Advocate: "You won't date trans people because you are ignorant, biased, and Transphobic"

[Bacle]

Yes, for basic biology that’s correct. It’s a strong statistical correlation. But you can’t use chromosomes alone to assert that a person is male or female absent other evidence.

...yes you can. Biologists do it all the time when looking at the DNA of species other than humans.

This seems to be a buggaboo with certain philosophical sects that is, well, dumb. They think we humans need to be more the than 'just' animals, and that the basic biological facts that hold true for animals hold do not true for humans too. because we are 'better' than those animals.

 

[Deleted member]

...yes you can. Biologists do it all the time when looking at the DNA of species other than humans.

This seems to be a buggaboo with certain philosophical sects that is, well, dumb. They think we humans need to be more the than 'just' animals, and that the basic biological facts that hold true for animals hold true for humans too.

No, you can't. Biologists rely on statistical correlation. I am sorry, but all of science does. I know since I work in the field. You just dismiss outliers if your confidence interval is high enough. Science operates on the convention that what is reproduceable with sufficiently high confidence intervals can be generalised for convenience. But that does not deny that the outliers exist, and therefore, no scientific explanation of anything is axiomatic.

 

[LordSunhawk]

Bluntly, such a tiny fraction of a fraction of the population is primary trans that the 'generic' mainstream of biology is irrelevant, we're dealing with the marginalia. And once you are dealing with the marginalia, then it becomes less about science and more about philosophy.

 

[Fleiur]

Basic biology is far more complex than simple XX/XY dichotomy. For example, XXY, or some of the work done on epigenetics. Things are far more complex.

Not really. Females have two X chromosomes, males have one X and one Y.

 

[Deleted member]

Not really. Females have two X chromosomes, males have one X and one Y.

Generally speaking, yes. But Sunhawk is explicitly referring to marginalia (outliers), where the point was that the situation is legitimately and sincerely more complex.

 

[Fleiur]

Yes, for basic biology that’s correct. It’s a strong statistical correlation. But you can’t use chromosomes alone to assert that a person is male or female absent other evidence.

You can? There are 46 chromosomes in a human, 23 pairs. Everyone has a set of chromosomes from their father and a matching set from their mother. They include a pair of sex chromosomes. The mother's eggs always contain an X chromosome, while the father's sperm contains either a Y chromosome or an X chromosome. That determines the sex of the child. Females have two X chromosomes, males have one X and one Y.
If chromosomes are not the basis, what do you mean by this other evidence?

 

[Fleiur]

Generally speaking, yes. But Sunhawk is explicitly referring to marginalia (outliers), where the point was that the situation is legitimately and sincerely more complex.

Yeah, complex but, outliers /genetic mutations are rare cases.

 

[LordSunhawk]

Yeah, complex but, outliers /genetic mutations are rare cases.

And primary trans is... A rare case

 

[LordSunhawk]

You can? There are 46 chromosomes in a human, 23 pairs. Everyone has a set of chromosomes from their father and a matching set from their mother. They include a pair of sex chromosomes. The mother's eggs always contain an X chromosome, while the father's sperm contains either a Y chromosome or an X chromosome. That determines the sex of the child. Females have two X chromosomes, males have one X and one Y.
If chromosomes are not the basis, what do you mean by this other evidence?

XXY is a thing, and epigenetics is discovering that there's more to genetics than chromosomes. As more is learned about epigenetics, the less like a total bonehead Lamarck looks, environmental, diet, and other variables at a young enough age seem to cause all sorts of genetic change.

 

[Fleiur]

And primary trans is... A rare case

And the basic biology is still XY and XX/Man and woman.

 

[almostinsane]

While transgenderism is a hot button issue, I would point out, since @LordSunhawk brings up the Catholic Church, that the Church teaches that Christians are to be compassionate towards trans people and defend them from mistreatment, but it also affirms that there are only two genders and they are based on biological sex. To teach otherwise is anathema.

There are intersex individuals which requires dialogue and discernment about what gender they truly belong, but these are outliers. 99% of human beings are not born intersex. To deny gender binaryism or to buy into gender theory because of rare cases leads to the disaster we now face.

 

[Fleiur]

XXY is a thing, and epigenetics is discovering that there's more to genetics than chromosomes. As more is learned about epigenetics, the less like a total bonehead Lamarck looks, environmental, diet, and other variables at a young enough age seem to cause all sorts of genetic change.

Yeah. A genetic disorder. Sex chromosomes determine the XX and XY, thus, if you were born with with XX chromosomes you are female and XY you are male.

 

[ShieldWife]

If we define men as XY and women as XX, that would be a good working definition in almost every case. There might be exceptional circumstances where this definition gives us an undesirable result - I would say that the most notable case is of people with XY chromosomes and androgen insensitivity syndrome. Such a person is nearly indistinguishable from a biological female but has male genetics. Do we say that such a person is a male, a female, or neither and if the answer is one of the later two then we have just undermined our above XX vs XY definition.

This isn’t to say that because androgen insensitivity syndrome, or other unusual physical conditions, exist that transsexuality exists in the same way that the Social Justice left claims that it does. But it’s always good to re-examine our fundamental assumptions.

Personally, I would want to look at the issue from the most objective and scientific angle possible, but it’s too politically charged now to get good data, in my opinion.

 

[Deleted member]

There are intersex individuals which requires dialogue and discernment about what gender they truly belong, but these are outliers. 99% of human beings are not born intersex. To deny gender binaryism or to buy into gender theory because of rare cases leads to the disaster we now face.

That is something of the thing here. We are talking about primary transsexualism, which comprises 0.3pct of the human population. Let’s be clear: Nobody here supports gender theory. Nobody. We are talking about the well-founded and well-researched science that supported the differential diagnostic process and surgical reassignment for fifty years before gender theory radical advocates tore it down in favor of letting secondary transsexuals and indeed anyone at all to transition without appropriate diagnosis and attempts to cure them first. If we actually include the “passes” in Wilhelmine Germany then efforts to support primary transsexuals date back around 130 years in western medicine. Transsexual surgery is inherently conservative and affirms the existence of two and only two biological sexes with two social roles.

If we define men as XY and women as XX, that would be a good working definition in almost every case. There might be exceptional circumstances where this definition gives us an undesirable result - I would say that the most notable case is of people with XY chromosomes and androgen insensitivity syndrome. Such a person is nearly indistinguishable from a biological female but has male genetics. Do we say that such a person is a male, a female, or neither and if the answer is one of the later two then we have just undermined our above XX vs XY definition.

This isn’t to say that because androgen insensitivity syndrome, or other unusual physical conditions, exist that transsexuality exists in the same way that the Social Justice left claims that it does. But it’s always good to re-examine our fundamental assumptions.

Personally, I would want to look at the issue from the most objective and scientific angle possible, but it’s too politically charged now to get good data, in my opinion.

Good data do exist—in studies in the 70s, 80s, and 90s which address almost all of these topics and questions effectively. I can consolidate the sources in a reference thread in NSFW Politics if you like.

But thank you. That was very much the point I was trying to get across. You can’t use a standard based on statistical correlation as an axiomatic fact. You have to dig into the processes of causation, which tell us that XY chromosomes normally lead to maleness but not always because of defects in expression. That demonstrates quite adequately that maleness is based on primary sexual characteristics, not chromosomes. Surgery removes these, so the correct statement is that a postoperative transwoman is not biologically male or female. She is coded into womanhood by appearance, conduct, mannerism and other secondary sexual characteristics and behaviors which all match those of a normal woman. In doing so we are upholding traditional social mores because the bulk of the evidence says she is a woman for all purposes which matter to society.

 

[Doomsought]

Basic biology is far more complex than simple XX/XY dichotomy. For example, XXY, or some of the work done on epigenetics. Things are far more complex.

The exception proves the rule. These are obviously failed states, which proves that there are only two sexes among humans.

You are all ignoring the matter of purpose. Biologicla sex has a purpose: procreation. Only two sexes make sense, because they surve the purose of reproduction, anythign else is either a delusion or a crippling defect.

 

[Deleted member]

The exception proves the rule. These are obviously failed states, which proves that there are only two sexes among humans.

You are all ignoring the matter of purpose. Biologicla sex has a purpose: procreation. Only two sexes make sense, because they surve the purose of reproduction, anythign else is either a delusion or a crippling defect.

Nobody in this thread is arguing there are more than two sexes in society. We're just saying you can't define them entirely on the basis of chromosomes... Which you just admitted by saying that failed states exist. That's exactly why we tend to code people in failed states to being either man or woman based on which is more socially convenient and upholds normative social rules, and that's precisely why for ten thousand years eunuch transsexuals have been allowed into women's spaces, served women's roles in religion, and dressed in women's clothes in almost society on Earth, and in many societies with roles like the Albanian "sworn virgins" the opposite was also permitted. Because everyone recognised those failed states existed and developed ways to fit them into society.

Though I would add that I provided evidence that XY-female is not necessarily a failed state, because we have documented evidence of those women being fertile, which definitely proves that chromosomes alone are not an axiomatic way to define sex.

 

[Blasterbot]

controversial point. I care less about sex than I do starting a family. I give no fucks about easy women or trans individuals. IRL I would most care about long term relations with an eye towards marriage. if I was dating and found out the woman was barren
it would take Disney levels of true love to make me stick around. same with trans. If an adult wants to identify as a certain way that is one thing. wanting my dick is another. #ridingmycockidisaprivilege.

 

[ReeeFallin]

You can? There are 46 chromosomes in a human, 23 pairs. Everyone has a set of chromosomes from their father and a matching set from their mother. They include a pair of sex chromosomes. The mother's eggs always contain an X chromosome, while the father's sperm contains either a Y chromosome or an X chromosome. That determines the sex of the child. Females have two X chromosomes, males have one X and one Y.
If chromosomes are not the basis, what do you mean by this other evidence?

Down's syndrome. Are they not humans?

What about AIS?

 

[Deleted member]

controversial point. I care less about sex than I do starting a family. I give no fucks about easy women or trans individuals. IRL I would most care about long term relations with an eye towards marriage. if I was dating and found out the woman was barren
it would take Disney levels of true love to make me stick around. same with trans. If an adult wants to identify as a certain way that is one thing. wanting my dick is another. #ridingmycockidisaprivilege.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that attitude.

 

[Fleiur]

Down's syndrome. Are they not humans?

What about AIS?

They are human beings.
What my point here is basic biology. I'm talking about gender is determined biologically.