koti

23 minutes ago, iNow said:

What is it specifically about your broader perspective and desire for objectivity that leads you to subjectivity dismiss with the wave of a hand all those counter examples which demonstrate your preconceived conclusion to be flawed?

You’ve acknowledged the existence of humans who fit into neither the male nor the female bucket, yet you continue to insist that the male and female buckets are the only possibilities. That’s illogical. 

I suspect it's the semantics, how you perceive and define what sex is and how many there are based on this perception. I call it a birth defect, you call it an additional sex. 

19 minutes ago, iNow said:

Why do you believe the best choice is to ignore those others possibilities? What about them should be dismissed when attempting to answer the question “are there more than 2 sexes?” 

We’re not talking about turning Volvos into Vespa’s. We’re talking about genetic sexes that fit into neither one of the male/ female buckets. You’re trying to force evidence into your preconceived conclusion. You’re ignoring the evidence that shows where you’ve made an error in your thinking.

For someone who for so many years has argued the topic of evolution with creationists right along side me, it’s unthinkable to me that you’re relying so heavily on their tactics to protect your untenable stance on the topic of sex classification. 

I think it might be due to some personality traits, I guess I'm trying to find objective truth in things and I'm looking at this subject from a broader perspective. I have a hunch that we would be tending to agree on more things if the context and medium would be different. I can't agree on your creationist analogy though, I just don't see where stuff overlaps in this analogy. 

Just now, Sensei said:

Is it yet another day with too much whisky for you? You have PESEL, where digits 0,2,4,6,8 means woman, and 1,3,5,7,9 means man. You have intersex infant newly born.. Which number will be assigned? Based on whether infant has cunt or whether has penis (if infant has both!).. ?

Is it politics? (I see only politicians playing this subject from time to time, but it's biology. These people born this way)

Is it ideology for you?

Somebody really have such problems. Either doctor who has no option "unknown sex"/"unknown gender"/"intersex"/"undefined", parents, and child and then adult human in later age.. Parent has only checkbox "girl"/"boy" on the form, what they should click and why, if both answers are true?

 

Please stop quoting me and posting to me, thank you.

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Right. Which means there are more than two, regardless of how common those other two are. You’re not making much sense 

So when a brand new car leaves the factory with a defective ECU it becomes a scooter. Got it. 

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

Why not?

Okay, were getting somewhere - because vast number of individuals in the species are born with strictly male or strictly female traits (the number of births with ambiguous genitals is in the range of 0.02% to 0.05%) 
Following wikipedia, the term "disorders of sex development" (DSD) has been used since 2006 and a shift in language considered controversial since its introduction. The fact that intersex people (or any other minorities) suffer from stigmatization sucks and I'm all for protecting those people but not through grotesque ideological stances like insisting that people born with intersex birth defects are a different sex.

Also, when you will go through andropause you will not suddenly become a Karen, you will be the same old iNow, would you agree?

26 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Paul, these are not ideological/political threads.. To simple minds there are only males or females.. So suppose you are talking to someone who has both male and female organs, and they are fully functional and person can be either father and mother at the same time. What gender does this person have? In your oversimplified worldview, you cannot decide what gender this person has.. Him or her? She or he? (brain freeze)

 

Intersex people who are born with several sex characteristics for example a set of genitals of both sexes suffer from a defect and are not evidence for homosapiens having more than 2 sexes as a species. Gender which you mention is yet a different subject which you mixed in, this thread doesn't deal with gender.

The only brainfreeze I get is when I have to yet again read your presumptous tone towards me, simple minds tend to do that.

Quote

The Polish (your country) national identification number (PESEL) (assigned by the government at birth) encodes a person's gender (the last digit is a checksum; if the penultimate digit is odd the person is male, if even, the person is female). Determined at birth (so by just looking at the body of infant; wondering what they do with intersex person? Toss coin?). When someone has a gender reassignment operation, they must also have their ID changed and the all the data associated with it (bank accounts updated, documents, etc., etc.).

Thank you for enlightening me what my country is and explaining through the "PESEL" example. It is as much impertinent as it is weird, are you stalking me again?

8 hours ago, CharonY said:

How about you argue your position then instead of calling everyone else's argument grotesque? If it is so easy it must be trivial for you to present a definition that is universal and covers all cases we find in nature. As for child bearing, if an individual is unable to bear children for whatever reasons, is that male or female? If that is insufficient information, what else is? Saying that it is evolutionary built in trait is akin to the teleological argument, but obviously in nature everything that exists, exists, including infertility. Of course they are generally not positively selected against, but since they continue to appear it means that there are biological mechanisms that result in these cases. It is like saying that homosexuality does not exist in nature as they do not produce offspring. 

Perhaps to help on the way, I still think that the karyotype is probably going to cover more ground than complex traits (such as childbearing). And if one wanted to force a binary categorization one could simply state that everyone with a Y-chromosome in any of the cells is male. That would be a perfect binary qualifier (either a Y chromosome is present or it is absent).

A bit of an issue are for example folks with the Swyer syndrome. They develop female external genitalia, have a functional uterus and fallopian tube, but generally have underdeveloped gonads. Just looking at external features, one would classify them as female, though.

Also there are rare cases of chimerism when an otherwise female appearing individual may have tissue with Y-chromosomes. So while this classification seems to be useful in, say, more than the above mentioned 98% or so of the cases, there are still few exceptions not covered. This alone again indicates that our map in this case is fairly accurate but still fails cover all the nook and crannies.

Ok, I'll take a deep breath and I'll try to go as calm as I can about this.

Please lets try to analyze this, according to your line of thinking, the  Swyer syndrome and chimerism are direct/indirect evidence for more than 2 sexes existing in homosapiens, correct? Please elaborate and explain why a certain defect in a species is according to you evidence which allegedly undermines fundamental traits of a species.  
 

6 hours ago, iNow said:

Since when is anyone forcing you to participate? Is your posting to these threads not voluntary? Wink twice and hold your thumb and forefinger together if we should send immediate help to your location!

I'm afraid I will have to agree with you on this one, I'm not very proud of myself for participating in these ideological/political threads 🤷‍♂️

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Well, at least you’re consistent in your total inability to offer any coherent support whatsoever for your stance and opposition. 

Your ENTIRE post history on this and related topics is, “Nuh uh!! Also, iNow is a doo doo head.”

Color me unimpressed, but thanks for letting me live rent free in your head all these years. 

It just solidifies my stance towards you when you cherry pick things from my comment while evading the meat. And it's all to make the poster to look like a dick and a moron for future readers while downvoting ad nauseam - thats being a dick. This will work but only in a closed and biased environment - this site. This is what you were supposed to adress:

"No, post menopausal women are not an argumet nor the infertile women are - Women bare children, men don't and thats ok, really it is grotesque that you seem to think its not. You have to be a really special kind of dick to argue that an evolutionarily built in defect or trait of a species is evidence for another evolutionarily built in trait"


 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

What premise is that? I asked for a definition of sex, and asked what makes on male or female.

Yes you did.

On 11/24/2021 at 1:19 PM, swansont said:

So menopause is where a female becomes male? Puberty is the opposite? A hysterectomy or tubal ligation is a sex change?

But you also wrote this which is a really dirty and fallacious swing and the subject.

Levels of grotesqueness are hitting the stratosphere here, this kind of debate is something that I came in here 6 years ago to counter against the religious and anti scientific crackpots, besides trying to aquire new to me knowledge which I’m getting none from this.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

5 hours ago, iNow said:

...As has already been pointed out repeatedly, your definition leads to absurdities like saying post menopausal women and the infertile are not women.

   

This whole premise which was introduced by @swansontat the begining of the thread is as much wrong as it is absurd. I genuinely do not know if you both plus  @CharonY are so far down the rabbit hole of PC that you've lost your screws already or you are just pretending for the sake of something. It doesn't matter as far as I am concerned as unconscious incompetence is as much incompetent as deliberately bullshiting people into a view (anti vaxers come to mind)
No, post menopausal women are not an argumet nor the infertile women are - Women bare children, men don't and thats ok, really it is grotesque that you seem to think its not. You have to be a really special kind of dick to argue that an evolutionarily built in defect or trait of a species is evidence for another evolutionarily built in trait.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

1 hour ago, iNow said:

No, but suggesting that one must tell their 5-year old son that they can carry a baby in their belly is somehow a helpful answer to the question “are there only 2 sexes” is.  

I don’t mind people having viewpoints different from my own, but I do mind when they resort to little more than childish snark and logical absurdities as their only defense of those viewpoints. 

 

You're a DICK iNow. You haven't got reprimended for calling me one a few years back so it's only fair I won't be reprimended for calling you one now. You do go straight into confrontation in most your post regarding me so dick is what you get. 

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

I would suggest you tell your child, to play on the swings; while the grown-ups have a conversation. 

Seems like an interesting way of having a fruitful conversation with your 5 year old:

- Mommy, will I be having a kid in my tummy when Im older like you had me in your tummy?
- Go play on a swing.

Seems like a rhetoric simmilar to the one used by conservative religious people.

42 minutes ago, iNow said:

Strawman much?

Also, by the way… he technically could. A male pregnancy is certainly possible by having an embryo implanted into the man's abdomen. It would be ectopic with the placenta attached to an internal organ such as the bowel and later delivered surgically.

So YET AGAIN your argument crumbles under even the most basic scrutiny.

I have no argument.
So you would suggest I explain to my 5 year that he could have a child in his tummy? 

9 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Tell him a story that he's capable of understanding and accepting, that can be explained further as his comprehension improves, thus building his pyramid of knowledge; who cares if the foundation of his knowledge contains a story about storks or fairy's. 

So you think I shouldn’t explain for now and leave him hanging with the notion that he might have a child one day in his tummy like Mommy or should we explain to him that girls get to have kids in their tummies and boys don’t? 
 

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

The answer depends on what you want to convey. Two sexes is sufficiently simple narrative, like the sun is yellow or the sky is blue. It is an operating framework that works, but if you ask scientifically, you know it is a simplification.

I misspelled „kid” in my previous post. Our 5 year old asked us recently if hes going to have a kid one day like Mommy had him in the tummy. Do you think we should tell him its complicated? 

So whats the answer, how many are there and what are their traits and definitions? Our 5 year old son asked the other day if hes going to have a kind some day and I want to give him a comprehensive answer and keep the narrative simple for now.

I’m really eager to find out the answer to the OP question. 

Id’d say that in a nutshell, Justice is what @dimreepr gets for sitting at his folks place and smoking weed. 

6 hours ago, iNow said:

I’m perfectly willing to be convinced that I am wrong or mistaken. I am always open to the idea that maybe I’m being inconsistent and even unfair. I will readily acknowledge fault and error when it’s highlighted for me. 

Posts like this one from you, however, will lead to none of those outcomes.

Posts like this serve only to further deteriorate my already limited and continuously eroded respect for you. Posts like this cause me only to reinforce my view of you as a childish poster seemingly incapable of making cogent coherent points without resorting to personal barbs and emotional outbursts. 

Did your favorite lesbian professor quit or was she fired? Nothing I said was inaccurate. Let’s start there, perhaps. What about me saying this objectively true statement led you to call me blind, biased, and hypocritical, because I do not think those words mean what you think they mean. 

No. You are not perfectly willing to be convinced that youre wrong or mistaken, your stance is predetermined and biased. I am willing to accept that and agree to disagree. I certainly will not launch a witch hunt against you to get you fired, call you a bigott, conspiracy theorist, call your thinking anti vaxxer/climate change denialist or try to put you in my line of thinking with a dozen downvotes. See the difference? 
While youre convinced that your stance is well ballanced in this thread and that you analised all view points to arrive in your convlusions, I assure you its not the case after seeing what has been happening in this thread. 
Youre locked in your bubble so tightly and for so long that its no longer the case that you don’t see the light coming in, you forgot that the light even exists. 

6 hours ago, iNow said:

…Posts like this serve only to further deteriorate my already limited and continuously eroded respect for you…

Maybe I should find out who you are, flood your employer with how youre not respecting me and hire people to spray paint your house with „iNow is a biggot, fire iNow!”  After all, I want you to respect me and I feel youre not doing a very good job on it.

22 minutes ago, iNow said:

…The lesbian example to which Koti keeps clinging was a resignation, not a firing.

The level of your blindness which is caused by your bias is only topped by your hypocrisy.

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

...Since you make it personal, if my daughter told me she never felt right being called "she" or "her", am I supposed to tell her she can't feel that way because that's how she was born? If she told me she was gay and I accepted that, why wouldn't I use the pronouns she wants me to?...

It's not about that, for the n'th time this is about your daughter using legal action against you, leading a witch hunt against you at the end of which you loose your job. The fact that you (and a few others) remain blind to what this is about is astonishing.

27 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think you are conflating a lot of issues here and it makes it difficult if not impossible to discuss them if they are not properly separated.

...creationism and intelligent design have led to resignations and  termination...

No I am not conflating issues Charony Your "creationism and intelligent design" remark is deplorable.
Youre trying to paint my and professor Kathleen Stocks argument as creationist and intelligent design leaning. Youre not bringing any actual merit to this thread instead trying through a really crude and slimy way to deflect and paint her argument as religious extremism, shame on you.

41 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

...Right now, for some, the respect these people are asking for seems extravagant and ridiculous, beyond the basic courtesy we usually give to others...

Again like I mentioned to iNow above, I would strongly urge you to bring this up in person with professor Kathleen Stock and the 200 Academics who support her freedom in academia. I am more than disappointed in you Phi, you were always the high ground for me on this site. Now you've either unkowingly become a slave to a PC agenda or you really do believe that giving birth to a child is a made up thing. Which is it? 

 

4 hours ago, iNow said:

Have you considered their perspective and how exhausting it is to live every single day of your entire life not being accepted for who you are, being targeted for violence, and needing to constantly defend yourself against the perceptual whims of others?

Have you considered my perspective and how exhausting it is to live every single day of my life of This Thread and not being accepted for who I am, being targeted for every conceivable atrocity and needing to constantly defend a female feminist philosopher who teaches feminism against the whims of you and others?  You should be ashamed of yourself, go to your room.

39 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

But now you're going back and claiming inference... AGAIN! Please stop.

So can I again claim to be adressed as Ze or can’t I? It’s not the thread which is circular, it’s the subject.

Wouldn’t it be beneficial for everyone if this thread got closed? It’s a political, ideological ping pong which can never be solved through science and the scientific method so why keep this up?

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Not that anybody is counting, but I believe this is now the 4th time you’ve done this dying swan routine just in this one thread. One more and you get a free sandwich!

Having one right now. You however, should have a Snickers.

46 minutes ago, iNow said:

It seems we agree, and the evidence very much supports this conclusion. 

There is no way of getting through your confirmation bias, I'm done. I suggest you pick this up with professor Kathleen Stock hereselef or the 200 academic philosophers who signed an open letter in support of her academic freedom. 

7 hours ago, iNow said:

I find myself wondering if you have ever been formally diagnosed with reading comprehension problems

It is notable that after all that has been said in this thread youre still trying to use the same primitive, dirty strategy of trying to find a single point of failure (where Im right btw) in anything I post and based on that single trivial point, trying to build an image of me being wrong on everything. I have nothing to add in this thread, I feel I said everything I wanted to say.

On 10/29/2021 at 12:47 AM, Peterkin said:

Is that an example of legal or job-related repercussions of pronoun usage?

And you've fact-checked it? And you found that it fits the criteria of establishment persecution of non-conformity?

On 10/29/2021 at 1:05 AM, CharonY said:

How is that related to 

Assuming that it actually happened as described, are you saying that because members of a given community behaved badly one should be free to discriminate against them? Or what is the argument here? 

24 minutes ago, iNow said:

Who here doesn’t believe the story Chappelle shared? I seem to have missed that part of this thread and would appreciate a quote or retraction. 

Doesn't believe, doesn't give a shit, whatever.