Jump to content

Are there more than 2 sexes?


WillyWehr
 Share

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

+1 for the article. Hard to pick sides. A classic example of "They said, she said"...

What strikes me about the dispute is the way that expressing grievances has changed in recent years.  At one time, a drunk boss saying something stupid, would be fodder for commiserating elsewhere... wow, the boss is a mean drunk, and starts spouting bullshit.  Maybe you meet a coworker in a break room and share some venomous comments about your stupid boss, no one is turning it into deep angst over being marginalized.  We wouldn't be reading about it on BBC.

I mean "transwomen are a danger to actual women in toilets," sounds like the kind of drunken idiocy that should give underlings something to mock at, not launch some sort of public official inquiry or attack campaign.  And if said director claims to be open and egalitarian, then party attendees should just openly push back on her remarks, then and there, or later one-on-one.  If her clueless views are ever amenable to modification by facts, that is more likely to happen if she is not publicly horsewhipped and has her worst moment paraded around the nation.  

The time for lawyers, sharp knives, and publicity, is if the director is called on her behavior by people at the party and she then punishes them at work or fires them.  IOW, real discrimination.  Real oppression.  If that was happening in this case, the report is not clear about that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Can you tell me who is using a PC filter? I ask because I've not seen either side of the discussion doing that. Any example would be great.

Arete posing syndromes and disorders as "intermediate states" 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, koti said:

Arete posing syndromes and disorders as "intermediate states" 
 

And here I was thinking I was using an collective term, frequently used in the scientific literature to describe the diversity of intersex conditions when I should have been writing them all out as an exhaustive list to avoid being the social justice warrior PC police. Apologies, won't happen again.

Btw, anyone have a list of every possible color between green and blue? RIP the word count on this lizard manuscript. 

Edited by Arete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Arete said:

And here I was thinking I was using an collective term, frequently used in the scientific literature to describe the diversity of intersex conditions when I should have been writing them all out as an exhaustive list to avoid being the social justice warrior PC police. Apologies, won't happen again.

A little nudge on a phrase or meaning here or there to catalyze the context into your liking never hurt anyone, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, koti said:

A little nudge on a phrase or meaning here or there to catalyze the context into your liking never hurt anyone, right?

Alright, what's you preferred, non- "PC filtered" term for all possible trait states that may result in an ambiguous determination of sex?

 

Edited by Arete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Arete said:

Alright, what's you preferred, non- "PC filtered" term for all intersex conditions?   

Syndromes, deficiencies, mutations, the infographic you posted eariler is pretty clear and easy to understand and those words and phrases are used there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, koti said:

Syndromes, deficiencies, mutations, the infographic you posted eariler is pretty clear and easy to understand and those words and phrases are used there.

And you have preferred, unbiased collective term for these, or you're expecting them all to be listed each time they are referred to? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Arete said:

And you have preferred, unbiased collective term for these, or you're expecting them all to be listed each time they are referred to? 

„Conditions” in my opinion is fine. Certainly more accurate than „intermediate states” which might imply to the uninformed that someone with Kinefelter Syndrome will evolve into a final state like larva into a butterfly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, koti said:

„Conditions” in my opinion is fine. Certainly more accurate than „intermediate states” which might imply to the uninformed that someone with Kinefelter Syndrome will evolve into a final state like larva into a butterfly. 

The irony of your use of the word "evolve" is quite amusing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

+1 for the article. Hard to pick sides. A classic example of "They said, she said".

Well...I did skip to start posting on page 7, after scanning page 1.

Cheers. Yes, It has very poised opposite viewpoints this subject.

2 hours ago, koti said:

Because some of us are filtering the science through a PC filter and some of us refuse to accept that.

If I were PC, I'd be the same with feminism and BLM, and that hasn't changed from what I've posted. That doesn't mean I can't change but I've seen nothing so far to cause me to do that. This subject can be analysed from a scientific perspective, so it's just easier to follow objective criteria and evidence... nature is what it is.

Edited by StringJunky
Clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, koti said:

Arete posing syndromes and disorders as "intermediate states" 
 

I recommend you calibrate your PC Detection device if this is what qualifies for the 25+ times in this thread you’ve lashed out against it, bc right now you’re getting far too many false positives. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

I recommend you calibrate your PC Detection device if this is what qualifies for the 25+ times in this thread you’ve lashed out against it, bc right now you’re getting far too many false positives. 

Why thank you iNow, you've always balanced your arguments so well through bias free rhetoric that I will give your recommendation a thought. Maybe later.

Edited by koti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

I mean "transwomen are a danger to actual women in toilets,"

This sentiment is absurd for the vast majority of trans-females. Not to put too fine a point on it, but what are they going to 'get off' with if they have been surgically reassigned? It's an incredibly serious commitment. The real reason for feminists kicking off about it is that "women have fought for a long time for equal rights, now men are hijacking it"... words to that effect. They want to keep that gender/sex space for themselves; for those that "menstruate"! Clearly, they wish to discriminate. Ironic.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

This sentiment is absurd for the vast majority of trans-females. Not to put too fine a point on it, but what are they going to 'get off' with if they have been surgically reassigned? It's an incredibly serious commitment. The real reason for feminists kicking off about it is that "women have fought for a long time for equal rights, now men are hijacking it"... words to that effect. They want to keep that gender/sex space for themselves; for those that "menstruate"! Clearly, they wish to discriminate. Ironic.

I think a significant minority have surgical procedures but still far from a majority:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6626314/#:~:text=As a whole%2C less than,in the future (7).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think a significant minority have surgical procedures but still far from a majority:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6626314/#:~:text=As a whole%2C less than,in the future (7).

Yes, ok, +1, I shouldn't have assumed 'vast majority' (naughty me) but for those that do, the point stands, I think. 

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Depends on the idea of the argument, people who see it social will say yes, people who see it a logic(science) will say no.

Its a concept that has been in science since forever, which is Does science control our beliefs. Its a open end question for the most part, parts of history will say yes others no. A good example of science v beliefs is the Earth is flat during the medieval era. For the science of the time was seen as witch craft and was also killed for it. But a good one that shows when the scale is tip to science is Nazi Germany during 1940s' they made many things but also ruin people, murder and much more for the name of science, like we didn't know about hypothermia till they did they're reascreach that was cruel.

But to answer the question social people will say yes, science says no

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Theifcom said:

But to answer the question social people will say yes, science says no

You really ought to read a thread before bumping it and declaring your answer as the only correct one. You’re incorrect on what science says, and that’s been covered over and over and over again already… then,over and over and over again some more. Just let the topic die already. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • 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.