CNN - "it's not possible to know a person's gender identity at birth, and there is no consensus criteria for assigning sex at birth." Hey CNN, the presence of a pee-pee on the little one can tell sex 98.98% of the time...

submitted by BEB from (edition.cnn.com)

all 6 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]GConly 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

99.98%.

[–]BEB[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

OP here - sorry - I typed the figure wrong - you are correct that it's possible to sex an infant by their genitals, even if abnormal, 99.98% of the time.

[–]GConly 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Figured, so easy to put in a typo.

My autocorrect drives me mad at times.

[–]JoeyJoeJoe 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I can no longer abide anyone using the term "assigned" in this context. It's a weaponised word and part of Newspeak. I refuse to participate in this collective delusion.

Also I wonder if it's possible to substitute "anti-trans" to "protecting kids" and be accurate most of the time?

[–]BEB[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You could also substitute "anti-trans" for "pro-women" and be accurate most of the time now.

[–]JoeyJoeJoe 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I can no longer abide anyone using the term "assigned" in this context. It's a weaponised word and part of Newspeak. I refuse to participate in this collective delusion.