🇳🇱
Funny, you've literally been tagging me and directly addressing me for 24 hours even when you knew i couldnt see it.. but now all of a sudden your going to act like you havent been swinging on my dick for 24 hours... HAHAHAHA have fun with that, at least someone is acknowledging you exist, must make you feel good... back to mute for you.
Of course not, there was never a point where I had a conversations with anyone where I was trying to assert a fact.
Literally the only time there was a disagreement in the thread it was a person who jumped in with "retard" and "homo" and immediately set the stage for me have no interest in engaging them. Why would I have have to present data or facts when I havent actually argued any points, the discussions I have have mostly been in agreement or about things neither side had data on so was speculative.
What discussion did I engage in in this thread that even needed data, cant recall one.
I dont particularly care if you call me one, it just means you have no value or worth in a discussion if you do. More your problem than mine.
alright whatever, but there was actually a topic in this thread. you just missed it cause you got defensive
Wouldnt be the first time I missed a topic. I'm ok missing the occasional topic if it means I'm not listening to people making noise and wasting my time thats find by me.
The thing about doing actual science/engineering is that I've got some pretty cool stuff to work onmost of the time. So im more likely to feel i missed out wasting time on some person making noise and saying nothing insightful or useful rather than actually **doing** science. a good conversation with value and some mutual respect (or atleast productivity and meaningful exchange) might be worth a few minutes away from my projects.
All about priorities. I'd rather be doing science than arguing with people with a low SNR (signal to noise ratio).
I'm not sure if your able to engage in a productive way on that discussion, but if you want to try I dont mind giving it a second go (I'm all for giving people or interactions a second chance).
It would be more accurately described as a bimodal continuous distribution with low variance where the male and female points would be at the two modes of the bimodal distribution.
Youll have to be specific about the article, I only recall one off topic one that was limited to only primary sex determination and not sex as a whole. Could have been muted when you shared it though.
As for calling it continuous.. sounds like you are thinking of uniform, a continuous function is not related to a uniform function.
continuous distrubution is just an elaborate way of saying it's not binary, aka the gender spectrum except you're even going so far as calling sex a spectrum. even most progressive don't go this far. it's polarized with birth defects of sex occurring at around .01% frequency so calling this a distribution is a stretch
mammals are not more or less male or female. that's not how sex works. it's either/or. nearly every one of 7 billion people on this planet including you are here because a male and female mated.
Your numbers arent in line at all with those given by medical doctors or experts, personal expiernce or anything else I know.. not even **close** to 0.01% even in the most conservative accepted numbers (which admitidly there is a range since there is no hard line where intersex starts)..
calling intersex a birth defect is fine and all but it really adds nothing to the conversation or to the fact that it is intersexed whether you want to call it a birth defect or not.
your mostly relying on word play by the looks of it to fabricate new numbers you like better.
You are welcome to repost it if youd like.. but even if you happen to have one article that supports a 0.01% intersex figure that would at best make it an exception to the body of literature and wouldnt solve the problem that intersex is not defined as a hard line and thus cant be given any one definitive figure, it just depends on where a particular study decides to define the line for its data nothing more.
Thats the problem with continuous distributions in general.. its like saying "how many water samples were hot".. well each study might defne hot as having a different temperature threshold and thus get different values because "hot" much like "intersex" doesnt have a strictly defined point where that line is being crossed and as such it must be defined on a per-study basis.
but again, share the peer-reviewed study if you wish I dont mind looking.
not sure why it's so difficult for you to scroll up in the thread but here you go: i'm sure you'll come back with another appeal to authority but hey, at least i tried
https://colinwright.substack.com/p/intersex-is-not-as-common-as-red
I Read it, the issue isnt appeal to authority, the issue is that the hundreds if not thousands of peer reviewed studies that disagree with him were done with more rigour, more detail, and make a far more
convincing case.
I already covered this with before reading the article but for starters, as an example, he is focusing on **only** the most fringe value. Intersexed figured published are hardly consistently published at 1.7%, it caries with the metric used for intersex which has to be arbitrary because of the fact that sex is a continuous distribution and not discrete, you set. So right off the bat it goes with the lowest hanging fruit, which really does nothing to progress the argument. Just as there is no temperature that strictly draws the line between hot and not-hot there is no line where we could state something is or isnt intersex. The absurdity with this author is to think that they can even claim "that is not intersex" at al, spectrums dont work that way.
In short he literally assumes his own particular fantasy, contrary to the generally accepted science, is correct, and that sex is discrete, and then argues that backwards to show why intersex figures cant be valid.
The next thing we should do if we are even to consider his opinion at all is look at has this guy actually accomplished anything in the field. We construct these ideas because they are useful in the field, not for schmucks to argue arbitrarily why their prejudices must be true.. So biologists who have actually advanced biology in some way in the past through discovery or the creation of systems that are efficacious to an ends obviously are going to create frameworks (which is what we are really doing here) that are useful to society, people who dont are just hot air.
When reviewing Colin Wrights history he doesn't seem to actually work as a biologist at all.. he spends all his time as an arm-chair biologist.. talking, and trying to sell fringe ideas, usually around some prejudice, and doing nothing to show how they are useful in the field, applying it, or doing any research of any kind. In short, his credentials and accomplishments dont lend him much credibility compared to the existing frameworks scientist who actually apply it to doing science are coming up with. This further shows his unique w2ay of thinking is little more than mental masterbation.
what a gigantic waste of time even attempting to reason with someone like this
The core is that freemo is _required_ to hold certain quasi-religious beliefs and is not allowed to think critically on the topic. No discussion of gender identity can be conducted so it must become a demonstration of their refusal to talk about it. Now for their benefit, or to convince them, but to make a show.
sexual development disorders do interest me though. call them intersex or whatever you want, but this sort of stuff is neat when you actually look at the biology
having an open mind about the influence of hormones on behavior and mental illness isn't really conflating. that's just recognizing that hormones do drive behavior to a large extent
snip
I originally write this as "there is no objective criteria for gender dysphoria" but then I realized gender dysphoria is not required for self-identification.
most psychiatric disorders are this way. they just check boxes on a list and that's how you're diagnosed.
i'm not a fan of this sort of medicine or science. if it's not reproducible and can't be tested i have severe doubts about the legitimacy
however i still won't discount some hormonal influence. may or may not be there- i haven't done much research to see if clinical studies have been done on testing hormone activity in self-identified transgenders
that would probably be a thing to look into
there is an overlap between biomale and biofem but the transwomen were more likely to be in the female-only sector.
maybe there is some way to measure how feminine a penis is .... ?
it's not very nice to take advantage of someone's delusions and encourage them to make life-altering bad decisions. the psych industry does this for more than just trangenders
oh no it turns out being a woman sucks i don't automatically cum buckets looking at myselfso yeah they added a lot of stonewalling requirements. and in more recent years schizophrenia screening is part of it.
So much for "my body my choice".. if someone makes a choice they regret (and im sure thats common) that should be up to them IMO
Yea agreed, im not suggesting they just hand it out like candy... I think its reasonable that the doctor spend some time pressing the point that it is risky and irreversable, as well as making sure the patient is of sound mind.. but the current process seems a bit much.. i dunno i could go either way.. as long as the patient in the end gets the choice I guess.
@meowski @crunklord420 @fluffy @SystemSock
Well there is certainly a double standard, and we covered some of that from a different angle earlier. That double standard should be resolved. I tend to lean towards deregulation, warn the patient, strongly press them to not jump into it, but in the end the patient makes the call.
waddle doesn't have any safeguards. they definitely do just give you the drugs at those clinics because you say "i want boobas."
@meowski @crunklord420 @fluffy @SystemSock