koti

5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It has bugger all to do with your ethnicity.  I was talking about the environment you were raised in, and the possible effect of that. You could be an native Pole in China and the effect could be the same if you were brought during your formative years there. Most people want an easy social life, so they conform, especially children, who have a higher need to be socially accepted by their local peers.

Youre right, I missplaced the word ethinicity I should have used environment instead.

I don’t think we did this formally Stringy, I must ask you what pronouns you use, I don’t want to insult you by mistake. Mine are he/him today. I will also inform you what sex I am when this thread runs its course and I finally find out.

33 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

That's an insulting strawman attack on StringJunky's post and his obvious intentions. We both were questioning koti's own words about local influences on his stance regarding gender, and I find your twisting of that to make it look like we're caricaturizing him as homophobic to be cheap and beneath you. Why must so many feel so threatened by this?

So its ok to question my credibility based on my ethnicity but its not ok to point that out?

I wish I was a black, transgender woman from Norway right now, it would sure make life easier for me on this site compared to being a white, heterosexual male from Poland.

And you know what, thats ok. Stereotypes are an inevitable part of social interaction and I always could laugh about it regardless what side of them I'm on. I'm not taking offence on any of this and most of all, I will not forge this position into an offecive/defencive line of arguing during this discussion.
It does make me feel a little sad to see the very people whom I though I provided more than enough evicende over the years for my views and personality to accuse me of homophobia, conspiracy theories, anti vaxx stances. But you know what Phi, thats what ideology and pollitics does to you and while being a little sad I'm not surprised.

20 minutes ago, iNow said:

I keep asking you to explain how my usage is flawed and you keep not explaining. Closest we got was some wiki links. 

Is a deviation not a type of “other?” 

It’s not male. It’s not female. Fine, call it a defect or deviation… I don’t care, but that’s still a 3rd group (aka there are NOT just 2)

You’re so woke and scientifically fashionable that you don’t care, I get it. You probably think its cool or even noble to categorize someone born with a genetic condition as a different sex other than male or female, I get that too. I disagree but I get it. 

22 minutes ago, iNow said:

We agree. Those are all cars... And all of these people are still humans. And they also each all have a sex, even if it's neither male nor female. All I'm saying is, since they are neither male nor female we must allow for a 3rd category/sex of "Other."

Really? Category slash Sex? After all these pages and all that has been said you are still not sure what my point of view is?

 How many times do I need to state that Sex and Category are not interchangeable. You’ve become so sensitive and so saturated with twisted pollitical correctness that you are convinced that categorising someone as one who suffers from a birth defect or a genetic condition instead of „a 3rd Sex” is somehow dehumanizing and deplorable. It’s not. There are 2 sexes in humans and untill evolution changes that, it will stay that way. Various deviations from that fact are what they are - deviations, defects, conditions that people suffer. 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

The analogy here is you keep claiming ALL cars / ALL Fords are either a Mustang or an F-150, and others are asking you where then do we put the Taurus and the Fiesta and the Explorer and all of the other Ford models since they’re neither a Mustang nor an F-150. When we ask this, you call us manipulative walnut brains caught in a vortex of politically correct culture instead of offering an answer with any actual substance to this perfectly valid criticism / question. 

Worse, you're trying to dismiss the existence of the Taurus and Explorer and Fusion etc. as "defects" off the manufacturing line... but they're still cars that exist, and which are not able to be accurately called either a Mustang or an F-150

The crux here which you either keep omitting on purpose or its eluding you is that all of them are still f…g cars !

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

It is evidence of more than 2, whether or not you call “other” a sex. It means saying there are only 2 is inaccurate. 

Apparently you do need to read through the definitions of the words sex and category. If you have 2 Ford Mustangs and one of them breaks down it doesn’t mean you have a Mustang and a Chevy. You still have 2 Mustangs. 

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

I used the word category when suggesting we have male, female, and folks who don't fit into either. The existence of those folks who don't fit into either necessitate a 3rd "category" of "other" or "no sex" to use the OPs words.

And that 3rd category is not a 3rd sex. FFS!

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Let me repeat myself. Please clarify what you see as the relevant differences btw those terms (in context of this thread). 

I refuse to participate in a discussion where a grown educated man asks another grown educated man the difference between the words „sex” and „category”

30 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

No, I was kind of wondering aloud how much the  clearly prevalent stigma  in your country influences your own position. This seems to be the background 'atmosphere' you live in;  we are all products of our country to an extent. I'm a child of the 60's, and I have to admit I viewed them with some suspicion until my twenties, when I started to think about social 'outliers' for myself.

I like to pride myself that only evidence, rational conclusions and empathy for the weaker are infuencing my position. I've never experienced what you said above, since I can remember I despised people who are hompohobic, I spent many years in my youth making my life as a DJ and I had many gay friends, very good ones, I still keep in touch with a few. Don't measure everyone with your yard stick.

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

..you've had to defend your stance against anti-vaxxers who are close to you, not that you've agreed with them.

We don't talk to each other nor meet for about 4 years now, it wasn't possible to manage out a compromise.

14 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Or, OR, we could be wondering why you can easily concede that you've been wrong in the past about other topics that involve gender, but can't even conceive of it in this case. You've also had trouble before with anti-vaxxer stances as well, and iirc you followed the science on that one and reasoned through a LOT of arguments you were getting locally.

If youre reffering to the "transgender" thread, I've never conceded anything there, that thread showed me how much bias and toxic PC is present on our forum, this thread right here only solidified my observation.
- I've never had trouble with anti vaxx stances. I mean I did and I do, my brothers wife is anti vaxx and that is pretty  truoblesome and ackward considering we all have children and are the same family. I've never expressed any traces of anti vaxx  stances in my life.

You seem so deep down the PC rabbit hole of this forum that you've managed to create your own version of me based on your biases which makes me sad because youve always been the wise good guy.

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

…you APPEAR to be arguing that sex is not a TYPE of category, and (as I’m sure you’ll agree) that’s patently absurd. 

Your insincerity is only topped by your attepmts at manipulation.
 

17 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Poland is not a place where I would want to be gay or other. The atmosphere is probably like Ireland was until the RC church lost majority favour with its hypocritical teachings and abuses by its priests. It's probably quite difficult to be open about ones views that contradict the official line. This was in today's Reuters:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/depression-rising-among-lgbt-people-conservative-ruled-poland-survey-finds-2021-12-08/

 

This is true and its something a lot of people in Poland are ashamed of, including me. I wonder what it has to do with this thread though? If I didn’t know you better Stringy, I would think youre making a swing at me trying to make me look homophopic? 

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Does "allmighty bandwagon" suggest the arguments are merely popular but have no merit or reason? It's frustrating to think you view the opposing arguments as intractable when they're trying to point out the unwavering futility of requiring that only two sexes be acknowledged. 

It's especially frustrating because you've expressed concern about authoritarian stances in your own country, and it's hard to separate this concern from the ones you've expressed about the possibility of there being more than two sexes. 

On 11/30/2021 at 7:48 PM, Arete said:

Humans have an XY chromosomal mating system - meaning there are two sexes.

33 minutes ago, iNow said:

Will you please elaborate a bit on this and explain what you see as the most important ways they differ (in context of this discussion)?

Category
Sex

Glad I could help. 

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

…to an audience willing to listen to it. That's on you, buddy. 

Keep telling that to yourself along with the notion that the words „sex” and „category” are the same thing. 

24 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I care what the words "reasoned argument" mean, and I see one being employed in iNow's post, but you keep choosing the "throw my arms up in disgust and refuse to engage rationally" approach. Is there a doubt about iNow's argument? I haven't seen anyone disassemble it yet, only wave their hands and claim it's a ridiculous parade, without showing exactly why. I'm willing to listen, but your incredulity isn't as compelling as you might think.

Theres no point, rational discourse isn’t possible where an allmighty bandwagon is present. If we weren’t able to agree for dozens of pages in this thread that „Category” is not synonymous to „Sex” (essentially for the last 15 pages this is what this thread is) then whats the point, I have 2 choices - turn to sarcasm like I’m doing it in my previous post and take the bandwagon downvotes or withdraw from converstation completely.
Don’t worry, the latter is growing on me. 

 Category, Sex - lets make synonyms of those 2 words and keep on marching the parade. Who cares what words mean anymore.

4 hours ago, zapatos said:

I think you are going to find yourself all alone in your particular definition of sex. I'm not sure anyone else besides you would say my three year old granddaughter and my wife are not female.

These are the conclusions he got from reading through this thread, can’t really blame him since people with scientific authority built this view in this thread. The fact that this view is crippled, grotesque and stems from strong political bias is equally scary on a science site which by definition is supposed to be independent and non partisan as it is scary because it so easilly gets to people who seek non biased information from scientific sources. And as a cherry on top, it all happened in the Genetics section.

1 minute ago, iNow said:

So not male? Not female? But instead an anomaly, correct? 

I'm done here.

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

You say there are two sexes only. Male and Female. Into which of those two buckets are you placing Intersex individuals?

Into an anomaly, a deviation from the normal distribution within our species, like any non ideology infatuated person would. And no, it doesn't mean I'm transphobic, homophobic, xenophobic, or whatever other phobic your hand waving instead of clapping marble brain thinks.

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Why would we say that intersex is NOT different from the male sex and the female sex? That would be absurd, yet that’s your stance. 

Different does not equal to a 3rd sex. Ofcourse theyre different. Your dishonesty in discourse is amazing. 

51 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I suspect that it won't help much to clarify as there is clearly some ideological overlay here, but what one could (mostly) accurately state is that in humans (and mammals) reproduction involves two sexes. However, this definition uses the reproductive angle, which means that individuals who are e.g. sterile from birth would not fall under either category. 

And that category is not a 3rd sex in humans now is it Charony.
Just spit it out and say it through the downvotes, the subtle accusations and implications of homophobia, racism, conspiracy theory throughout the previous transgender thread and this one, just please f say it - "Individuals who are e.g. sterile from birth, are intersex or have other deviations from the standard distribution are NOT a 3rd SEX in homosapiens !"

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

...What people fail to see is that nature does not define "normal" or "exceptions"...

What about a tiger born with 2 legs? Or why aren't you 215cm and 140kg and playing for the NBA?
 

47 minutes ago, studiot said:

Yes thank you, I realise whom you were quoting.

But I am disappointed that you chose to label such people as defective humans.

Seems an obnoxious term to me.

At least you acknowledged that they are humans.

However I wonder if there are any humans truly without any defects at all?

Or do all humans have some defect or other ?

Oh sure, were all imperfect in various ways. Your argument leads to the conclusion that there are currently 7.7 billion people with different sexes in the homosapiens species living on Earth and counting. I’m sory that youre disappointed that some people suffer from various defects, I’m disappointed too,  I’d much prefer that my daughter didn’t have diabetes but the fact that she has that condition (does that sound better than defect?) doesn’t sound „obnoxious” to me. 

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

And even if we switch to using the word “anomaly,” then we STILL have more than two… at the very least we have male, female, and anomalies… and last I checked, 3 is more than 2 (keep me honest on that, studiot… I’m no Leonhard Euler over here)

So youre treating anomalies which the intersex people suffer as additional sexes.

I’m trying to let that idiocy sink into my mind and think of something decent to reply to you but only indecent words and sentences come to mind.

To summarize, I think this 42 year old Monty Python clip perfectly sums up both this thread and the previous transgender thread.
 

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

I didn't call it anything.

But please enlighten me.

Why do you call it a birth defect ?

Birth has nothing to do with a situation that occurred long before birth.

 

In the context of intersex people which this is, maybe anomaly would be a more appropriate term.
Also, you do realise that I was quoting iNow not you, right?