🇳🇱
What is it with conservatives and this "there are only two sexes" nonsense... Are they trying to convince us they arent any smarter than a grade schooler or something. Anyone who has had more than an elementary school education knows full well its not that simple...
@freemo biologically there are only 2 sexes, male and female. If people feel like they identify with certain traits not normally associated with their biological gender, they should be free to.
But it is absurd on its face to attempt to redefine what gender is biologically. Conservatives are pushing back against the attempt to redefine natural law.
@StarAStar No you are confusing Gender and sex.. biologically sex is not as simple as male and female and there are a huge range of bio9logical physical variations (XX, XY, XXY, XYY, XXX, etc etc).. what you describe when it comes to how people identify, thats called gender and is a different topic than what we are discussing, which is sex.
@freemo look. You can get fancy with the chromosomes, lol. But at the end of the day, either you have the ability to father a child, or you have the ability to mother a child. You either run on testosterone or you run on estrogen. No amount of makeup or surgery is going to change your ability.
Its not a rights issue at all to me. It is a logic and truth issue.
I don’t give a crap what people do to themselves. But don’t push your agenda on me trying to change the truth
@StarAStar No matter how much you might want biology to be as simple as a 3rd grade biology lesson it wont be.. There are plenty of men or women, even ones with perfectly common sex expression, who cant give birth to a child.. are you going to seriously tell me a woman who is infertile is suddenly not a woman... Sorry but its not that simple.
these are just people who cant understand anything more complicated than elementary school, so they insist everything must fit their grade school lessons... its just confirmation bias in its most extreme form.
you don't need surgery you need mental help
actually they tried that in the 80s and early 90s and the efficacy of hormone replacement was higher than the efficacy of Bob Hart's "STOP IT!" therapy.
well chromosomes or something.
ok so are XXYs men or women because they come in both variants
ITS ABOUT GETTING PREGGERS DAMN IT
so a woman is only a woman because she ovulates and a sterile woman is a fleshbag.
whatever trans agenda exists is rich people spotlighting them as their latest division measure, all the trans i knew just wanted their dysphoria resolved and to not be axe murdered.
@StarAStar
I agree entierly, but one thing I like to emphasize which you didnt touch on (though your points very important all the same) is this isnt even a transissue alone.. There are a **lot** of intersexed people, born somewhere in the middle on the spectrum who have no desire for surgery or therapy, they just want to live the way they were born, which happens to be intersexed... These people arent trans but they are intersexed.
The spotlight always seems to be on the trans part of it, and thats a big issue so I think its great people bring up that part. But I think the non-trans intersexed community typically gets ignorred and people forget they are a big part of it too. Even the people doing the hating seem to only think about the trans people and forget that its not just about trans.
@StarAStar
So you think they are only attacking biology and sex because its an easy first target and the next step is to convince everyone math is as illigitimate as they claim biology is?
I'm not sure its that calculated or intentional but I can say its usually the same sorts of morons who think all scientists are in on some grand global warming consipracy and some even go so far as to think the earth is flat and all of science is a scam... so .. yea it does seem to be similar circles.
@freemo @icedquinn I haven’t once insulted you, yet you insult at every turn. Unfollowed for inability to converse civily
I wasnt aware I insulted you (though I did insult several people in this conversation)... As far as I'm concerned I have had no reason to insult you and didnt intend to do so at any point, so sorry if it came across that way..
Do what you must though.
>scientific conspiracies i suspect deference and gatekeeping goes a long way. you don’t have to be “in” on anything if you are unknowingly working on the wrong postulates.
@StarAStar@galacticpatrol.masto.host
Yes but its a big leap to go from "some scientists are working on bad theories" ... to "the overwhelming consensus, along with extremely easy to understand proof is just the result of everyone being wrong at the same time".
The fact is things like the earth being flat or global warming being human caused are very trivial things to confirm, there is a lot of science beyond that that is quite difficult, but just proving those two points is so trivial that you just arent going to get much disagreement.
did not inspire confidence.
@icedquinn Well no one is under much obligation to teach anyone else. That is unfortunate of course, but you have to keep in mind scientists like myself usually have a lot of time demanded of us by conspiracy theorists like flat earthers, or the earth is only 4,000 years old or whatever, for the most part climate change deniers often (though not always) arent much different. It would be trivial to step someone through step by step how we can be certain of climate change (as I said the evidence and conclusion is relatively trivial).. The problem is most of the time these people arent there to learn why climate change is true, they are there to argue their side ad infinitum and just waste everyones time, and eventually after however long the debate evolves into "well how can I trust scientists they are paid mooonnniiieeessss".
If you or anyone has a sincere desire to understand why human caused climate change is real, and dont understand how the dots are connected I will always be happy to walk you through it, but if you already come in with your mind made up and without the expertise to validate that, then its likely going to be a waste of my time to try.
>There are a **lot** of intersexed people, born somewhere in the middle on the spectrum
there really aren't that many people with genuine intersex disorders. it's probably less than 1% of the population- but if we believe the libtard media then you'd think everyone falls somewhere on this ambiguous sex and gender scale which is simply not the case.
humans are sexually dimorphic. male or female. some of us have birth defects.
not to discount the very real effect of hormone disrupting toxins in the environment on epigenetics, gene expression and sexual development.
but when people say "a lot" of people are transgender, they're not referring to genuine birth defects. they're referring to mental illness that is exacerbated and encouraged by the globohomo media pushing sexual confusion on children
The estimated number is usually a bit closer to 2%, but depends on what your defining as the criteria, so the percentage is hard to pin down.
With that said 1% is a huge number of people, we are still talking many many millions.
One can of course argue that intersex is a minority of the population and you wouldnt be wrong to do so.. Doesnt change the fact that sex is a spectrum and that these people exist on the spectrum at a point other than its extremes.
Its also important to note that while sex is a spectrum and being truely in the middle is the minority it doesnt make the importance of sex as a spectrum any less. There are males who will be close enough to the male end of the spectrum not be labeled as intersexed but still have some variation and female like qualities in low proportions (for example a lower than normal testosterone level or higher than normal estrogen levels).. We might call them men but recognizing the existance of the spectrum is as important for them as those in the middle.
2% is a very high estimate and probably wrong. estimates are as low as .01% or less
>Doesnt change the fact that sex is a spectrum
birth defects are a spectrum. sex is not a spectrum. the way sexual reproduction works is there are 2 gametes, one from male and female.
2 sets of chromosomes combine, one from the mother and one from the father. under normal circumstances, you have inherited one of each.
anything else is a birth defect.
end of story. it's evolved to be binary.
> 2% is a very high estimate and probably wrong. estimates are as low as .01% or less
No its not an estimate that is likely to be wrong or right, its a matter of definition that can give a pretty large variation on the number.
the 2% figure uses the broadest possible definition of intersex. If that is the definition being used its a perfectly reasonable figure and likely not overestimated at all. The thing is the definition may be too broad to be useful for some contexts, so not that its wrong, just that it doesnt apply to certain conversations. A more narrow definition of intersex can lead to much smaller numbers.
This is in fact a common problem when we talk about labeling things that exist on a spectrum... if we consider the 98% center part of the male-female spectrum as intersex and male and female (non-intersex) being the 1% extremes on either end you are going to get a very different figure than if you divide up that spectrum a very different way.
Its for this reason it isnt even useful to talk about who is or is not intersex, its a spectrum, there is no hard cut off point.
> birth defects are a spectrum. sex is not a spectrum. the way sexual reproduction works is there are 2 gametes, one from male and female.
No thats not at all correct or in line with the science. While sexual reproduction is one aspect of sex, and is one of the many factors that go into to determining how scientists identify and classify sexes, it is actually a much smaller part than you seem to realize.
for example by your definition any animals that happens to be infertile would not have a sex of male or female since they nether produce gametes nor reproduce, this would be wholly false of course and infertility doesnt negate your sex.
Likewise we have all sorts of situations where the animals themselves are sexed on the male-female spectrum yet do not require the opposite sex to procreate at all.
Literally nothing about this statement is true other than a grossly oversimplified grade-school explanation of sex, which is fine for little kids, but we are adults, and you should know better, it certainly doesnt match up with how scientists have always handled sex.
>by your definition any animals that happens to be infertile would not have a sex of male or female since they nether produce gametes nor reproduce
this is absolutely NOT what i said.
i said sex is determined at conception.
it's determined by the combination of chromosomes from gametes, not by *whether* an animal produces gametes
i think you need to just read up on basic mammalian sex determination
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9967/
And that is incorrect.. the genes are of course one aspect that determines sex, it is NOT the only one. The expression (what you physically develop) and your function (how you behave and what you can do) are all aspects of what determines sex, and in fact the more common definition you will find.
also an organism who has been exposed to hormones in utero, that may influence the development of sex characteristics is still one or the other- the inherent sex of the animal is determined at conception.
the expression of sex characteristics can be altered, but that animal is still either male or female, unless there is a chromosomal abnormality, and these are the genuine intersex cases or hemaphrodites
the rest are just male or female with altered gene expression.
None of what you just said is actually true in terms of biology and really never has been.. thats just you trying to fit an already well established concept into your preconception of what it should be..
What you are talking about is one of many sex characteristics, their genes. But they are not (by professional biologists) considered the defacto determinant of sex. In fact genetic expression is generally favored over the genes themselves when it comes to sexing organisms due to the contradictions that arise by looking solely at ones genes.
sex characteristics != sex
sex is determined at conception. gene expression is where you see the variety in expression of sex characteristics.
this in no way invalidates the last few hundred million years of normal sexual dimorphic evolution that brought us where we are today however.
we do have some very real problems now with hormone disrupting environmental toxins that i attribute part of the rise in gender confusion to.
this still doesn't mean sex isn't binary
According to biologists sex characteristics are how sex is determined yes.. saying it isnt so doesnt make it so.
>according to biologists
no. post a source
read the link i posted just a minute ago. it does not say sex characteristics determine sex. it says chromosomes determine sex
genes + expression determine the phenotype
the underlying genetics determines sex
Sure thing I can post a source. In fact I already did earlier in the conversation, it has almost the exact wording I use (reporductive organs, function):
"Either of the two divisions, designated female and male, by which most organisms are classified on the basis of their reproductive organs and functions"
-- The American Heritage Medical Dictionary
Notice the definition says nothing about genetics.
Your link literally disagrees with you and says pretty much exactly what I already said, that sex is determined by your reproductive organs (gonads) and your function.. The image you just posted says exactly that, it is determined byt he gonads.
As we determined earlier the genes is certainly something that determines that, and often goes hand in hand, but it is not the defining quality (as your own image you just pasted states).
READ MORE CAREFULLY
it says determination OF the gonads, not determined BY the gonads
"Primary sex determination is the determination of the gonads. In mammals, primary sex determination is strictly chromosomal "
it doesn't get any more clear than this
primary sex determination is chromosomal
Here is a more nuanced paper that disagrees with what your saying and goes into details about how sex detmination is **not** strictly chromosomal but depends on the **expression** of those genes and thus must consider the entire pathway (literally what I said earlier):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4880855/
It goes into some detail as to how various sexes can and do arise contrary to their genes.
this looks like a very good paper. i saved it to finish reading later
however it deals with the downstream regulatory pathwys of sex develomment and in no way contradicts what i'm saying about primary sex determination
No gonads (sex organs) are primary sex characteristic, your own image says it int he first line.
listen, i should have realized where this was headed so i'm going to duck out now, since you're going to dig your heels in. not sure if you're a native english speaker or not (i'll assume you may not be) but if you read the link i posted more carefully, you'll understand that it means something other than what you think
it means gonads develop as a consequence of the primary sex determination, not they determine primary sex.
re-read it please more carefully
If you're talking about the gender social construct stuff, that's different and it's a social science. It's like saying Intelligence Design should be taught in Biology class and not Social Studies/World Religions class.
If you want to believe in a billion genders, that's fine, but you've now left the realm of biology and entered the world of philosophy.
For the most part, that's fine, whatever. You do you. I don't really care. But where I do care:
* Men destroying women in sports. We split out on biology because it fucking matters. HRT (estrogen specifically) actually increases bone density in MtF, giving them an advantage in some sports over their own natural biology.
* Injecting children with puberty blockers. That's the same as castrating children to make them Castratos. We don't do that any more because it's insane.
* Trans men breast feeding kids. They take hormones to produce milk .. and those hormones are in the milk, being fed to the kid.
No the number is 2% if we use the broadest definition of intersex, small when other definitions are used.
Thre is no specific % however that is "right" since sex is a spectrum, so the percentage is defined wholly by where you place the cutoff. So its a self referential measure that really doesnt help much.
Honestly everything you're saying sounds like what I remember learning in the church about creationism or what you can find in Ken Ham's Creation Museum outside of Cincinnati. It's all voodoo and weird percentages to make a religious case. We literally cannot have rational argument with you about this because it's seriously like talking to the Jesus freak walking around town with a wheel on his cross.
@icedquinn @meowski @StarAStar
Funny, was thinking the same thing about you.. you literally pulled percentages out of your ass twice (mine came from actual numbers published by doctors)... go figure.
@freemo @icedquinn @StarAStar how can you call them intersexed? Doesn’t that imply you are using two standard sexes? Isn’t the phrase intersex itself bigoted to them going by the nonsense guidelines you’ve set?