Current Affairs Free Speech

[Tubey]

You've finally gone full glinner.

And again, you've got nothing, so just a 'witty' remark.

Got it.

Yay for debate.

 

[dead_soft]

Ah, so you have nothing, so decided to make a 'witty' remark, but in a way barely understandable.

Got it.

This is amazing.

 

[coollino]

And again, you've got nothing, so just a 'witty' remark.

Got it.

Yay for debate.

Well it tends to be more you talking at people.

 

[TommyDavo]

This is amazing.

If you think so then you have a very shallow life.. get away from the keyboard and live a little

 

[LEONARD]

When I read modern British history at University, the theory of a post WW2 'liberal consensus' seemed to be generally accepted.

Thatcher ripped that all up, and today the country, as the Brexit divide demonstrated, has never been more split.

It's all very sad.

 

[dead_soft]

If you think so then you have a very shallow life.. get away from the keyboard and live a little

That’s a bit mean

 

[TommyDavo]

That’s a bit mean

Sorry won’t lie, while I trust your intentions and I know you won’t lke it but us ordinary everyday people do get peed off being tarnished with the same brush

 

[dead_soft]

Sorry

We’re all friends here, so no upset caused

 

[TommyDavo]

We’re all friends here, so no upset caused

Edited but don’t think it changes much

 

[dead_soft]

Edited but don’t think it changes much

I’m not sure I had a go at any ‘ordinary’ people or tarred anyone with a brush there. Also not sure why I don’t get to be classed as an ‘ordinary’ person?

 

[TommyDavo]

I’m not sure I had a go at any ‘ordinary’ people or tarred anyone with a brush there. Also not sure why I don’t get to be classed as an ‘ordinary’ person?

Fair enough, can we extend the little fingers

 

[dead_soft]

Fair enough, can we extend the little fingers

Little pinky swear?

 

[Hickson9]

No apparently it's some school in Pimlico.

Pimlico Academy: Headteacher backs down over ‘racist’ uniform policy

The school’s principal Daniel Smith also told parents the school would stop flying the Union flag, subject to a review

www.standard.co.uk

Utter madness, and slowly the term 'racist' is losing any currency at all.

Our nation's flag is also now deemed to be a manifestation of evil.

See you all in the asylum.

Or maybe, we can just listen to the concerns of these kids of colour who feel repressed, without getting angry and insecure.

They go to school on a street that literally has council flats on one side and the beautiful multi million pound white Chelsea buildings on the other.

Nowhere else in the country throws inequality in your face like London.

 

[verreauxi]

Societally they identify as women. Genetically, they are not. So the zero sum sentence of "trans women are women" isn't accurate.

But I'm really not going into this again.

@Brett Angell Delight For context, the issue here is that Tubey firmly believes that it is exclusively the presence/absence of a Y-chromosome that makes you male/female, nothing else. I disagree because the clinical literature on sex determination/differentiation talks about multiple biological levels where one can define sex: chromosomal, gonadal, hormonal, anatomical--it is not the exclusive presence/absence of the Y-chromosome. Tubey doesn't agree. For example, in the picture below of the two karyotypes, the karyotype on the left would be classified as male, according to Tubey, due to the presence of the Y chromosome and no other criteria (i.e., anatomical, gonadal, hormonal) come into play (sex chromosomes are circled in red). The karyotype on the right would be classified as female, according to Tubey, by the absence of a Y chromosome (or presence of two XX chromosomes) and no other criteria (i.e., anatomical, gonadal, hormonal) come into play.

So Tubey claims that male/female sex is only and exclusively defined by the presence/absence of a Y chromosome (i.e., sex is only defined chromosomally).
I claim that male/female sex can be defined chromosomally, gonadally, hormonally, anatomically. I can't find any studies from clinical/scientific journals that support Tubey's view, but I can find plenty that support mine.

 

[Tubey]

@Brett Angell Delight For context, the issue here is that Tubey firmly believes that it is exclusively the presence/absence of a Y-chromosome that makes you male/female, nothing else. I disagree because the clinical literature on sex determination/differentiation talks about multiple biological levels where one can define sex: chromosomal, gonadal, hormonal, anatomical--it is not the exclusive presence/absence of the Y-chromosome. Tubey doesn't agree. For example, in the picture below of the two karyotypes, the karyotype on the left would be classified as male, according to Tubey, due to the presence of the Y chromosome and no other criteria (i.e., anatomical, gonadal, hormonal) come into play (sex chromosomes are circled in red). The karyotype on the right would be classified as female, according to Tubey, by the absence of a Y chromosome (or presence of two XX chromosomes) and no other criteria (i.e., anatomical, gonadal, hormonal) come into play.

So Tubey claims that male/female sex is only and exclusively defined by the presence/absence of a Y chromosome (i.e., sex is only defined chromosomally).
I claim that male/female sex can be defined chromosomally, gonadally, hormonally, anatomically. I can't find any studies from clinical/scientific journals that support Tubey's view, but I can find plenty that support mine.

View attachment 122984

You didn't bother looking clearly. Took me me a five second Google search, and if I could bother to search journals and so on I'd find much more authoritative examples too.

Is sex a spectrum? Or is sex binary? | Fair Play For Women

Are there more than two sexes? Is sex a spectrum? Where do intersex people fit in? Here's what biologists say...

fairplayforwomen.com

In humans, reproductive anatomy is unambiguously male or female at birth more than 99.98% of the time. The evolutionary function of these two anatomies is to aid in reproduction via the fusion of sperm and ova. No third type of sex cell exists in humans, and therefore there is no sex “spectrum” or additional sexes beyond male and female.

Sex is binary.

There is a difference, however, between the statements that there are only two sexes (true) and that everyone can be neatly categorised as either male or female (false). The existence of only two sexes does not mean sex is never ambiguous. But intersex individuals are extremely rare, and they are neither a third sex nor proof that sex is a “spectrum” or a “social construct.” Not everyone needs to be discretely assignable to one or the other sex in order for biological sex to be functionally binary. To assume otherwise—to confuse secondary sexual traits with biological sex itself—is a category error.

All that is 100% factual. What you are answering is actually a completely unrelated separate question - can people be identified as having various sex traits by different metrics. By making that mistake, you are denying biological reality.