As a clinical geneticist, Paul James is accustomed to discussing some of the most delicate issues with his patients. But in early 2010, he found himself having a particularly awkward conversation about sex.
A 46-year-old pregnant woman had visited his clinic at the Royal Melbourne Hospital in Australia to hear the results of an amniocentesis test to screen her baby’s chromosomes for abnormalities. The baby was fine—but follow-up tests had revealed something astonishing about the mother. Her body was built of cells from two individuals, probably from twin embryos that had merged in her own mother’s womb. And there was more. One set of cells carried two X chromosomes, the complement that typically makes a person female; the other had an X and a Y. Halfway through her fifth decade and pregnant with her third child, the woman learned for the first time that a large part of her body was chromosomally male. “That’s kind of science-fiction material for someone who just came in for an amniocentesis,” says James.
Sex can be much more complicated than it at first seems. According to the simple scenario, the presence or absence of a Y chromosome is what counts: with it, you are male, and without it, you are female. But doctors have long known that some people straddle the boundary—their sex chromosomes say one thing, but their gonads (ovaries or testes) or sexual anatomy say another. Parents of children with these kinds of conditions—known as intersex conditions, or differences or disorders of sex development (DSDs)—often face difficult decisions about whether to bring up their child as a boy or a girl. Some researchers now say that as many as 1 person in 100 has some form of DSD.
When genetics is taken into consideration, the boundary between the sexes becomes even blurrier. Scientists have identified many of the genes involved in the main forms of DSD, and have uncovered variations in these genes that have subtle effects on a person’s anatomical or physiological sex. What’s more, new technologies in DNA sequencing and cell biology are revealing that almost everyone is, to varying degrees, a patchwork of genetically distinct cells, some with a sex that might not match that of the rest of their body. Some studies even suggest that the sex of each cell drives its behaviour, through a complicated network of molecular interactions. “I think there’s much greater diversity within male or female, and there is certainly an area of overlap where some people can’t easily define themselves within the binary structure,” says John Achermann, who studies sex development and endocrinology at University College London’s Institute of Child Health.
These discoveries do not sit well in a world in which sex is still defined in binary terms. Few legal systems allow for any ambiguity in biological sex, and a person’s legal rights and social status can be heavily influenced by whether their birth certificate says male or female.
“The main problem with a strong dichotomy is that there are intermediate cases that push the limits and ask us to figure out exactly where the dividing line is between males and females,” says Arthur Arnold at the University of California, Los Angeles, who studies biological sex differences. “And that’s often a very difficult problem, because sex can be defined a number of ways.”
THE START OF SEX
That the two sexes are physically different is obvious, but at the start of life, it is not. Five weeks into development, a human embryo has the potential to form both male and female anatomy. Next to the developing kidneys, two bulges known as the gonadal ridges emerge alongside two pairs of ducts, one of which can form the uterus and Fallopian tubes, and the other the male internal genital plumbing: the epididymes, vas deferentia and seminal vesicles. At six weeks, the gonad switches on the developmental pathway to become an ovary or a testis. If a testis develops, it secretes testosterone, which supports the development of the male ducts. It also makes other hormones that force the presumptive uterus and Fallopian tubes to shrink away. If the gonad becomes an ovary, it makes oestrogen, and the lack of testosterone causes the male plumbing to wither. The sex hormones also dictate the development of the external genitalia, and they come into play once more at puberty, triggering the development of secondary sexual characteristics such as breasts or facial hair.
Changes to any of these processes can have dramatic effects on an individual’s sex. Gene mutations affecting gonad development can result in a person with XY chromosomes developing typically female characteristics, whereas alterations in hormone signalling can cause XX individuals to develop along male lines.
For many years, scientists believed that female development was the default programme, and that male development was actively switched on by the presence of a particular gene on the Y chromosome. In 1990, researchers made headlines when they uncovered the identity of this gene, which they called SRY. Just by itself, this gene can switch the gonad from ovarian to testicular development. For example, XX individuals who carry a fragment of the Y chromosome that contains SRY develop as males.
By the turn of the millennium, however, the idea of femaleness being a passive default option had been toppled by the discovery of genes that actively promote ovarian development and suppress the testicular programme—such as one called WNT4. XY individuals with extra copies of this gene can develop atypical genitals and gonads, and a rudimentary uterus and Fallopian tubes. In 2011, researchers showed that if another key ovarian gene, RSPO1, is not working normally, it causes XX people to develop an ovotestis—a gonad with areas of both ovarian and testicular development.
These discoveries have pointed to a complex process of sex determination, in which the identity of the gonad emerges from a contest between two opposing networks of gene activity. Changes in the activity or amounts of molecules (such as WNT4) in the networks can tip the balance towards or away from the sex seemingly spelled out by the chromosomes. “It has been, in a sense, a philosophical change in our way of looking at sex; that it’s a balance,” says Eric Vilain, a clinician and the director of the Center for Gender-Based Biology at the University of California, Los Angeles. “It’s more of a systems-biology view of the world of sex.”
According to some scientists, that balance can shift long after development is over. Studies in mice suggest that the gonad teeters between being male and female throughout life, its identity requiring constant maintenance. In 2009, researchers reported deactivating an ovarian gene called Foxl2 in adult female mice; they found that the granulosa cells that support the development of eggs transformed into Sertoli cells, which support sperm development. Two years later, a separate team showed the opposite: that inactivating a gene called Dmrt1 could turn adult testicular cells into ovarian ones. “That was the big shock, the fact that it was going on post-natally,” says Vincent Harley, a geneticist who studies gonad development at the MIMR-PHI Institute for Medical Research in Melbourne.
The gonad is not the only source of diversity in sex. A number of DSDs are caused by changes in the machinery that responds to hormonal signals from the gonads and other glands. Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, or CAIS, for example, arises when a person’s cells are deaf to male sex hormones, usually because the receptors that respond to the hormones are not working. People with CAIS have Y chromosomes and internal testes, but their external genitalia are female, and they develop as females at puberty.
Conditions such as these meet the medical definition of DSDs, in which an individual’s anatomical sex seems to be at odds with their chromosomal or gonadal sex. But they are rare—affecting about 1 in 4,500 people. Some researchers now say that the definition should be widened to include subtle variations of anatomy such as mild hypospadias, in which a man’s urethral opening is on the underside of his penis rather than at the tip. The most inclusive definitions point to the figure of 1 in 100 people having some form of DSD, says Vilain.
But beyond this, there could be even more variation. Since the 1990s, researchers have identified more than 25 genes involved in DSDs, and next-generation DNA sequencing in the past few years has uncovered a wide range of variations in these genes that have mild effects on individuals, rather than causing DSDs. “Biologically, it’s a spectrum,” says Vilain.
A DSD called congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), for example, causes the body to produce excessive amounts of male sex hormones; XX individuals with this condition are born with ambiguous genitalia (an enlarged clitoris and fused labia that resemble a scrotum). It is usually caused by a severe deficiency in an enzyme called 21-hydroxylase. But women carrying mutations that result in a milder deficiency develop a ‘non-classical’ form of CAH, which affects about 1 in 1,000 individuals; they may have male-like facial and body hair, irregular periods or fertility problems—or they might have no obvious symptoms at all. Another gene, NR5A1, is currently fascinating researchers because variations in it cause a wide range of effects, from underdeveloped gonads to mild hypospadias in men, and premature menopause in women.
Many people never discover their condition unless they seek help for infertility, or discover it through some other brush with medicine. Last year, for example, surgeons reported that they had been operating on a hernia in a man, when they discovered that he had a womb. The man was 70, and had fathered four children.
CELLULAR SEX
Studies of DSDs have shown that sex is no simple dichotomy. But things become even more complex when scientists zoom in to look at individual cells. The common assumption that every cell contains the same set of genes is untrue. Some people have mosaicism: they develop from a single fertilized egg but become a patchwork of cells with different genetic make-ups. This can happen when sex chromosomes are doled out unevenly between dividing cells during early embryonic development. For example, an embryo that starts off as XY can lose a Y chromosome from a subset of its cells. If most cells end up as XY, the result is a physically typical male, but if most cells are X, the result is a female with a condition called Turner’s syndrome, which tends to result in restricted height and underdeveloped ovaries. This kind of mosaicism is rare, affecting about 1 in 15,000 people.
The effects of sex-chromosome mosaicism range from the prosaic to the extraordinary. A few cases have been documented in which a mosaic XXY embryo became a mix of two cell types—some with two X chromosomes and some with two Xs and a Y—and then split early in development. This results in ‘identical’ twins of different sexes.
There is a second way in which a person can end up with cells of different chromosomal sexes. James’s patient was a chimaera: a person who develops from a mixture of two fertilized eggs, usually owing to a merger between embryonic twins in the womb. This kind of chimaerism resulting in a DSD is extremely rare, representing about 1% of all DSD cases.
Another form of chimaerism, however, is now known to be widespread. Termed microchimaerism, it happens when stem cells from a fetus cross the placenta into the mother’s body, and vice versa. It was first identified in the early 1970s—but the big surprise came more than two decades later, when researchers discovered how long these crossover cells survive, even though they are foreign tissue that the body should, in theory, reject. A study in 1996 recorded women with fetal cells in their blood as many as 27 years after giving birth; another found that maternal cells remain in children up to adulthood. This type of work has further blurred the sex divide, because it means that men often carry cells from their mothers, and women who have been pregnant with a male fetus can carry a smattering of its discarded cells.
Microchimaeric cells have been found in many tissues. In 2012, for example, immunologist Lee Nelson and her team at the University of Washington in Seattle found XY cells in post-mortem samples of women’s brains. The oldest woman carrying male DNA was 94 years old. Other studies have shown that these immigrant cells are not idle; they integrate into their new environment and acquire specialized functions, including (in mice at least) forming neurons in the brain. But what is not known is how a peppering of male cells in a female, or vice versa, affects the health or characteristics of a tissue—for example, whether it makes the tissue more susceptible to diseases more common in the opposite sex. “I think that’s a great question,” says Nelson, “and it is essentially entirely unaddressed.” In terms of human behaviour, the consensus is that a few male microchimaeric cells in the brain seem unlikely to have a major effect on a woman.
Scientists are now finding that XX and XY cells behave in different ways, and that this can be independent of the action of sex hormones. “To tell you the truth, it’s actually kind of surprising how big an effect of sex chromosomes we’ve been able to see,” says Arnold. He and his colleagues have shown that the dose of X chromosomes in a mouse’s body can affect its metabolism, and studies in a lab dish suggest that XX and XY cells behave differently on a molecular level, for example with different metabolic responses to stress. The next challenge, says Arnold, is to uncover the mechanisms. His team is studying the handful of X-chromosome genes now known to be more active in females than in males. “I actually think that there are more sex differences than we know of,” says Arnold.
BEYOND THE BINARY
Biologists may have been building a more nuanced view of sex, but society has yet to catch up. True, more than half a century of activism from members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community has softened social attitudes to sexual orientation and gender. Many societies are now comfortable with men and women crossing conventional societal boundaries in their choice of appearance, career and sexual partner. But when it comes to sex, there is still intense social pressure to conform to the binary model.
This pressure has meant that people born with clear DSDs often undergo surgery to ‘normalize’ their genitals. Such surgery is controversial because it is usually performed on babies, who are too young to consent, and risks assigning a sex at odds with the child’s ultimate gender identity—their sense of their own gender. Intersex advocacy groups have therefore argued that doctors and parents should at least wait until a child is old enough to communicate their gender identity, which typically manifests around the age of three, or old enough to decide whether they want surgery at all.
This issue was brought into focus by a lawsuit filed in South Carolina in May 2013 by the adoptive parents of a child known as MC, who was born with ovotesticular DSD, a condition that produces ambiguous genitalia and gonads with both ovarian and testicular tissue. When MC was 16 months old, doctors performed surgery to assign the child as female—but MC, who is now eight years old, went on to develop a male gender identity. Because he was in state care at the time of his treatment, the lawsuit alleged not only that the surgery constituted medical malpractice, but also that the state denied him his constitutional right to bodily integrity and his right to reproduce. Last month, a court decision prevented the federal case from going to trial, but a state case is ongoing.
“This is potentially a critically important decision for children born with intersex traits,” says Julie Greenberg, a specialist in legal issues relating to gender and sex at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, California. The suit will hopefully encourage doctors in the United States to refrain from performing operations on infants with DSDs when there are questions about their medical necessity, she says. It could raise awareness about “the emotional and physical struggles intersex people are forced to endure because doctors wanted to ‘help’ us fit in,” says Georgiann Davis, a sociologist who studies issues surrounding intersex traits and gender at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, who was born with CAIS.
Doctors and scientists are sympathetic to these concerns, but the MC case also makes some uneasy—because they know how much is still to be learned about the biology of sex. They think that changing medical practice by legal ruling is not ideal, and would like to see more data collected on outcomes such as quality of life and sexual function to help decide the best course of action for people with DSDs—something that researchers are starting to do.
Diagnoses of DSDs once relied on hormone tests, anatomical inspections and imaging, followed by painstaking tests of one gene at a time. Now, advances in genetic techniques mean that teams can analyse multiple genes at once, aiming straight for a genetic diagnosis and making the process less stressful for families. Vilain, for example, is using whole-exome sequencing—which sequences the protein-coding regions of a person’s entire genome—on XY people with DSDs. Last year, his team showed that exome sequencing could offer a probable diagnosis in 35% of the study participants whose genetic cause had been unknown.
Vilain, Harley and Achermann say that doctors are taking an increasingly circumspect attitude to genital surgery. Children with DSDs are treated by multidisciplinary teams that aim to tailor management and support to each individual and their family, but this usually involves raising a child as male or female even if no surgery is done. Scientists and advocacy groups mostly agree on this, says Vilain: “It might be difficult for children to be raised in a gender that just does not exist out there.” In most countries, it is legally impossible to be anything but male or female.
Yet if biologists continue to show that sex is a spectrum, then society and state will have to grapple with the consequences, and work out where and how to draw the line. Many transgender and intersex activists dream of a world where a person’s sex or gender is irrelevant. Although some governments are moving in this direction, Greenberg is pessimistic about the prospects of realizing this dream—in the United States, at least. “I think to get rid of gender markers altogether or to allow a third, indeterminate marker, is going to be difficult.”
So if the law requires that a person is male or female, should that sex be assigned by anatomy, hormones, cells or chromosomes, and what should be done if they clash? “My feeling is that since there is not one biological parameter that takes over every other parameter, at the end of the day, gender identity seems to be the most reasonable parameter,” says Vilain. In other words, if you want to know whether someone is male or female, it may be best just to ask.
“So, this administration is standing up for you. And those are words that every American is grateful to hear. But in this case, there’s a caveat.
“‘You’ means trans seniors. Now, wait a second, you may wonder, as you sit down with your family to celebrate the joy of transgenderism on transgender appreciation day, how many trans seniors are there in this country?
“No offense, but the trans thing seems pretty new. And if it’s not new, how come no one had ever heard of it before, say, four years ago?
“And is securing trans rights really the biggest problem that old people in America now face?” – Tucker Carlson, responding to Biden’s message of support yesterday for the Transgender Day Of Visibility.
The man below is a transman. The Republicans want him to use the woman’s public bathrooms. I keep hearing how women are not comfortable with men in the bathroom they use. How about him, do you think women are going to feel comfortable with him walking in if that bothers them? See how the bathroom bills going on birth presentation makes no sense?
Republican lawmaker tweeted about repealing Reedy Creek act after company denounced ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill
Republican lawmaker tweeted about repealing Reedy Creek act after company denounced ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill
ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. – The Reedy Creek Improvement District—created by state lawmakers in 1967—acts as Walt Disney World’s own government with two cities and land in Orange and Osceola counties.
“In effect, they’re their own city out there. They can zone the way they want. They can do things the way they want. They can even build a nuclear power plant if they want,” News 6 political analyst Jim Clark said.
Those rights are now being discussed among some Florida lawmakers who are thinking about repealing the Reedy Creek Improvement Act of 1967.
“I think that this is a feud that is escalating into a war between Florida Republicans and the Disney corporation which is the largest single-site employer in Florida,” Clark said.
The law — which has been the subject of controversy, sparking protests around Walt Disney World after the company did not initially publicly condemn it — bans discussions on sexual identity in Florida classrooms in kindergarten through third grade and requires such conversations to be “age-appropriate” in successive grades, though the law does not define “age-appropriate.”
“For Disney to come out and put a statement and say that the bill should have never passed and that they are going to actively work to repeal it, I think, one was fundamentally dishonest but, two I think that crossed the line,” DeSantis said Tuesday.
This response came a day before Florida House Rep. Spencer Roach tweeted that legislators held two meetings in the past week to discuss repealing the 1967 Reedy Creek Improvement Act.
“Disney has been extremely generous with Republican politicians in Florida. They give about $200,000 a year, including $12,000 to the state representative who is stirring this up,” Clark told News 6. “It would be a disaster for Disney. One of the reasons they came here in the mid-60s was the legislature’s promise that they could have self-government.”
Richard Foglesong, a retired Rollins College political science professor and the author of Married to the Mouse, said he believes talks of revoking the act is just a way of the Republican party showing what they stand for, but no real change will come out of those discussions.
“If you ask me whether it’s politically possible to take these privileges away from the Disney company, I don’t think so,” Foglesong said. “I think that cooler minds will prevail and that this is really a shot across the bow to try to bring the Disney company, Mickey Mouse if you will, into line with Governor DeSantis. I thought it was more of March Madness of the political kind, the thought that the Republican Party, which used to be the party of business, would want to take on of their biggest donors.”
News 6 reached out to Reedy Creek Improvement District and its spokesperson responded they have no comment at this time. A request for an interview with Rep. Spencer Roach was forwarded to his office but they have not yet replied.
Is this part of the cancel culture of the libs that the right wing keeps claiming exists. Because it seems to me the ones doing all the canceling of people is the right / Republican thugs.
The Department of State has reached another milestone in our work to better serve all U.S. citizens, regardless of their gender identity.
In June, I announced that U.S. passport applicants could self-select their gender and were no longer required to submit any medical documentation, even if their selected gender differed from their other citizenship or identity documents.
Starting on April 11, U.S. citizens will be able to select an X as their gender marker on their U.S. passport application, and the option will become available for other forms of documentation next year.
The Department is setting a precedent as the first federal government agency to offer the X gender marker on an identity document.
When we announced in June that we had begun this work, we referred to the addition of a third gender marker for non-binary, intersex, and gender non-conforming individuals.
Since then, we have solicited public feedback through the notice and comment process we undertook to update our passport application forms.
We have also continued to consult with partner countries who have already taken this important step to recognize gender diversity on their passports.
Read the full statement. Notably, this announcement comes on the annual Transgender Day Of Visibility. Now stand by for the screaming.
U.S. citizens will be able to select X as their gender marker on their U.S. passport book starting April 11. As we mark Transgender Day of Visibility, we mark this historic moment at the @StateDept as a meaningful step towards LGBTQI+ inclusivity. #TDOV
So if a doctor doesn’t want to treat colored folk that would be OK. What about the people with red hair because they are icky folk? When does the right of quality healthcare take a back seat to bigotry? Oh yes when it is Christians needed to discriminate so they demand the right to refuse to help / treat a patient in medical need. God before helping the sick and caring for the needy, was that what old Jesus said? See if they are of the right political party and follow your church doctrines before you give medical aid was a verse I never learned was in the bible.
South Carolina lawmakers on Friday passed a bill allowing medical professionals and insurance companies to deny care based on personal belief. Some say the legislation, which now heads to the state Senate for consideration, would disproportionately impact LGBTQ+ people, women, and people of color.
Under the bill, titled the “Medical Ethics and Diversity Act,” South Carolina law would be altered to excuse medical practitioners, health care institutions and health care payers from providing care that violates their “conscience.”
Dozens of state residents in February testified against the bill, calling it vague and overbroad. They also shared concerns that the legislation would disproportionately impact marginalized communities.
HB 4776 allows healthcare institutions to refuse to provide care, even when it is medically necessary and in the best interest of the patient. Under this legislation, healthcare institutions will be able to refuse to refer, teach, and research any items they deem to be against their beliefs.
These bills will impact access to gender-affirming care, contraceptives, HIV medications, fertility care, end of life care, and mental health services, as well as allow insurance companies and employers to refuse to reimburse, pay, or contract for medically necessary services.
Religious freedom is a fundamental American value that is entirely compatible with providing quality, non-discriminatory healthcare. It is not a license to deprive others of their rights simply because of personal beliefs.
This bill sends the message that those seeking medical care in conflict with their doctor’s non-medical values are not equal members of society entitled to dignity and respect.
The South Carolina House passed a bill that would allow medical professionals, healthcare institutions, and insurers to deny access to gender-affirming care, contraceptives, HIV medications and more.
The North Carolina Republican claimed in a podcast that colleagues were using cocaine and inviting him to orgies.
Rep. Madison Cawthorn, R-N.C., speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando, Fla., on Feb. 26, 2021.Octavio Jones / Reuters file
By Zoë Richards
Rep. Madison Cawthorn, R-N.C., broke his silence Friday after days of GOP uproar over his remarks on a podcast claiming congressional colleagues were using drugs and inviting him to sex parties.
But in a lengthy statement, Cawthorn attempted to distance himself from his own comments by suggesting it was Democrats and the media that made the allegations about cocaine use and orgies.
“My comments on a recent podcast appearance calling out corruption have been used by the left and the media to disparage my Republican colleagues and falsely insinuate their involvement in illicit activities,” he said in statement posted to Twitter.
On the podcast, Cawthorn discussed “the sexual perversion that goes on in Washington” and said some of his older colleagues had invited him to orgies.
“I mean, being kind of a young guy in Washington, where the average age is probably 60 to 70, and I look at all these people, a lot of them that I’ve looked up to through my life — I’ve always paid attention to politics — then all of a sudden you get invited,” Cawthorn said, quoting one such alleged exchange.
“‘Oh, hey, we’re going to have kind of a sexual get-together at one of our homes. You should come.’ I’m like, ‘What did you just ask me to come to?’ Then you realize they’re asking you to come to an orgy,” Cawthorn, 26, said.
The first-term lawmaker also described drug use in his presence. “The fact there are some of the people leading on the movement to try and remove addiction in our country, and then you watch them do a key bump of cocaine right in front of you. And you’re like, ‘This is wild.’”
The GOP outrage over Cawthorn’s remarks was widespread in Washington.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said Wednesday he told Cawthorn that “I lost my trust in him” and that there “could be” consequences as a result, without specifying what those consequences might be.
In Friday’s statement, Cawthorn invoked McCarthy’s name.
“The left and the media want to use my words to divide the GOP. They are terrified of Republicans taking back the House and seeing Leader McCarthy become Speaker McCarthy,” Cawthorn said.
His statement was ridiculed by some Democratic lawmakers. Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., tweeted that voters face a choice between “cocaine or competence” in November.
On Thursday, Cawthorn released a 30-second ad targeting Democrats, with an accompanying Twitter post saying “the entire left-wing establishment” was trying to “take him down.” There was no mention of his podcast remarks in the ad.
Cawthorn’s latest controversy came on the heels of other comments that riled his GOP colleagues. After Russian President Vladimir Putin launched a bloody invasion of Ukraine last month, Cawthorn called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy a “thug.”
But Cawthorn has a strong political ally in former President Donald Trump, the party’s de facto leader. Cawthorn spoke at the Jan. 6 rally before the riot at the U.S. Capitol, and he is expected to speak at a rally with Trump next week in North Carolina.
‘The anointment of God’: Rep. Boebert’s July 4 rally speech was filled with Christian nationalism
Right-wing QAnon conspiracy theorist and United States Representative Lauren Boebert (R-Colorado) on Friday asked the Twitter audience to explain to her why the law does not “require” LGBTQ+ Americans to wait until they are 21 years old to come out.
Boebert, a radically socially conservative high-school dropout who supports unfettered access to firearms, drew absurd parallels between LGBTQ+ identity struggles and established legal limitations on who can buy “alcohol beverages” and cigarettes. She also stated that sexuality is a choice, which it is not.
“We require people to be 21 to purchase alcohol beverages, and 21 to purchase tobacco products. Why is it so unreasonable to require people to reach a certain level of maturity before making life-altering decisions about their sexuality and identity?” Boebert posited.
We require people to be 21 to purchase alcohol beverages, and 21 to purchase tobacco products.
Why is it so unreasonable to require people to reach a certain level of maturity before making life-altering decisions about their sexuality and identity?
The brutal responses that Boebert received were probably the opposite of what she had anticipated. Or maybe she just wanted to stir the pot. If so, mission accomplished.
Users tore into the freshman lawmaker’s disjointed bigotry.
Why is it unreasonable to ask people to wear a mask in public during a pandemic?
— Lara reads banned books in Florida📚🇺🇸 (@MadeInTheUSANJ) April 1, 2022
Interesting! Why is it reasonable that 16/17yr olds can acquire semi automatic weapons that could make them a potential mass shooter or mass murderer. They have not reached a certain level of maturity either (some never will) & that is surely a potential life altering choice! https://t.co/TFxBgtGl8b
• Must be 21 to purchase alcohol beverages • Must be 21 to purchase tobacco products • Must be 21 to decide sexuality and identity BUT⬇️ • Can be ANY age with ANY background and can buy ANY type of gun without question
You married a guy who exposed himself to minors. Your decision-making skills haven't improved since then.
Why is it so unreasonable to require representatives to have a certain level of morality before making society altering decisions about anything at all?
— Frank Wears A Mask (@Frankwearsamask) April 1, 2022
The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation is looking into the internationally known televangelist Perry Stone nearly two years after allegations of sexual harassment and assault surfaced against the Cleveland, Tennessee-based faith leader.
The TBI has interviewed at least five people who claim to be victims or who are connected to Stone’s ministry, according to three people who were present for the conversations.
The state’s investigative agency is in possession of a list of at least nine alleged victims as well, according to a recording of a phone conversation obtained by the Chattanooga Times Free Press.
PREVIOUSLY ON JMG: Perry Stone says God personally told him that the COVID pandemic is punishment for the legalization of same-sex marriage. Perry Stone says it’s not a coincidence that God sent the most coronovirus cases to blue states. Perry Stone checks his text messages while speaking in tongues. Perry Stone warns that he will have God strike down those who dare to criticize Trump. Perry Stone declares that the “pro-gay Donkey Party” will bring about the destruction of America.
The TBI has interviewed at least 5 people who claim to be victims or who are connected to Perry Stone's ministry. The state's investigative agency is in possession of a list of at least nine alleged victims as well.https://t.co/vGj3wuQxDQ
The hypocrisy here is painful to see. McConnell has no problem with outright lying and contradicting what he said only a short time ago. He is all about getting, keeping, and increasing the right wing power and control over the Supreme Court. He has admitted that. He said that control of the congress changes frequently back and forth but control of the courts is for decades. He voted for Judge Jackson last year. What has changed? The position she is up for is the top court that right now is approving or disapproving laws based on the outcome they want, not the constitution and legal structure of the US say is correct. Many of the right wingers on the court are getting very old. Thomas was recently in the hospital for an unknown length of time. They don’t want anyone on the court who is not a right wing ideolog.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is putting public and private pressure on Senate Republican colleagues to oppose President Biden’s nominee to the Supreme Court, despite the historic nature of her nomination to be the first Black woman on the court.
McConnell has dug in against Biden’s nominee, arguing the vote isn’t about “race or gender” but about Jackson’s record, which he says is too soft on crime and indicates she’ll likely turn into an activist judge on the bench.
McConnell made an impassioned plea at a recent Senate GOP lunch for his colleagues oppose Biden’s choice, according to senators who attended the meeting.
One Republican senator said McConnell leaned in hard on Jackson’s nomination.
“He sought recognition and said, ‘I just want to thank the members of the Judiciary Committee for the great work they’ve done in exposing this judge’s radical record and in particular her record on child pornography cases are alarmingly extreme,’” the source said, recounting McConnell’s message to the conference.
McConnell talked about Jackson’s record in detail, including her decision to give one offender, Wesley Hawkins, a three-month sentence when federal prosecutors asked for him to be sent to prison for two years.
McConnell said, “I think the Democrats thought this would be an easy process, confirmation but it’s not going to be because she’s a radical nominee and I would hope that every Republican would look seriously at her record, which I think is troubling.”
The message is putting pressure on GOP swing voters such as Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Mitt Romney (Utah) to toe the party line and vote “no.”
Murkowski was present at the meeting where McConnell delivered his comments about the nominee but didn’t say anything. The Alaska Republican who is up for re-election this year and faces a Republican primary challenger also declined to comment about Jackson when asked about it by reporters on Tuesday and Thursday.
Romney says he still has to dig deeper into Jackson’s record before announcing his decision.
He said he “enjoyed” meeting with her Tuesday and said “her dedication to public service and her family are obvious.”
Republican strategists and longtime observers of McConnell’s leadership style say he views a unified Republican vote against Jackson as good politics heading into the midterm election and good for his own standing within the Senate GOP conference, which he plans to lead again in 2023 and 2024.
Scott Jennings, a Kentucky-based GOP strategist who has advised McConnell’s past campaigns, said Biden’s nomination of Jackson “fits into the overall the Democrats are soft on crime and criminals and Republicans aren’t.”
“That is going to be a big narrative in this campaign. You’ve already seen that,” he added. “Any time you can throw another piece of evidence on that, I do think it furthers that narrative.”
Republican aides say Jackson’s record in sentencing child pornography offenders will be a tough one for vulnerable Democrats such as Sens. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) to defend on the campaign trail later this year.
The more Republicans that vote this week for Jackson, the more political cover it gives to Democrats on the campaign trail.
So far, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who represents a state that Biden won by nine points, is the only Republican who has said she will vote to confirm Jackson.
Democrats have pushed back against this criticism. The argue that Republicans have taken Jackson’s sentencing decisions in seven child pornography cases out of context by harping on the fact that she handed out prison terms below what federal prosecutors demanded and below the advisory guidelines.
Democrats say that Jackson is one of many federal judges who view the federal advisory guidelines as out of date and in need of updating since they were established in 2003 with the Protect Act because Internet use became more prevalent.
Al Cross, a professor of journalism at the University of Kentucky and a longtime commentator on Kentucky politics, says McConnell likely sees a good opportunity to stand with some of the rising young conservatives in his conference, such as Sens. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas), with whom he clashed over their efforts to halt the certification of Biden’s election victory on Jan. 6.
“Once Cruz and the others made this a big issue, it gave McConnell and opportunity to practice some solidarity with his caucus,” he said.
“He’s in a difficult position. He’s got to deal with Trumpers, he’s got to keep the caucus together and any time the caucus can find something to essentially agree on, then that’s probably a good thing for his leadership of the caucus,” he added.
Cross noted that McConnell is known to view “the unity of the caucus as a prime directive.”
“I can’t imagine he really believes her judgment in these child porn cases is a disqualifier to be on the Supreme Court but once its been such an issue in conservative media, then it takes on a life of its own,” he said.
McConnell has come out strongly against Jackson in his public statements, as well.
“She has a particularly curious view about certain kinds of criminal behavior, in this particular case, people who distributed child pornography,” McConnell told Fox News’ Shannon Bream. “She’s a judicial activist. She’s very smart, she’s very capable. She’s going to be exactly what President Biden wants: A very liberal Supreme Court justice.
McConnell dismissed the publicly lobbying of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) who has called on his GOP colleagues to recognize “the historic significance of this nomination” and stressed the importance of Abraham Lincoln’s party, “the grand old party” is “on board.”
“The Democrats want to make this confirmation about race or gender. We don’t look at judges that way,” he said. “Most all Republicans believe in what’s called a strict construction, that is judges who make their very best effort as [late] Justice [Antonin] Scalia put it to follow the law.”
Jennings, the GOP strategist who has advised McConnell, said Jackson’s refusal to express her opinion about adding more justices to the Supreme Court was a big red flag for the leader.
“He’s extremely worried about left-wing, progressive attacks on the institution” of the court, he said. “When she would not take the Ginsburg, Breyer line on keeping the Supreme Court at nine, it was as signal to him that she’s pretty beholden to the liberal allies who have been the very people calling for court packing.”
McConnell in recent days has repeatedly raised his concerns about Jackson’s refusal to take the same public stance as late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Stephen Breyer against expanding the court.
This is an interesting review of studies on advantages of trans people in sports. Now the date is old. I noticed it was published in 2016 so there maybe a more modern review but a quick google search did not produce it for me. I have been interested in the medical science of this subject because most of the time it is only dealt with on an emotional level. This article is very long and some times very tedious. So I am only going to post the intro to the review and its summary conclusion. If you want to dig through the data please go to the link above. Thanks.
Whether transgender people should be able to compete in sport in accordance with their gender identity is a widely contested question within the literature and among sport organisations, fellow competitors and spectators. Owing to concerns surrounding transgender people (especially transgender female individuals) having an athletic advantage, several sport organisations place restrictions on transgender competitors (e.g. must have undergone gender-confirming surgery). In addition, some transgender people who engage in sport, both competitively and for leisure, report discrimination and victimisation.
Objective
To the authors’ knowledge, there has been no systematic review of the literature pertaining to sport participation or competitive sport policies in transgender people. Therefore, this review aimed to address this gap in the literature.
Method
Eight research articles and 31 sport policies were reviewed.
Results
In relation to sport-related physical activity, this review found the lack of inclusive and comfortable environments to be the primary barrier to participation for transgender people. This review also found transgender people had a mostly negative experience in competitive sports because of the restrictions the sport’s policy placed on them. The majority of transgender competitive sport policies that were reviewed were not evidence based.
Conclusion
Currently, there is no direct or consistent research suggesting transgender female individuals (or male individuals) have an athletic advantage at any stage of their transition (e.g. cross-sex hormones, gender-confirming surgery) and, therefore, competitive sport policies that place restrictions on transgender people need to be considered and potentially revised.
Keywords: Gender Identity, Sport Participation, Competitive Sport, Sport Organisation, International Olympic Committee
The majority of transgender people have a negative experience when engaging in competitive sports and sport-related physical activity.
There is no direct and consistent research to suggest that transgender female individuals (and transgender male individuals) have an athletic advantage in sport and, therefore, the majority of competitive sport policies are discriminatory against this population.
There are several areas of future research required to significantly improve our knowledge of transgender people’s experiences in sport, inform the development of more inclusive sport policies, and, most importantly, enhance the lives of transgender people, both physically and psychosocially.
1,3 
Scottie's Playtime 