Author: blueridgemountain_man

Posted on

Intersex Statistics

“The existence of intersex people proves sex is on a spectrum,” say the Gender Activists. Not true. The vast majority of people labeled by the activists as “intersex” are unambiguously either male or female.

Understanding Intersex Conditions in a Scientific Context

You might have come across statements suggesting that intersex individuals make up 1-2% of the population, equating their prevalence to that of red-haired individuals. This claim has been widely circulated by various human rights organizations, activists, and even some scientists. The primary intention behind this claim is twofold:

  • To normalize the existence of intersex individuals and promote societal acceptance. (good)
  • To challenge traditional understandings of biological sex and suggest that male and female categories are social constructs or exist on a spectrum. (bad)

Origins of the 1.7% Statistic

The 1.7% figure originated from Anne Fausto-Sterling, a professor of biology and gender studies. In her work, she aimed to challenge the idea that human sexual anatomy is strictly dimorphic, meaning that all humans fit neatly into male or female categories. To arrive at the 1.7% figure, she and her colleagues defined an intersex person as someone who deviates from the “Platonic ideal” of physical dimorphism at various levels, including chromosomal, genital, gonadal, or hormonal.

Critique of the 1.7% Statistic

However, this definition has been critiqued for being overly broad. Dr. Leonard Sax, a physician and psychologist, pointed out that many conditions included in the 1.7% statistic, such as Klinefelter syndrome and Turner syndrome, are not considered intersex in a clinically relevant sense. In fact, the majority of the conditions that contribute to the 1.7% figure do not result in any sexual ambiguity.

For instance, late-onset adrenal hyperplasia (LOCAH) makes up a significant portion of this statistic (1.515%). Individuals with LOCAH have typical male or female genitalia at birth that align with their sex chromosomes. Therefore, labeling LOCAH as an intersex condition doesn’t align with common clinical definitions.

From a clinician’s perspective, however, LOCAH is not an intersex condition. The genitalia of these babies are normal at birth, and consonant with their chromosomes: XY males have normal male genitalia, and XX females have normal female genitalia.

Dr. Leonard Sax

A More Precise Definition

When we define intersex conditions more narrowly, as conditions where chromosomal sex doesn’t align with phenotypic sex1Phenotypic sex refers to an individual’s sex as determined by their internal and external genitalia, expression of secondary sex characteristics, and behavior. It is the physical manifestation of sex, as opposed to genotypic sex, which refers to the genetic makeup of an individual. Phenotypic sex can be influenced by developmental processes, hormone treatment, and/or surgery. Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10943/ or where the phenotype isn’t clearly male or female, the prevalence drops significantly. According to Dr. Sax, the true prevalence of intersex, when defined in this clinically relevant manner, is about 0.018%.

The Takeaway

While the prevalence of intersex conditions, as defined in a clinically relevant sense, is relatively low, it’s crucial to understand the rights and treatment of individuals should not be based on their prevalence within a population.

But to use the unfortunate circumstances of 0.018% of the population to justify the belief that “sex is on a spectrum” or that “there are more than two sexes” is clearly a gross mischaracterization of the Truth, scientific or metaphysical.

Pass this info to others. Please.

Click through for more information of the statistics.

Here is my take on DSD’s (Disorders of Sexual Development) which is what an Intersex person has, although not all DSD’s are Intersex.

DSD’s and “Sex Assignment” – Podcast

+++

Posted on

Brinegar Cabin & Billowy Biscuits

The Brinegar Cabin at Doughton Park is an unassuming little structure, a window into a bygone era, a time when life was simpler, and hard.

Brinegar Cabin, Doughton Park

Built by Martin Brinegar in the 1880’s over a three year span, it was made from chestnut logs, sturdy and unpretentious.  It’s a testament to his craftsmanship that the cabin still stands today, albeit with a bit of help from the National Park Service.

Martin and his wife, Caroline, raised their three children in the small cabin. Together they faced the unpredictable nature of the mountains.

Caroline was a woman of many talents. Not only did she manage the household and raise the children, but she was also an accomplished weaver. Visitors to the cabin today can still see her original loom, a contraption of wood and strings that looks more like a medieval torture device than a tool for making cloth. But under Caroline’s skilled hands, that loom was not just a tool; it was a lifeline, a means of survival. She augmented their income by gathering medicinal plants like bloodroot, snakeroot, and black cherry bark and selling them to nearby drug merchants.

Brinegar Garden, Doughton Park

The Brinegars were subsistence farmers, eking out a living from the rocky Appalachian soil. They grew corn, beans, and other staples, like flax and sorghum, and kept a few animals for milk and meat. Life was not easy, but it was honest. Every meal, every piece of cloth, every warm night by the fire was earned.

Today, the Brinegar Cabin stands as a testament to the resilience and ingenuity of the Appalachian people. It’s a place where you can step back in time, feel Martin’s rough-hewn handywork, and imagine the sound of Caroline’s loom or the smell of sorghum syrup on a billowy biscuit.

+++

Brinegar Cabin & Gardens, Doughton Park

More videos of Doughton Park
in the next few days.

+++

Posted on

Parental Rights and Gender Identity Policies in California

Protect Kids California

Let me address a political issue in California that touches on parental rights, gender identity, and the democratic process.

California’s Stance on Gender Identity

Under the leadership of Governor Gavin Newsom, California has been at the forefront of policies that endorse transgender identity. Critics like myself argue that these policies infringe upon parental rights, compromise fairness in women’s sports, and harm the long-term health of children.

Direct Democracy in Action: Ballot Initiatives

In response to these policies, a coalition named “Protect Kids California” has taken a direct approach to challenge them. They’ve filed three ballot initiatives for the November 2024 ballot. These initiatives aim to:

  • Ensure schools notify parents if their children identify as transgender.
  • Prevent biological males from participating in women’s sports and accessing women’s spaces.
  • Prohibit medical professionals from administering experimental drugs or surgeries to minors to affirm a gender identity different from their biological sex.

‘The Advocates’ Perspective

Jonathan Zachreson, a spokesperson for Protect Kids California, emphasizes the importance of parental involvement in children’s lives. He argues that the current legislative approach does not adequately represent the people’s wishes.

Polls suggest that a significant majority of Californians support parental notification in schools and restrictions on medical interventions for minors.

We have legislators and institutions taking advantage of vulnerable children and busy parents. 

Jonathan Zachreson

The Legal Landscape

Recent laws and bills in California have further ignited this debate. For instance:

  • In 2022, Newsom signed SB 107, declaring California a “trans refuge state.” This law allows California courts to reassign custody of children seeking gender-affirming care from other states.
  • The California Senate is considering AB 957, which could label parents as abusive if they don’t affirm their child’s preferred gender identity.
  • The state’s education code allows students to access facilities and programs consistent with their gender identity.

You can read more about AB 957 in this post.

The California Legislature’s Gender Madness

The Ballot Initiatives in Detail

  • Protect Children from Reproductive Harm Act: This initiative aims to protect children from experimental medical interventions related to gender transition. It cites concerns about the FDA’s stance and practices in other countries.
  • School Transparency and Partnership Act: This initiative emphasizes the importance of parental rights, arguing that parents should be informed about significant changes related to their child’s gender identity at school.
  • Protect Girls’ Sports and Spaces Act: This initiative seeks to ensure fairness in women’s sports and maintain the privacy and safety of students in sex-segregated spaces.

The Road Ahead

While these ballot initiatives offer a direct way for Californians to voice their opinions, they face challenges. They need over half a million certified signatures to even appear on the ballot. Additionally, the state’s Democratic attorney general, Rob Bonta, who will draft the title and summary for these initiatives, might oppose them.

This issue underscores the complexities of balancing individual rights, parental rights, and societal norms. Remember, the essence of democracy lies in informed discussions and the active participation of its citizens.

I encourage you all to think critically about these issues, engage in respectful discussions, and always stay informed.

California Senator Scott Wiener, a member of the LGBTQ Caucus, weighs in on Parent’s Rights.

Colin Wright responds.

Most parents agree with Wright.

+++