Trans - lost?

Cox told The Hollywood Reporter on Thursday that she feels like "our government is not acknowledging the humanity of trans people, not acknowledging that we are who we say we are."

So, perhaps a little light on that drama is appropriate -

The Trump administration Wednesday revoked federal guidelines issued by former President Barack Obama ... in May ... that allowed public school students to use restrooms and other facilities corresponding to their gender identity.

Now how does that deny the humanity of anyone in light of the following ....

Obama's directive did not "undergo any formal public process" or explain how the directive was "consistent with the express language of Title IX," the federal law outlawing sex discrimination in education and activities.

In English - he wrote it up without any thought or process to its implementation.

Instead, the argument goes ... "This is an issue best solved at the state and local level," Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said. "Schools, communities, and families can find -- and in many cases have found -- solutions that protect all students."

And further - 
"Congress, state legislatures, and local governments are in a position to adopt appropriate policies or laws addressing this issue," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement. "The Department of Justice remains committed to the proper interpretation and enforcement of Title IX and to its protections for all students, including LGBTQ students, from discrimination, bullying, and harassment.”


In a letter to the nation's schools, the Justice and Education departments said the earlier guidance "has given rise to significant litigation regarding school restrooms and locker rooms."

And as for treatment of trans students -

Anti-bullying safeguards would not be affected by the change, according to the letter. "All schools must ensure that all students, including LGBT students, are able to learn and thrive in a safe environment."

So, again, where is the humanity being denied.  And isn't the state, your town where you directly elect a Mayor or City Council or Board for the school, isn't that a very simple and easy place to begin to help all students.

Why does it need to come from the top down, where the top didn't think through before acting.

I really don't believe this is useful, but -

The argument about federal versus states is a very old debate in which over 600,000 men died before this issue was seemingly resolved.   We call that event the Civil War.

Forcing an issue from the top, without any awareness of the implications and consequences on all levels, is not a prudent or responsible action.  Instead, beginning with your local school board members who were elected by fewer than a few thousand votes, you can make a change.  Or your city council who were elected by ten thousand or less votes, or your mayor who really wants another 100-500 votes you could provide if they support your cause.  Or the state legislators who were probably elected by less than a few thousand votes.  That process is easier to work through.  It is localized and with people who know the situation well, in your community, rather than someone far removed with no understanding of anything.

Some businesses, like Apple could provide multiple bathrooms to anyone if they chose, WITHOUT federal guidance.  Local decisions are better left to the people you can most directly affect by your vote.  It works better. In cases where you are the minority, work up the chain to governor.  In the state of California, I am sure the legislature will support any cause or mission and will grant you whatever it is you believe fair.

However, not all states are like that.  In cases such as this, legal requirements rising from actions before the US Supreme Court will provide direction.

Trump's removal of a decision from 10 months ago is not equivalent to dismantling civil rights actions from 1964.  It was simply DIRECTION, not a DEMAND to do.  Get real.

Gender

British couple reveals sex of child they raised as ‘genderless’ for 5 years

January 20, 2012

 NewsCore

SAWSTON, England -- A British couple who raised their child as "gender neutral" in a bid to break free from stereotyping revealed Friday that their five-year-old is a boy.
Beck Laxton and her partner Kieran, from Sawston in central England, referred to their son, Sasha, as "the infant" and dressed the youngster in ambiguous outfits to keep his sex a secret from friends and strangers.

They decided to tell people the child's gender after it became more difficult to conceal when he started pre-school.

Laxton, a 46-year-old web editor, told the Cambridge News of her reasons for raising a "genderless" child.

"I wanted to avoid all that stereotyping," she said. "Stereotypes seem fundamentally stupid. Why would you want to slot people into boxes?"

Even the couple themselves chose not to discover whether Sasha was a boy or a girl until half an hour after his birth -- and in an email announcing the birth they simply told family and friends they "had a baby called Sasha."

"I don't think I'd do it if I thought it was going to make him unhappy, but at the moment he's not really bothered either way," she said. "All I want to do is make people think a bit."

The couple is happy to allow Sasha to wear flowery clothes -- and sent family and friends a Christmas card with a photo of the boy dressed in a pink fairy outfit.

Sasha is encouraged to play with gender-neutral toys in the family's television-free home, Laxton said.

A couple from Toronto hit the headlines in May last year when they refused to reveal the sex of their baby, Storm, as they wanted to raise the child "to be free of societal norms regarding gender."

gender

What Constitutes Beauty: Naomi and Christian ??

World's most beautiful couple: and the figures to prove it


By Roger Dobson
The Independent
Sunday, 11 March 2007


It is the holy grail of the fashion and beauty industries: a scientific blueprint for the most beautiful women, and men, in the world.

Researchers have thrown away the old vital statistics and, instead, focused on how the dimensions of different parts of the body relate to height and body mass index (BMI) to give the perfect physique. Perhaps surprisingly, two of the most important measurements are the girth of the thigh and the slimness of the calf.

The researchers, from the University of Gdansk in Poland, studied the vital statistics of 24 finalists in a national beauty competition, together with those of 115 other women. They said that while weight, height and hip ratio were normally used to assess female attractiveness, these might not throw up crucial differences between the super-attractive and others.

For men, scientists said height, BMI, waist-to-hip and waist-to-chest ratios were key measures.

Super-attractive women had a thigh-to-height ratio some 12 per cent lower than other women, giving them a more slender look. Skinfold tests on the calf showed 15mm of fat compared with 18mm in other women.

The study also showed that the average super-attractive height was 5ft 9in, with the waist 76 per cent of the size of the chest, and 70 per cent of the size of the hips. Models built like Naomi Campbell came closest to the ideal.

"Attractiveness of a woman's body is one of the most important factors in mate selection, and the question what are the physical cues for the assessment of attractiveness is fundamental to evolutionary psychology," said Leszek Pokrywka, who led the study.



Perfect woman: Naomi Campbell

The vital statistics:

Body mass index 20.85
Bust girth to height 49.3%
Waist-chest ratio 1.4
Leg-to-body ratio 1.4
Calf girth to height 19.5%
Height 175cm
Thigh girth to height 29.7

What it all means:

"Super beautiful" women have waists a third smaller than their hips and three-quarters their bust measurement. They have longer legs, and slimmer thighs and calves than the average woman.


Perfect man: Christian Bale

The vital statistics:
Body mass index 26.5
Waist-chest ratio 0.6
Leg-to-body ratio 1
Height 188cm

What it all means:

The physically ideal man is more than 6ft tall, with legs the same length as his upper body. The leg-to-body ratio of 1 makes him appear more muscular, which is why the ideal BMI for men is higher than for women.












beauty

Goodbye MANkind, you proved useful once, but now, an inconvenience at best.  All the wars, anguish, suffering you put the world through - all the machismo, hitting, whacking, kicking, fighting, and otherwise unnecessary physical activity ... your time has come.  The rest of Earth will be just fine without you.  Science has seen to that. 





Out for the count: Why levels of sperm in men are falling



Levels of 'viable' sperm in human males are falling – and scientists believe they now understand the cause. Infertility can begin in the womb, says Steve Connor




Monday, 26 April 2010
The Independent


If scientists from Mars were to study the human male's reproductive system they would probably conclude that he is destined for rapid extinction. Compared to other mammals, humans produce relatively low numbers of viable sperm – sperm capable of making that long competitive swim to penetrate an unfertilised egg.

As many as one in five healthy young men between the ages of 18 and 25 produce abnormal sperm counts. Even the sperm they do produce is often of poor quality. In fact only between 5 and 15 per cent of their sperm is, on average, good enough to be classed as "normal" under strict World Health Organisation rules – and these are young, healthy men. By contrast, more than 90 per cent of the sperm of a domestic bull or ram, or even laboratory rat, are normal.

Human males also suffer a disproportionately high incidence of reproductive problems, from congenital defects and undescended testes to cancer and impotency. As these also affect fertility, it's a minor miracle men are able to sire any children at all. In fact, an increasing number of men are finding themselves childless. Among the one in seven couples now classed as infertile, the "male factor" has been found to be the most commonly identified cause.

Next year marks the 20th anniversary of the WHO conference where a Danish scientist first alerted the world to the fact that Western men are suffering an infertility crisis. Professor Niels Skakkebaek of the University of Copenhagen presented data indicating sperm counts had fallen by about a half over the past 50 years. Sperm counts in the 1940s were typically well above 100m sperm cells per millilitre, but Professor Skakkebaek found they have dropped to an average of about 60m per ml. Other studies found that between 15 and 20 per cent of young men now find themselves with sperm counts of less than 20m per ml, which is technically defined as abnormal. In contrast, a dairy bull has a viable sperm count in the billions.

Experts in human reproductive biology were astonished by the Danish study. The declining trend seemed to indicate that men were on a path to becoming completely infertile within a few generations (although recent studies suggest the fall in sperm counts may have bottomed out). Professor Skakkebaek could offer no explanation for the trend other than to suggest that the fall may have something to do with the equally alarming rise in other reproductive disorders, such as cancer of the testes and cryptorchidism, the incomplete descent of the testes into the scrotum.

Experts began to talk of a new phenomenon affecting the human male, a collection of disorders known as testicular dysgenesis syndrome. They wanted to know what was causing it, because the changes were occurring too quickly to be a result of genetics. It must have something to with changing lifestyles or the environment of men, and almost everything was suggested, from exposure to chemical pollutants to the modern fashion for tight underpants. There is now an emerging consensus among some experts that whatever it is that is exacerbating the problems of male infertility, it probably starts in the womb. It is not the lifestyle of men that is problem, but that of their mothers.

The process of sperm production, called spermatogenesis, starts in adolescence, but the groundwork is laid down in the few months before and immediately after birth. An increasing number of studies point to a crucial "window" of testicular development that begins in the growing foetus and ends in the first six months of life. Interfere with this critical developmental period, and a baby boy will suffer the lifetime consequences of being a suboptimally fertile man.

So are we anywhere nearer to finding an explanation for why are so many more men today are suffering from reproductive problems?

"It's most likely a reflection of the fact that many environmental and lifestyle changes over the past 50 years are inherently detrimental to sperm production," says Professor Richard Sharpe, fertility research expert at the Medical Research Council. "It may be that different factors come together to have a combined effect." A number of studies point to a connection between early development in the womb and male reproductive problems in later life, especially low sperm counts. For example, men whose pregnant mothers were exposed to high levels of toxic dioxins as a result of the 1976 industrial accident in Seveso, Italy have been found to have lower-than-average sperm counts. But men exposed to dioxins in adulthood showed no such effect. Another study found women who ate large amounts of beef during pregnancy, a diet rich in potentially damaging chemicals called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), had sons with relatively low sperm counts. But eating beef as an adult man shows no similar impact.

Meanwhile, studies of migrants between Sweden and Finland, showed that a man's lifetime risk of testicular cancer tends to follow the country he was born in rather than the country where he was brought up. It was his mother's environment when she was pregnant with him, rather than his own as a boy or as an adolescent, that seems to have largely determined a man's risk of testicular cancer.

One of the strongest pieces of evidence in support of this idea comes from studies of people who smoke. A man who smokes typically reduces his sperm count by a modest 15 per cent or so, which is probably reversible if he quits. However, a man whose mother smoked during pregnancy has a fairly dramatic decrease in sperm counts of up to 40 per cent – which also tends to be irreversible.

Professor Sharpe said such findings can be explained by understanding how the first cells of the testes form. Sertoli cells, which in the adult act as guardians for the development of sperm cells, are the very first cells to form from a "genital ridge" of the human male foetus. The number of sperm that can be produced in an adult man is critically dependent on the number of Sertoli cells that develop in his foetus, so anything that interferes with the formation of Sertoli cells in a mother's womb will affect sperm production many years later. "Maternal-lifestyle factors in pregnancy can have quite substantial effects on sperm counts in sons in adulthood, and the most logical mechanism by which this could occur is via reducing the number of Sertoli cells," Professor Sharpe says.

But the key question now is to identify the relevant lifestyle and environmental factors.

This is proving tricky. Obesity, for instance, is a growing problem and it has been linked with reproductive problems in both men and women. One study has also indicated that overweight pregnant women tend to produce sons with poor semen quality. But is it being fat that is the cause, or the environmental chemicals stored in fat?

There has been a lot of interest in chemicals in the environment, especially those that can either mimic female sex hormones – oestrogenic chemicals – or block male sex hormones, specifically testosterone which plays a critical role in stimulating the development of Sertoli cells in the womb. So far, the Seveso study provides the clearest link between human foetal development, low sperm counts and prenatal exposure to an environmental chemical. But the dioxin concentrations from this industrial accident were exceptionally high.

It is more difficult trying to establish a similar, significant link between male reproductive problems and exposure to low concentrations of the many other environmental chemicals that may have weak oestrogenic or androgen-blocking properties, including substances as wide-ranging as pesticides, traffic fumes, plastics and even soya beans. Professor Sharpe says that much of the evidence to date is weak or non-existent.

"Public concern about the adverse effects of environmental chemicals on spermatogenesis in adult men are, in general, not supported by the available data for humans. Where adverse effects of environmental chemicals have been shown, they are usually in an occupational setting rather than applying to the general population," he says.

So although scientists are closing in on the critical window of foetal development in the womb that determines a man's fertility status in later life, they are still not sure about what it is that could be affecting this change in his reproductive status. But one thing is clear, it is his mother who almost certainly holds the key.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
humankind

Girls, Boys, and Uni.

Girls will take up 70 per cent of university places, says new study


A record number of women are attending university, outnumbering men by a bigger margin than ever before, according to new research that says they could account for 70 per cent of student places across the UK by 2025.


By Julie Henry, Education Correspondent
The Telegraph
06 Jun 2009





Despite the mounting evidence of inequality, ministers and education quangos are doing little to address the problem because they are afraid of being accused of favouring boys, according to a major report by the Higher Education Policy Instititue.


Nearly half of young women, 49.2 per cent, are now enrolled in university, compared to just 37.8 per cent of men aged 17 to 30. The figure for white boys from deprived backgrounds is just 6.4 per cent. In 2008, 47,000 more women than men were accepted on to degree courses, up from 28,000 more in 2005.


The gender gap is now bigger than at any time since the 1970s, when men were dominant.
"The gender inequality in university participation now is greater than the reverse inequality over 30 years ago, " said Bahram Bekhradnia, director of the institute and co-author of the report. "But there is a mindset generally that girls are the disadvantaged group not boys. While this might still be true of society as a whole, it is emphatically no longer true in higher education."

University participation rates for women exceeded that of men for the first time in 1992/93 and have increased since. The research also found that women have higher participation rates across all types of university, apart from Oxbridge, where the gender split is equal.

There are more women than men studying all subjects, other than technology, physical sciences, architecture, building and planning, maths and computer science and engineering.

Men are over-represented in subjects that can bring high salaries and if they gain graduate-level jobs, they are, on average, better paid. However women have higher rates in popular fields, such as medicine and law, that can also lead to lucrative careers.

Women gain more first class degrees, while men are more likely to drop out. If they do graduate, men are more likely to be unemployed or in non-graduate jobs.

According to researchers, the university gender gap can be explained in part by underachievement at school, particularly at GCSE.

The study said that the switch from O-levels to GCSEs in 1988 coincided with the start of an attainment gap where girls overtook their male counterparts. Features of the GCSE, such as coursework and the requirement in maths and science to write a narrative to explain a candidate's thinking, rather than just using short proofs, favoured girls.

"Nobody has found an alternative to the introduction of the GCSEs that could plausibly explain the scale, speed and timing of the opening of a large achievement gap, so though we cannot be sure, the introduction of the GCSEs is the most likely cause," the study concluded.

While the nature of the GCSE can explain some of the gap, the study said that the picture in the UK was typical across the developed world. In most countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), women have caught up and overtaken men in university attendance, pointing to increased opportunities for women generally.

But a recent OECD report into the gender gap, quoted in the study, said that the share of females in higher education enrolments in the UK could reach 70 per cent by 2025.


Despite evidence of a growing problem, a "sanguine attitude" prevailed in the UK, said Mr Bekhradnia. The study quoted one Department for Education and Skills document which said: "It could be argued that the widening gender gap does not matter if this advantage either disappears by the time the girl enters the labour market or if it helps to ensure greater equality for women in the labour market."


Similarly a briefing report from the Higher Education Funding Council for England called Boys in to Higher Education, said that while sex inequality was clearly an issue, nothing should be done to imply "we are seeking to reduce the participation of girls or women".


"These remarks reflect the unfamiliarity and nervousness of policy-makers about measures to increase participation by boys," said the study.


A spokesman for Universities UK said: "This is a problem that the sector has been seeking to address for a number of years. We need to look more closely at the reasons why higher numbers of men are withdrawing from the education system.


"This question is one best addressed earlier in the education process. It is widely recognised that the main obstacle to widening access to university is achievement at age 16. Girls' improved performance in examinations has translated into university places."


Phil Willis, the chairman of the universities select committee said there was a risk that the problem of the gender gap could be overplayed.

"Of greater concern are the general numbers applying to the economically vital science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) subjects. There has been a 33 per cent increase in the number of undergraduates in recent years but only a 15 per cent rise in those studying STEM subjects."

*********************************************

Ok feminazis, you have won. According to this study - 70% of students in University in 2025 will be women, which means ... well, we have to sort out the numbers -

50% are female, 50% are male (approximate)

100% of the students in college are male or female

70% will be female, 30% male.

These women who will be leaving college with degrees will go looking for a husband, AT SOME POINT - even the feminazis (mostly) do, at some point ... now, who will these college educated women get married to? The clerk at the gas station? How will that work out.

Feminazis have created this condition along with the educational system dominated by women - in an effort to create greater equality (which it isn't anyway) you will have women who will be unable to find a partner unless they look at 7-11's for potential mates.

The feminazis will say - women do not need to be married to be complete, and that bull is fine - set aside the getting married. How many university educated women want to date, even for one week, someone who has an IQ lower than their shoe size.

feminism