As compared to? And in light of?
I also have many trans friends. I have worked with trans people. I simply do not care what the think and feel in their minds about their own identity. How could I? But even these, trans, people understand that your version of this story is inccomplete. — AmadeusD
I simply do not care what the think and feel in their minds about their ownn identity. How could I? — AmadeusD
It is the activation (or not) of the SRY gene in utero which determines which (male or female) developmental cascade one undergoes (very basically, Mullerian or Wolffian). From that point, aberrations occur in about 0.018% of people qualifying them for the "DSD" label because their aberration returns a non-ideal (in the strict sense) phenotype with reference to the sex present in that individual. You will note, though, that DSDs are sex-specific in almost all cases and this is not an issue for the binary. The one's which can occur in both, occur differently in each sex (per SRY/not SRY).
Many professionals actually take this to be something 'determined' at conception, and merely expressed at a certain point during early gestation. — AmadeusD
've seen plenty of trans phobia and it is unsafe to walk the street as a trans person around here. — Tom Storm
I am not comparing the hatred of trans people with the hatred of any other groups. — Tom Storm
I have no 'story' I — Tom Storm
Well I don't care that you do not care. — Tom Storm
No idea why you're taking this as some kind of an attack — AmadeusD
Around where? Czechnia? — AmadeusD
I am putting forward that your version of trans experience is entirely incomplete, and is leading you to an inaccurate view, necessarily missing parts of the global situation. — AmadeusD
That's a nice line. How do I interpret this? — Tom Storm
trans people don't regularly face bigotry and assaults just for being trans? — Tom Storm
We're there dude. @Lionino (sorry, f'd up tagging earlier)↪Lionino It really, really isn't. But it will get there very quickly, i'm sure. — AmadeusD
So the Penis and the Clit come from the same? Starting to look more like a sliding scale than a binary. That's an easy position to overturn mate, I thought you would hold the harder one. Hence me using the Gametes. My apologies for upping your game for you. — Vaskane
Well, your argument is highly lacking to posit sex binary1.. And you're being highly disingenuous when you rely on the SRY Cascading Hormone function to "cause a penis and testes"2. to be formed to be "male." Well, SRY may not trigger and XX may not have a penis and testes and thus may not fit your standard3. for being "male." Yet you're still basing them as being male because of the "XX." Or some other variable when the SRY cascading hormone function fails in making a fully fledged male4. — Vaskane
It is what it is (bolded edited in for sense).There is no such thing as a human(who) is not either male or female. You haven't presented even a theory about how that could happen. So, yeah. We're left with a binary. — AmadeusD
Keep your eye out for the direction of the trends over the coming decades concerning the usefulness of the concept of the male-female binary within the social and biological sciences, and the wider culture.
You have presented precisely nothing to 'overturn' the sex binary. There is no such thing as a human is not either male or female. — AmadeusD
Male/female are extremely important in biology and biologists, on the whole, reject entire the attempts to trivialize them.But I would also add engineers to that list. They use the terms constantly to refer to something non-biological which is analogous. — AmadeusD
Biomedical scientists are increasingly calling the biological sex into question, arguing that sex is a graded spectrum rather than a binary trait. Leading science journals have been adopting this relativist view...
This assumes genetic make up as-is, determines sex - where is does not. So, "harm" is probably not apt, but it is flatly incorrect to assign a status of 'sex' to a genetic variation within an established sex. This ruins your aim entirely. — AmadeusD
Again, sex is already established as somthing that genetic variation does not determine, so it is again, flatly wrong to attribute a 'sex' status to a genetic variation - this, aside from it being exactly against your purported aim for the thread. — AmadeusD
Klinefelter syndrome
— Philosophim
Is strictly a condition present in males.. It is determined firstly, by the subject being male. The highlighted section in your link (i assume you were pointing me to that?) indicates this clearly, without ambiguity. Phenotype has merely a correlative relation to sex (extremely closely correlated, it must be said). The case study presented is concerned solely with phenotype. The researches know this person is male, and that is the basis for this being a novel case (well, novel, after three examples? lol). — AmadeusD
Since then, there has been somewhat of a retreat; first long haired men then gays, then men with boobs, then men with micro penis, and now we have your final last stand that hormones and organs and orientation and gender can be ignored in favour of the sacred genome. That's ok, but why? What can we all derive as a practical consequence from this ruling? — unenlightened
If it did not answer your question, feel free to ask it again. — Philosophim
I guess that is some kind of joke that went over my head. — unenlightened
Why do you want to redefine sex in terms of genetics? — unenlightened
Because words should be as accurate as possible within reasonable means. Sex is immutable.
Genetics are very simple and immutable. Gender is mutable. This serves a very clear distinction between the two and avoids issues of ambiguity. As a response question, "Why should we not define sex by genetics?" Thanks. — Philosophim
You are repeating your definition and declaring it to be the truth. — unenlightened
Genes are immutable, snd you want to define sex in terms of genes. What will you do if/when progress in gene therapy allows "sex - change" to be real in your own definition? — unenlightened
Sex would cease to be immutable and become a lifestyle choice - again. — unenlightened
fact remains that the biological sciences are moving away from the male-female binary. — Joshs
In fact, the paper I quoted from disagrees with the non-binary view. — Joshs
Again, like I said, you're just bias towards your faith in science, and ignore the historical sense of things. I'm going to refer to you as a woman now too, since you don't care about what your friends think, they are either male or female based off your judgement. Hell you're neither man nor woman, don't have the intelligence. See how bias works? Obviously goes to show they're nowhere near your friends. So instead of constantly reverting back to your objective bias -- as men of resentment do -- perhaps ease up a little and consider your "friends," preferences. Otherwise, I say that gives everyone free game to ignore your preferences. Which I generally do ignore objective dogma.
That said, think we've beaten this topic to a pulp. Say whatever you want I won't be replying to it anymore, you probably can't even perform the sciences you have faith in. — Vaskane
I'm surprised to hear you say this. So if I'm XX I can be male? Have you really thought this one through? What is your alternative and why is that better than genetics? — Philosophim
Where is this established? — Philosophim
And my point is, "How do we determine what is male?" I — Philosophim
What does matter is blending gender and sex together, as there are clear logical distinctions between sex and gender that lead to poor logical thinking when blended. The two are distinct enough to warrant their own words. — Philosophim
So if a culture wants to call Klinefelter syndrome a new sex, makes sense. — Philosophim
I want you to understand what you are implying very clearly. You are saying that living as a culture makes you a different type of body. This also implies that being a certain body, means you MUST have a particular type of culture. That is the definition of racism and sexism. Be very careful with that. — Philosophim
And my point is, "How do we determine what is male?" — Philosophim
fact remains that the biological sciences are moving away from the male-female binary.
— Joshs
Hmm. I don't think it does. It never really was, either
Bringing in a single speculative quote does not overturn the sex binary.
And in any case, some subset of biologists 'calling into question' something doesnt' represent a trend. I would also posit that in science, trends come and go. So, I hear your point - I think its very weak, and doesn't serve the claim you're making.
In fact, the paper I quoted from disagrees with the non-binary view.
— Joshs
Seems to me, a rather odd conclusion given the claim quoted above. But, neither of us are biologists and I am open to your postion being hte case. I simply see no evidence for it. This type of stuff only turns up in pop sci — AmadeusD
Sex Redefined: The Idea of 2 Sexes Is Overly Simplistic.
Biologists now think there is a larger spectrum than just binary female and male
BEYOND THE BINARY
Biologists may have been building a more nuanced view of sex, but society has yet to catch up.
the term “biologic sex” is understood by many to be an outdated term, due to its longstanding history of being used to invalidate the authenticity of trans identities. Although sex is typically misconceptualized as a binary of male (XY) or female (XX), many other chromosomal arrangements, inherent variations in gene expression patterns, and hormone levels exist. Intersex categorizations include variations in chromosomes present, external genitalia, gonads (testes or ovaries), hormone production, hormone responsiveness, and internal reproductive organs. Medical classification of intersex individuals is not always done at birth, as many intersex traits do not become apparent until puberty or later in life. Currently, there are at least 40 known variations that fall into intersex classifications (Carpenter, 2018). Notably, complex biologic variations can occur in everyone, and sex may best be viewed as a spectrum comprised of many traits.
Ok, is this still just ‘pop sci'?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/ — Joshs
Or this?
the term “biologic sex” is understood by many to be an outdated term, due to its longstanding history of being used to invalidate the authenticity of trans identities. — Joshs
Everything you've said is hollow and rests on multiple logical fallacies, to include anchoring, confirmation bias, and false dichotomy to name a few. There really is no point in engaging with that. — Vaskane
Yep. Its called de la Chapelle syndrome. — AmadeusD
The alternative, which is covers every human ever, and categorises into precisely two categories without (known) exception, and with full utility in the sense that once categorised, it gets set aside unless medically relevant, is to use the activation of the SRY gene as a marker for sex, given that this is determinant of which cascade of sexual development is engaged. — AmadeusD
What does matter is blending gender and sex together, as there are clear logical distinctions between sex and gender that lead to poor logical thinking when blended. The two are distinct enough to warrant their own words.
— Philosophim
Absolutely. Am trying to establish how this delineation works - you seem resistant. — AmadeusD
So if a culture wants to call Klinefelter syndrome a new sex, makes sense.
— Philosophim
No it doesn't. Because that term belongs to a culture in which is it bounded to Males experiencing a certain genetic expression. That is what it symbolises in the culture in which it arose.
Another culture coming along and misappropriating the word isn't helpful, or sensible. At the very least, it violates, entirely hte premise of your attempt to solve the problem that exact thing causes. I'm unsure how this is not obvious. — AmadeusD
How on Earth did you derive that from anything I have said? — unenlightened
And I still don't have much of an answer. What is the use of this wonderful clarity you propose we adopt? — unenlightened
See my problem is I never took a genetic test, so I don't know what my genes are. So I have to rely on presumptions based on old-fashioned things like having a penis, and being sent to a boys school, and so on. — unenlightened
I think identity is always a complex interaction of adopted and assigned, and you are very much in the business of assigning a sexual identity. — unenlightened
Mrs un, by the way, is at least just as white as she is black, if we are talking genetics, but that is seldom 'counted' by people that count these things for other folk. — unenlightened
But your definition does not help, for example, the difficulties faced by sports governance, and I do not see that it helps people with "gender dysphoria" (another imposed identity). — unenlightened
And my point is, "How do we determine what is male?"
— Philosophim
My point is that we do not have to determine that in the same way or even necessarily at all, in relation to every social situation — unenlightened
Ok, is this still just ‘pop sci’? — Joshs
Relax, we're trying to do the same thing. — Philosophim
I'm just making sure its clear, unambiguous, and not based on phenotype. — Philosophim
"There are two sexes." — Philosophim
I can see the viability in declaring more than two, and I don't see any problem in noting this. — Philosophim
By the way, Michel Foucault's "History of Sexuality," has some good insights for you. — Vaskane
As such, I believe that labeling a transexual person as 'transgendered' creates confusion and harm. — Philosophim
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.