortfall of as many as 124,000 physicians.” https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/trumps-h-1b-visa-fee-increase-raises-us-doctor-shortage-concerns-2025-09-24/ Summary: Foreign-trained physicians fill 20% of US family medicine posts. There were 5,600 healthcare H-1B visa approvals in 2025. Physician group says higher costs [of H-1b visas] could choke supply of doctors. US faces doctor shortfall of up to 86,000 by 2036 https://www.ktsm.com/news/perez-governor-signs-bill-making-it-simpler-for-foreign-doctors-to-practice-in-texas/ Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has signed House Bill 2038 into law which will allow experienced foreign-trained doctors to practice in Texas without having to repeat a U.S. residency, state Rep. Vince Perez’s office announced in a news release. https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawhitford/2025/06/13/trumps-visa-ban-is-barring-new-foreign-doctors-from-entering-us/ pause on J-1 visas means MD’s from 19 countries are not able to enter the US “One in four pediatric residents in the USA are international medical school graduates, and they are filling those spots in the most underserved communities that American graduates are not even applying to,” says Sebastian Arruarana, a resident physician at the Brookdale University Hospital and Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York, and an advocate for international medical graduates. “If this is not solved, who will take care of our children?”   What Red-bubble Slideshows May Show Us
Cowboy Biker Adventures YouTube Channel, AKA YouTube hates my channel Maybe some of you spend time on YouTube as a diversion, with Happy Bears or Daily Humor or slide shows of vintage photographs or slide shows of….. Well, the format is great for propaganda distribution. Classic propaganda advice is to mix your seditious message or misinformation in with regular news or neutral stuff. In the typical Youtube slide show, you see the image, read the caption, and before you can say “something isn’t right”, here’s the next slide. I decided I’d test how this mixture of real and slanted bits was done on a couple of slide-shows from Cowboy Biker Adventures. (Who is that channel aimed at, based on the name?) Maybe a month ago, “someone close” started viewing this channel, and continued, daily. I had done a short viewing early on, and at that time it looked like a classic mix. So, a few days ago, I laboriously went through one, and then a few others for a representative sample. I often had to stop and start the video to mark my list.* Here are my results. You’ll see that the channel has not bothered to mix message slides into a mostly neutral mix: This is feed for willing viewers. You probably could have told me. I started with a list of categories I expected, and then added to it. That’s why there are blanks. There is obviously some overlap, and I could have marked some slides in a couple of categories, but this is a first pass. My Perspective on the Results There were definitely not as many neutral slides as I expected: These sets do not fit the classic propaganda model, then. If I had known, I might not have carried out the test. But really, it helps to know what people on the other side of the herd are viewing. I think there is a libertarian theme that my marks may not fully show. The anti-big government fits there. Anti Gov. also includes a few hits on the courts and on regulation. The anti-capitalist element that I noticed in two video sets concerned low wages. One of the anti-Dem hits marked some well known names as elitist. Many of the results could be called “us vs them”—take those, throw in some conspiracy theory stuff and some general anti-liberal stuff, and there you go. The conspiracy category is a mix of outright lies, misrepresentation, and hard-to-classify stuff. Anti-science bits and false history stories are common elements. Some of the Christian-category posts give Bible verses to check. Many are just “believe”. None promote Christ-like virtue or behavior. Among ourselves, we share a view of many actions and statements from supposedly Christian representatives as hypocrisy. Why isn’t the outrage at hypocrisy more common in our community? ** What This Means You need to look at some of these yourself, with an analytic eye. I’m not suggesting psychological analysis, but kinda….where do slides reveal feelings we can identify as levers to pry people away from unthinking adherence to the right wing? Here are a few potential points I see from my limited looking: the wage issue, social security, and the elitist label. I had thought to place Christian-ism hypocrisy here, but I’m not sure how to use that as a tool promoting Democratic party aims. There was one slide that caught my eye, saying that the salary of congress members should be changed to the average that social security beneficiaries receive. Maybe this tells us something about the slideshow creator or anticipated audience. Protecting Social Security has been and needs to continue being a big Democratic issue that we bring up, at least with those beyond the we-will-live-forever age. However, for some viewers the slide may just represent the disconnect between the common “us” and governmental “them”. Let’s not let the anger at “the elites”—which may include us educated types—get in our way. Shift it to the rich and wealth inequality. (Is there a notable absence of anger with the wealthy in the slides I looked at? …) The wealth inequality in this country is something we need to harp on. Particularly in Texas, Republicans have sought to protect wealthy donors from having to pay their fair share of taxes. Taxes need be more fair. How many complaints do we hear locally about property tax? “Make taxes fair again” could be a slogan. From the slides I flagged, the main area I think we can exploit is low wages. We can easily move the thinking from the plight of the viewer to how Democrats work to raise wages. And this is not a conceptual issue, nor a strictly national one. We can champion a higher minimum wage for Texans. Where to go from Here What can you do do with this? First, consider investing some time in the exercise of listening to, or viewing, insidious presentations such as these to look for chinks in the armor. Look among the dreck and lies for items that show where we can apply leverage. (Even on Fox? Too much editorial scrutiny.) What do these people tell us about themselves that will help us sell our point of view. Let’s create a list of acupuncture points. Second, out on a limb, we could repackage a slideshow like this, but insert counter messaging. Maybe not just repackaging—these CBA pieces have too much hateful stuff. But with an effort, we could create slideshows with largely fun, neutral slides—just inserting some pictures of mega-yachts, the timeline of minimum wage vs inflation, a headline on Amazon worker abuse, or Cancun Cruz, caught, etc. Maybe some group could put out a Manly-Trad-husband channel. This is not a project I could pull off in a weekend. Ergo, I think CBA represents an effort by more than one guy. I’ll just ask George S. for some funds. How to counter Youtube propaganda? For myself, I need to find some “thing” to give me an entry to discussing, without doing so in a way that threatens my combatant. And I need to follow, not just with facts, but with a story that can lead to facts or at least try for a reset. * If the slide sets are numbered in time order, then someone has edited older ones to bring in new material, I think. ** One wonders if pastors are afraid of being labeled as “Woke” by their congregations, and so not dwelling on teachings relevant to current happenings. Something I read made the point that some churches seem to be preaching a myth of Christian America more than moral lessons from the bible. P.S. This was written in July. I checked a few videos, late August, specifically looking for an uptick in number of anti-immigrant images. I figured I could index the number to the number of neutral images. I did not find more on immigrants. I did find more hits to current Democrats in the news, like Adam Schiff. And more tangential scripture quotations. |
Archives
October 2025
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed