Jump to content

J.C.MacSwell

Senior Members
  • Posts

    5119
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

Everything posted by J.C.MacSwell

  1. You're one of a kind Dim...at least for now...
  2. There are two and only two roles in successful human reproduction. They are distinct from each other and both are required. This is clearly binary proposition. It makes no attempt to classify unsuccessful roles. It makes no attempt to be inclusive. It just looks at the two critical roles that keep the human race enduring. The fact that there many additional ways to categorize sex does not change the fact that this is a biologically accurate context. When coming up with that figure of 0.001% as intersex, what do they consider the other 99.99% of the population? Do they consider them divisible into "male" and "female"? From the abstract of that article: "We surveyed the medical literature from 1955 to the present for studies of the frequency of deviation from the ideal male or female. We conclude that this frequency may be as high as 2% of live births." So to get to that figure they are clearly including many readily categorizable males and females as intersex. If you go by organizations with political agendas. The majority of the 1.7%, a number often cited for political purposes, are XX and XY individuals. And 99.9+% of XX and XY individuals are readily categorizable as either male or female. After removing those 99.9+% a reasonable estimate of intersex individuals would be around 0.4%. Categorizing those 0.4% into male and female might be more problematic, but for many quite possible.
  3. Roles in successful human sexual reproduction. Please explain why you can't see this? First off, how can it possibly be defined to be as little as 0.001%? Second, is 1.7% anywhere close to your opinion on a reasonable definition you prefer to use? And if so how many XX and XY chromosome individuals are included in that 1.7%? (and you can exclude very rare cases of mixed) All that said/questioned +1 on your post.
  4. And there is nothing wrong with that, but it it isn't limiting itself to successful human reproduction, which is the basis for our species. If it did, it would be a much smaller infographic. But I wouldn't really call it a spectrum in that infographic, the reference (proper IMO) to gender spectrum aside. For all the colours indicating a spectrum, there's an awful lot of arrows connecting distant colours. That said, I think anyone placing the intersex at greater than 1% of our population are including an awful lot of people that are clearly male, and clearly female, fertility issues notwithstanding.
  5. Sex can reasonably be stated to be a continuum when you are considering gender, or sexual preference. How is sex biologically/reproductively speaking a continuum? I can accept readily that there can be multiples based on a reasonable definition that obviates that it is. What definition can possibly put it on a continuum?
  6. Are you considering the definition given or are you not? You have 3, and only 3, objects in your hands: a football, a basketball, and a hammer...so is it fair to say you have 3 balls, spherical, oval, and "other"? The answer of course is yes, if by "ball" we agree to the definition that it is any object, and by the stricter normally definition generally used you don't need to be an expert mathematician to know you only have 2. Granted. Nor has anyone stated a clear definition of biologically male and biologically female beyond referring to the two different roles in successful human reproduction. And it's pretty evident there are only two. So we have at least 2 reasonable answers to the question and it depends on the context of what is meant by sex. However difficult the categories are to define, I think we all know what Koti is referring to. His inability, my inability, your inability, or biology's inability to state it clearly enough for you doesn't change that. And of course sex can also take on contexts that you can only conclude it's non-binary. And some of those contexts can be important for science, unlike the inclusion of the hammer as a "ball", which I don't think will ever happen short of some group seeing it as politically expedient to do so.
  7. ...and he might want to explain it That way forum members can decide if they really need to open a war games thread that includes assessing the effects of military spending. No. But the point was with respect to China taking Taiwan being more substantially strategical than symbolic, counter to Vat's claim it would be otherwise, not implying it was morally justifiable.
  8. Generally speaking, the mass would tend toward the centre when it wasn't ingesting more mass from outside, and infinitely various states otherwise, but a homogenous state would be pretty unique/unlikely.
  9. Under what conditions, or history, would the BH's mass distribution be that of a homogenous sphere?
  10. China does have some concerns, whether real or imagined, for their limited access to the Pacific.
  11. This could all lead to a major politico-economic Cold War. Hopefully not WW3. +1, but I think the purpose of being there was to send a slightly different message. I'm okay with China having some Laws I don't agree with. Treatment of the Uyghurs? Not so much. Not to imply sending warships through the Taiwan Strait was about the Uyghurs in any way whatsoever. It would have been about Taiwan, International Waters and possibly Japanese Islands along the route. Apparently someone didn't like the +1 on that post. And neg rep'ed it. I guess there is also the possibility they simply disagreed with something in it...be quite the situation if we all did that, when we saw something we didn't agree with. But don't mind me. Bully away.
  12. LOL. I thought it was some reference to limiting communication, and I just wasn't in on the lingo. No doubt. But the US does like the backing, even militarily, of countries like Canada for posturing and political purposes. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/china-canada-warships-taiwan-strait-1.6214303 All invasions claim moral grounds. The US response would of course include disagreeing with any Chinese moral premise.
  13. I learn something new everyday Phi...I never would have guessed you prayed that much!
  14. Bare with me while I check the dictionary... Yep, you're right...I guess we better get dressed...
  15. It's the fastest thing I've tried on a pinewood derby car. So plastic wheel on a polished nail axle. These are short races, around 30 feet or so, with very little load, but it was faster and for longer than teflon spray (or graphite powder, among other lubrication experiments). So I should add the caveat that I haven't tried it on anything else in direct comparison for heavier use. The teflon spray I tried was a marine spray to lubricate small fittings and bolt rope track.
  16. Assuming you haven't heat distorted them beyond repair with your hair dryer you might want to try a little teflon spray lubricant. (or better believe it or not, a little Armor All).
  17. Unfortunately a photon's view doesn't count as an observer...as interesting a thought as it might be.
  18. I just reread this again (the OP) and it deserves more likes IMO. Welcome to the Forums WW and I hope your posts are anywhere near as good. edit: I still haven't read more than pages 1,7 and 8, but the thought holds. Willy has at this point only posted twice, so I'm assuming no "weird agenda" or subconscious need to discriminate, and taking his words at face value.
  19. Personally, I think both binary and multiple categories are useful, and that what you are suggesting for 3 could be as well...but is certainly as problematic as binary. (not that any "multiple" system of classification would be fully useful) Without using a strict definition of male and female, "not male or female" doesn't lead to accuracy or precision.
  20. How is this better, or offer more value, than male or female...done? What definition of strictly male and strictly female would enable this?
  21. Fair enough. How do you define a third category of "Other" with regard to sex? I see this as more problematic than binary or multiple categories.
  22. He seemed to think if one was used, all intersex would need to be classified together as either male or female. He either has a binary system in mind that is rather unique, fails to see any value in using one...or something else... Thus the questions. For successful and natural human reproduction? At what point do you feel extra categories might become necessary? What I said in my first post in this thread: I certainly haven't resisted very long as I've just started posting in this thread. What I mean by sex depends on the context required for what is being discussed. That could be in binary terms, or otherwise.
  23. Why do you insist all of them be male or female? Do you think they are all the same? How is that useful, when defining your binary system? Or are you claiming binary classification of either male or female is not useful, and should never be used by anyone? For the purpose defining human reproduction you can , usefully, divide humans into two categories in a binary system, male or female, with very separate and distinct roles. There is no third category that take part in human reproduction. Maybe one will evolve over time (unlikely), but currently not.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.