Current Affairs Free Speech

[ForeverBlue92]

Well no, as heterosexuality isn't and never has been biological fact, you can go back to Ancient Greece and before to see object proof homosexuality was a thing.

Not remotely the same thing. XX/XY is fact, it's not like I'm claiming the earth is flat by saying that.

Your stance is a common one - essentially you find not hurting people's feelings as more important than the truth, which is why you keep bringing up societal issues as an argument for ignoring biology.

As for legality, I've said repeatedly that more protections for trans people should exist - but corrupting the meaning of male and female doesn't achieve that; it's just an attempt to pretend transitioning isn't a thing. It is. A trans teacher should be protected from employment issues by trans rights, not the rights of the sex they're identifying as, because they're not that sex.

As I said in another thread - welcome to the New Dark Age where science is shunned over Political Correctness and FB scientists have a voice over actual scientists with their conspiracy theories.

 

[coollino]

As I said in another thread - welcome to the New Dark Age where science is shunned over Political Correctness and FB scientists have a voice over actual scientists with their conspiracy theories.

@verreauxi literally said he is a member of the scientific community and teaches genetics.

Are you okay?

 

[verreauxi]

Well no, as heterosexuality isn't and never has been biological fact, you can go back to Ancient Greece and before to see object proof homosexuality was a thing.

Not remotely the same thing. XX/XY is fact, it's not like I'm claiming the earth is flat by saying that.

Your stance is a common one - essentially you find not hurting people's feelings as more important than the truth, which is why you keep bringing up societal issues as an argument for ignoring biology.

As for legality, I've said repeatedly that more protections for trans people should exist - but corrupting the meaning of male and female doesn't achieve that; it's just an attempt to pretend transitioning isn't a thing. It is. A trans teacher should be protected from employment issues by trans rights, not the rights of the sex they're identifying as, because they're not that sex.

The parallel between trans and homosexuality is due to the fact that people have argued that heterosexuality and binary sex are biological facts. And laws have been enacted, and people's lives ruined, by these laws which are underpinned by simplistic views of biology.

The issue is, again, that XX/XY is not the only way to define biological sex.

But we agree on the fact that trans folks require protections, and these protections require, to me, a redefining of the strict binarily-interpreted laws that are used to discriminate against trans folks.

 

[Tubey]

They are wrong because sex isn't defined only by XX/XY, which I was careful to point out. It's not a matter of opinion.
As to edgy white dudes, they are always the loudest online presence going on about some issue that very often never affects them in a life-changing or meaningful way (see any twitter exchange involving Jordan Peterson).
I'm not sure what you mean about "stuck in the past"...I don't think I said this.
I am a member of the scientific community who studies genetics and teaches about this topic.

Yes it is though.

All your arguments come down to the intersex argument. You are listing congenital developmental defects and variation to muddy the waters when the fact remains the Y chromosome means you're male. I don't care if you have a womb at the same time as having a Y chromosome; you're a male.

 

[verreauxi]

Yes it is though.

All your arguments come down to the intersex argument. You are listing congenital developmental defects and variation to muddy the waters when the fact remains the Y chromosome means you're male. I don't care if you have a womb at the same time as having a Y chromosome; you're a male.

I can't convince you otherwise when you claim that demographic subsets of humans are nothing more than muddy water. What about a human with XY chromosomes that lacks an SRY gene?

 

[random]

In general terms, “sex” refers to biological characteristics and “gender” refers to the individual’s and society’s perceptions of sexuality and the malleable concepts of masculinity and femininity.

Extract taken from this medical tome

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232363

Worth reading if you have 5 minutes spare

 

[Tubey]

I can't convince you otherwise when you claim that demographic subsets of humans are nothing more than muddy water.

They exist; they aren't different sexes.

XX Male Syndrome for example - no Y chromosome but still present as male in every other way but can't create sperm.

They are biologically female because the Y chromosome that triggered it got 'lost along the way'.

You would say that's a 'spectrum' - it isn't; it's a developmental anomaly. They are female.

 

[Tubey]

In general terms, “sex” refers to biological characteristics and “gender” refers to the individual’s and society’s perceptions of sexuality and the malleable concepts of masculinity and femininity.

Extract taken from this medical tome

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232363

Worth reading if you have 5 minutes spare

Running shop so can't read yet but, yes, that's my view. Said the below a few months back.

Sex is biology, gender is a societal construct. Hence why you can identify as a man or woman and there's no problem - anyone who deadnames someone or refuses to use correct obvious pronouns are actually transphobic. But the issue is when you label them definitively as men or women, because those words are underpinned by biological sex and is another thing entirely from merely identifying as one of them.

 

[kenada_blue]

They are wrong because sex isn't defined only by XX/XY, which I was careful to point out. It's not a matter of opinion.
As to edgy white dudes, they are always the loudest online presence going on about some issue that very often never affects them in a life-changing or meaningful way (see any twitter exchange involving Jordan Peterson).
I'm not sure what you mean about "stuck in the past"...I don't think I said this.
I am a member of the scientific community who studies genetics and teaches about this topic.

Then you should know that while there are other outcomes in genetic make up that doesn't define XX/XY - it's still a a fact that a Y chromosome is necessary for a Male in creating it's reproductive system or testies. Regardless of different chains, the Y determines Male from Females. Without it anywhere, it's female.

So it's not wrong....at the moment. It's noted that the Y chromosome will reduce and not be relied upon to determine Male reproductive systems like most mammals. But that won't happen for another million years.

So if an edgy white internet bro states that...then they're not wrong.

 

[Tubey]

Then you should know that while there are other outcomes in genetic make up that doesn't define XX/XY - it's still a a fact that a Y chromosome is necessary for a Male in creating it's reproductive system or testies. Regardless of different chains, the Y determines Male from Females. Without it anywhere, it's female.

So it's not wrong....at the moment. It's noted that the Y chromosome will reduce and not be relied upon to determine Male reproductive systems like most mammals. But that won't happen for another million years.

So if an edgy white internet bro states that...then they're not wrong.

To give an example of where the mistake is made... the genus homo is non-binary. There's been plenty of human species. However, homo sapien is binary, because of a range of core similarities common to everyone in the group, such as brain development, musculoskeletal make-up and so on. They are immutable; as in there can't be a 'spectrum' of homo sapien because the moment it varies then you have a new species.

Saying that sex is non-binary because of developmental disorders and variance is like saying homo sapien is non-binary because we have different races, hair colour or whatever. It doesn't make sense. You have variation is human embryonic development, but regardless you are still human. Similarly, you can have variation in the process that XX/XY chromosomes 'kick off', but the net result is that if you have an 'active' Y chromosome, you are a male, full stop, end of discussion.

There has never - literally never - been an example of a true hermaphrodite in human history; the reason for that is because it's quite literally impossible. That would be the true definition of intersex and proof positive that sex is non-binary. The fact they don't exist is proof positive that sex is binary. The mistake, quite simply, is not understanding the difference between developmental variance and biological underpinning, and it's largely driven by a desire to be 'inclusive', even if that means warping the science around the facts.

 

[verreauxi]

To give an example of where the mistake is made... the genus homo is non-binary. There's been plenty of human species. However, homo sapien is binary, because of a range of core similarities common to everyone in the group, such as brain development, musculoskeletal make-up and so on. They are immutable; as in there can't be a 'spectrum' of homo sapien because the moment it varies then you have a new species.

Saying that sex is non-binary because of developmental disorders and variance is like saying homo sapien is non-binary because we have different races, hair colour or whatever. It doesn't make sense. You have variation is human embryonic development, but regardless you are still human. Similarly, you can have variation in the process that XX/XY chromosomes 'kick off', but the net result is that if you have an 'active' Y chromosome, you are a male, full stop, end of discussion.

There has never - literally never - been an example of a true hermaphrodite in human history; the reason for that is because it's quite literally impossible. That would be the true definition of intersex and proof positive that sex is non-binary. The fact they don't exist is proof positive that sex is binary. The mistake, quite simply, is not understanding the difference between developmental variance and biological underpinning, and it's largely driven by a desire to be 'inclusive', even if that means warping the science around the facts.

The statement you wrote below is complete nonsense:

To give an example of where the mistake is made... the genus homo is non-binary. There's been plenty of human species. However, homo sapien is binary, because of a range of core similarities common to everyone in the group, such as brain development, musculoskeletal make-up and so on. They are immutable; as in there can't be a 'spectrum' of homo sapien because the moment it varies then you have a new species.

Species definitions and boundaries have nothing to do with intraspecific variation. And there is no good parallel between intra- and interspecific variation and human development.

And you never answered my question: What about a human with XY chromosomes that lacks an SRY gene? Are they male or female?

 

[Tubey]

The statement you wrote below is complete nonsense:

To give an example of where the mistake is made... the genus homo is non-binary. There's been plenty of human species. However, homo sapien is binary, because of a range of core similarities common to everyone in the group, such as brain development, musculoskeletal make-up and so on. They are immutable; as in there can't be a 'spectrum' of homo sapien because the moment it varies then you have a new species.

Species definitions and boundaries have nothing to do with intraspecific variation. And there is no good parallel between intra- and interspecific variation and human development.

And you never answered my question: What about a human with XY chromosomes that lacks an SRY gene? Are they male or female?

Male. They still have a Y chromosome, they are male. What you are describing, again, is a developmental defect, not a different sex.

 

[kenada_blue]

To give an example of where the mistake is made... the genus homo is non-binary. There's been plenty of human species. However, homo sapien is binary, because of a range of core similarities common to everyone in the group, such as brain development, musculoskeletal make-up and so on. They are immutable; as in there can't be a 'spectrum' of homo sapien because the moment it varies then you have a new species.

Saying that sex is non-binary because of developmental disorders and variance is like saying homo sapien is non-binary because we have different races, hair colour or whatever. It doesn't make sense. You have variation is human embryonic development, but regardless you are still human. Similarly, you can have variation in the process that XX/XY chromosomes 'kick off', but the net result is that if you have an 'active' Y chromosome, you are a male, full stop, end of discussion.

There has never - literally never - been an example of a true hermaphrodite in human history; the reason for that is because it's quite literally impossible. That would be the true definition of intersex and proof positive that sex is non-binary. The fact they don't exist is proof positive that sex is binary. The mistake, quite simply, is not understanding the difference between developmental variance and biological underpinning, and it's largely driven by a desire to be 'inclusive', even if that means warping the science around the facts.

That element of "function" is where a key point gets missed. Like you say, there are variables in genetic make-up, but there will always be the dominant chromosome that determines a sex due to function.

 

[Tubey]

That element of "function" is where a key point gets missed. Like you say, there are variables in genetic make-up, but there will always be the dominant chromosome that determines a sex due to function.

Indeed. It's like how he's just asked about XY with the SRY gene missing - that can technically result in a 'pregnant man'; I'm aware of that. It's a developmental defect, it doesn't change anything about the fact they're male. They're simply an anomalous one. The 'function' of the Y chromosome remains intact, it just had developmentally failed. That failure doesn't mean a new sex exists.

You get women with XXX chromosomes - it doesn't mean they're more female.

 

[verreauxi]

Male. They still have a Y chromosome, they are male. What you are describing, again, is a developmental defect, not a different sex.

So this individual will develop ovaries, fallopian tubes, a uterus, a vaginal canal and external vulva, and have high levels of circulating estrogen and will menstruate, but you'll call them "male." At least kenda_blue was correct, it is apparently now about opinions, since your opinion on this matter would run against all biological expert views, since most people would classify this individual as female.

[edit, and I should add, importantly, this individual would likely view themselves as female]