glassjester
Well-known member
Probably not necessary.
When a baby is born (and even earlier, with an ultrasound), the doctors can tell immediately what sex the baby is. Do you know how?
biology, not your subjective "feelings"
- Thread starter Tambora
- Start date
Probably not necessary.
When a baby is born (and even earlier, with an ultrasound), the doctors can tell immediately what sex the baby is. Do you know how?
Sure, it is.
The whole premise of OP and the video is that sex is determined by biology. If you want to make the argument about something else, you can quit holding up your biology degree as if that has something to do with it.
The objective fact that at conception XX means girl and XY means boy.
Also, this thread title is so ironic where so many of those who disagree with Shapiro are Darwinists. You can't make this stuff up.
Sure, but people change as they age and develop.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
usually, they don't change sex
How do you know? Is sexual orientation just based upon your genitalia?
Selaphiel
Well-known member
Except that I don't disagree with the fact that biology is central. What I disagree with is his simplified view of biology. As the Nature article that I linked shows, sexual determination is more complex, there are biological reasons to not affirm simple gender binaries.
glassjester said:
And if you read the article that I linked, you will see why that is too simple. There are XX and XY people that, due to other influences, do not feel like the gender assigned to the sexual function (and these can exhibit external physiological signs as well) because sexual determination is a more complex developmental process, that involves hormones and genetic networks and switches.
I will link it again: http://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943
That is really all that I have to and want to show. Since the claim of Shapiro and the OP is that biology is clear, it is not. Understanding sexual development is a work in process, and it seems to be more complex than he claims it is. Whether this accounts for all cases or justifies further gender differentiation remains to be seen. I leave that to the experts, and Shapiro isn't one of them.
Except you're trying to rewrite the rules. Sex is determined at conception.
It's no problem if it's true. At conception, the baby's gender is set in stone.
Of course there are. If the baby has XX, she is a girl. XY means boy.
Your feelings don't change the facts. XX=girl. XY=boy.
OK, bye. :wave2:
Stripe needs sex to be yes/no because he needs things to be heaven/hell as well. He is incorrect on both.
Unless, of course, Stripe has read the Nature article that was posted and has citations to the literature that suggest that article to be incorrect. I'm sure he will post links.
Unless, of course, Stripe has read the Nature article that was posted and has citations to the literature that suggest that article to be incorrect. I'm sure he will post links.
Last edited:
Selaphiel
Well-known member
I am trying to redefine the rules? I am the researcher behind the findings reported in that Nature article? Take it up with Nature. I'm sure they will publish your rebuttal of the findings if you can present evidence of bad methodology or bad science in the research referenced in the original article.
Repeating your position does not make it stronger.
Gene network and switches as well as hormone production are subjective feelings? Then again, you are not exactly known for your understanding of science, the opposite actually. So I guess I shouldn't be too surprised.
glassjester
Well-known member
Did you happen to notice that your source uses the term "disorders of sex development" to describe the conditions that you assume lead to transgenderism?
The vast majority of people are either male or female.
You have brought up disorders a couple times now, as if they are the rule, rather than the exception. If you want to use rare disorders to justify transgenderism, then fine. But let's be clear on that.
Do you agree, then (that barring any disorder) people are either male or female?
WatchmanOnTheWall
New member
Hi,I need help.
Selaphiel
Well-known member
I assume? Seems like a more honest formulation would be "the research suggests..."
What is your point?
If you read the article, the researcher or reporter doesn't label them as that as a value judgment:
"Parents of children with these kinds of conditions — known as intersex conditions, or differences or disorders of sex development (DSDs)"
"Some are classed as having differences or disorders of sex development (DSDs), in which their sex chromosomes do not match their sexual anatomy."
Where have I claimed that they are the rule rather than the exception? I have made no such claim. You have an interesting tendency to assign opinions to people you disagree with, to make your disagreement appear more reasonable.
What this research shows is that sexual development is more complex than simply being XX or XY. Development of gender and gender identity is a complex process involving gene networks and switches as well as hormones. As the very headline of the article says, this suggests that sexuality is a spectrum rather than a simple binary. As the article concludes:
"Yet if biologists continue to show that sex is a spectrum, then society and state will have to grapple with the consequences, and work out where and how to draw the line. Many transgender and intersex activists dream of a world where a person's sex or gender is irrelevant. Although some governments are moving in this direction, Greenberg is pessimistic about the prospects of realizing this dream — in the United States, at least. “I think to get rid of gender markers altogether or to allow a third, indeterminate marker, is going to be difficult.”
So if the law requires that a person is male or female, should that sex be assigned by anatomy, hormones, cells or chromosomes, and what should be done if they clash? “My feeling is that since there is not one biological parameter that takes over every other parameter, at the end of the day, gender identity seems to be the most reasonable parameter,” says Vilain. In other words, if you want to know whether someone is male or female, it may be best just to ask."
The entire point of me citing this article was to show that biology is not as clear as Shapiro makes it out to be. The understanding sexual development and gender identity is not concluded.
The question is, why is the gender binary so important to you?
glassjester
Well-known member
Barring a disorder, no it isn't.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
I think she is studying the impact of various levels of hormones and other varying levels of chemical signals in fetal development in mice so not sure she could respond to your question. Quick Wiki review seems to indicate it is a result of abnormal meiosis. so more a physical difference in the X chromosome rather than a chemical signaling difference
But the issue is one that clearly shows our friend Stripe to be incorrect. When you have two X chromosomes you should be a female but if one of those chromosomes has the SRY gene as a result of translocation of the SRY gene from the father's Y chromosome to his X chromosome in meiosis guess what---male genetalia (probably smaller than "normal" along with other potential changes) in a person with 2 X chromosomes.
Stripe, any comments after the research homework you now have???
Whether you call it a disorder or not, the fact is that sexual development in humans, and probably all mammals, is not an either/or situation. Stripe is just plain wrong. Lets see if he is capable of learning something
glassjester
Well-known member
Yes it is. The biology deniers' pet abnormalities serve as the exception that prove the rule.
About 1 in 40,000 people are born with symbrachydactyly (a defect sometimes resulting in no fingers on the hand). Shall we now say, "The fact is that humans are not born with five fingers on each hand." ?