Trans athletes make great gains, yet resentment still flares (5 Viewers)

[UncleTrvlingJim]

And again, I generally only take a negative position on this. Because I don't believe it's provable that a transwoman is scientifically a woman. I think it's pretty clear that there are vast biological differences between most transgender people and their identified gender.

The only thing I'm trying to do is to show that biology isn't simple, and there are lots of things going on... and that is before we even get to how do we mentally relate to our own bodies, the biochemistry of the brain is super complex. There have been attempts to break down neurochemical response differences between men and women (with some showing that transgender individuals have neurochemical responses closer to their identified gender rather than the one "assigned at birth")... BUT that seems to be far from accepted.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Overwhelmingly != binary by definition. Binary means only 2. That's it. That's the list. And we've already shown that humans have dozens of different combinations of biological combinations, and they don't all actually produce gametes. So, more than two possible biological outcomes involving sex hormones, chromosomes, genes and gamete production by definition means humans aren't binary biologically.

Since you've switched to overwhelmingly instead of sticking to binary, then I assume you aren't arguing that point anymore.

I don't think anyone has argued that the vast majority of the population fits pretty comfortably as either male or female. The argument has been if humans are a binary species with only two possible outcomes regarding biological sex characteristics. We're dealing with edge cases here - 1 to 2% of the population, and how should society react to them.

Now, if you said that there are a group of people that believe themselves to be a gender that have none of the biological markers generally associated with that gender. That would be correct. There are people who aren't phenotypically, hormonally, DNA, or chromosomally similar to the gender they believe themselves to be. But the danger is trying to reduce men/women etc as merely a set of biological markers is problematic, because there are clearly people that fall outside of those markers.

 

[SystemShock]

I said I wasn't going to reply to you, but now I have to

Overwhelmingly != binary by definition.

Well, yes, but the definition of binary has nothing to do with the definition of overwhelm. I can have 100 balls, 95 of them back, 5 of them black, and refer to the overwhelming number of black balls.

Binary means only 2.

No sheet.

That's it. That's the list. And we've already shown that humans have dozens of different combinations of biological combinations,

How do you produce dozens of combinations when there are only 2 known reproductive organ systems in humans? I can't get past 4: male, female, intersexed, or no sexual organs whatsoever. Show me you math.
And intersex or no sexual organs, those fall under syndromes/birth defects.

Since you've switched to overwhelmingly instead of sticking to binary, then I assume you aren't arguing that point anymore.

And this is what prompted my reply. I didn't switch to overwhelmingly.

I don't think anyone has argued that the vast majority of the population fits pretty comfortably as either male or female.

I have. That's what I have been saying here and over at MAP.

The argument has been if humans are a binary species with only two possible outcomes regarding biological sex characteristics.

Who's argument is that?

We're dealing with edge cases here - 1 to 2% of the population, and how should society react to them.

Now, if you said that there are a group of people that believe themselves to be a gender that have none of the biological markers generally associated with that gender. That would be correct.

I would've thought that was implied, especially when overwhelmingly (there's that word again) that is the case. but apparently not.

There are people who aren't phenotypically, hormonally, DNA, or chromosomally similar to the gender they believe themselves to be. But the danger is trying to reduce men/women etc as merely a set of biological markers is problematic, because there are clearly people that fall outside of those markers.

Sports, the original subject of this thread, and the only context of my comments, are very much divided by sets of biological markers. Most people don't have any issue with them, but when it comes to gender, then all bets should be off?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I said I wasn't going to reply to you, but now I have to


Well, yes, but the definition of binary has nothing to do with the definition of overwhelm. I can have 100 balls, 95 of them back, 5 of them black, and refer to the overwhelming number of black balls.

No sheet.

My basic understanding of your argument is that humans are either male or female, and that's it, or at least that's all that matters. And yes, you have acknowledged intersex people as existing, you don't explain how that fits into your binary classification, and how that is biological and not social.

How do you produce dozens of combinations when there are only 2 known reproductive organ systems in humans? I can't get past 4: male, female, intersexed, or no sexual organs whatsoever. Show me you math.
And intersex or no sexual organs, those fall under syndromes/birth defects.

There are at least 5 biological categories that are used to identify sex in mammals. The type of gamete produced (large or small), the look of the person's gonads (phenotype), hormone production (testosterone to estrogen), chromosomes and genes. That's at least 32 combinations if you assume each of those are only binary. Which is why you have a lot of different ways intersex conditions are expressed.

I have. That's what I have been saying here and over at MAP.

Sorry, I meant to say the opposite. I'm not aware of anyone arguing against that declaration. There hasn't been a single person arguing against the idea that the vast majority of people comfortably fit in the model. But you keep arguing with me when I point out that isn't 100% true for everyone. The only point I've made that you keep arguing with me against is that everyone falls neatly into one or the other of those categories. That biology isn't neat and clean because it wasn't done by design, but a messy evolutionary process, and no one is steering a zygote according to some set of blueprints, but instead stuff gets mixed up and thrown together without a plan. You seem to have an issue with that.

Who's argument is that?

I assume yours since every time I point out humans aren't binary you argue with me.

I would've thought that was implied, especially when overwhelmingly (there's that word again) that is the case. but apparently not.



Sports, the original subject of this thread, and the only context of my comments, are very much divided by sets of biological markers. Most people don't have any issue with them, but when it comes to gender, then all bets should be off?

As far as sports regulations, I've said I don't have a dog in that fight when it comes to professional or adult women's leagues. That's for the people who run those leagues and to some degree their fans to decide.

 

[SystemShock]

Last time:

My basic understanding of your argument is that humans are either male or female, and that's it, or at least that's all that matters. And yes, you have acknowledged intersex people as existing, you don't explain how that fits into your binary classification, and how that is biological and not social.

Your basic understanding is not correct.

There are at least 5 biological categories that are used to identify sex in mammals. The type of gamete produced (large or small), the look of the person's gonads (phenotype), hormone production (testosterone to estrogen), chromosomes and genes. That's at least 32 combinations if you assume each of those are only binary. Which is why you have a lot of different ways intersex conditions are expressed.

And yet, we only know of 2 human reproductive systems. Intersex people may exhibit different characteristics and different levels of the combination of male and female, but still, these are combinations of male and female. If you are going to count every different level of intersex as a separate sex, then you can probably reach 100's. But still, all of those combinations will be different levels of combining the 2 human reproductive systems.

In the end, none of that explains a fully functional male/female chemically and surgically modifying their body to physically look female/male because they want to transition to another gender, or gender for that matter, gender being the actual human creation/concept.

. But you keep arguing with me when I point out that isn't 100% true for everyone.

I will not continue arguing with you, unless you continue to reply to me with misrepresentations of statements that I've made or statements of your own like "male/female are human concepts".

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Last time:


Your basic understanding is not correct.



And yet, we only know of 2 human reproductive systems. Intersex people may exhibit different characteristics and different levels of the combination of male and female, but still, these are combinations of male and female. If you are going to count every different level of intersex as a separate sex, then you can probably reach 100's. But still, all of those combinations will be different levels of combining the 2 human reproductive systems.

In the end, none of that explains a fully functional male/female chemically and surgically modifying their body to physically look female/male because they want to transition to another gender, or gender for that matter, gender being the actual human creation/concept.


I will not continue arguing with you, unless you continue to reply to me with misrepresentations of statements that I've made or statements of your own like "male/female are human concepts".

I never said male/female are human concepts... I said your term "male/female of the species" is a human categorization and observation of nature, because nature doesn't follow an exact binary blueprint. We just cagtegorize it that way because it is the most useful way to categorize it in most instances.

 

[SystemShock]

I never said male/female are human concepts... I said your term "male/female of the species" is a human categorization and observation of nature, because nature doesn't follow an exact binary blueprint. We just cagtegorize it that way because it is the most useful way to categorize it in most instances.

You said:
You keep using the term male/female of the species, but that's a term to describe something in human terms it isn't something nature follows.

Very last thing (hopefully it survives): "male/female of the species" is not my term. It's been used to categorize life since forever. It is nature itself that has been creating males/females since times untold. Neither you nor I would be here if it weren't for male and female. Most species of flora and fauna would not exist without males and females. Male/female is nature's blueprint for the procreation of most species of everything.

I'm done.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

You said:
You keep using the term male/female of the species, but that's a term to describe something in human terms it isn't something nature follows.

Very last thing (hopefully it survives): "male/female of the species" is not my term. It's been used to categorize life since forever. It is nature itself that has been creating males/females since times untold. Neither you nor I would be here if it weren't for male and female. Most species of flora and fauna would not exist without males and females. Male/female is nature's blueprint for the procreation of most species of everything.

I'm done.

Right - and I also said you clearly didn't read what I wrote if you think that is a response. Because I clearly said that there are male and female gametes and that's how nature reproduces, and that there are secondary characteristics that have built up to support either the male or female gametes, but you act like this is a point of disagreement between us. It isn't. I have said this multiple times in multiple ways.

What I said is nature doesn't create things according to one of two outcomes - male or female. It is not a plan. There is no architect at work here. There are dozens of permutations. But humans lump animals into male/female even if they don't produce sperm or ovum, because of a preponderance of similarities of those that do successfully create sperm or ovum.

Remember, my posts are only in response to the misconception that nature is clear, and unambiguous and we all fall into simple categories. That's it.

 

[Madmarsha]

There's a lot in here relevant to being lied to about "science" by medical professionals who aren't allowed to speak truth. Imagine what we now know mere decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Imagine being lied to by people who were supposed to be monitoring your health while at the same time spying on you. Imagine finding out people were lying and knew they were lying.