Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

If you can't change it then there are only males and females. You are what you are when born.

A simple observation is sufficient in 99.999° % of births, it would be just cruel to subject a child to a blood test/swab when a quick look confirms.

If you become confused, normally amplified by social influence, then psychological/psychiatric care is recommended. By the time the person is in their early 20s they're happy with their body and commonly exhibit either lesbian or gay attraction.

There is no need to chop of healthy body parts, take life long hormone altering drugs.

Just give it time 👍

Re: the bolded part. Actually none of us are, not just trans folk.

I'm not calling for tests - I asked a question; if determining sex is so important at birth why rely on the one so-called test of looking for a penis. We know this is not an accurate test, and we know this plays badly for intersex people. The prevalence of the whole range of intersex conditions is said to be about the same rate as people with ginger hair - so more like 2% than 0.001%. Be honest you just clutched that number from thin air didn't you.

Anabel Giles the model / TV presenter / writer died yesterday. I knew her slightly over a period of a few years. Why am I telling you this?
Well if we say sex is immutable and a binary, that women and girls are XX and men and boys are XY, then we have reduced her sons existence to non-human in the process. You see Ted (signs himself Tedd now) is an XYY man. This was confirmed by sampling a piece of his liver while still in the womb. It's time to stop this pursuit for purity because it is harmful, and was an aim of the Nazis (yes I'm saying it). Being born in a different place in a different time Tedd would have been put to death if detected. I remember Farage once saying that the unborn babies detected with Downs syndrome should be terminated by statute, but again there is denial from some that this is fascist-like behaviour.

Sex actually is bimodal because there are variations in human sex.

You really are a special kind of clown when you - a person with no apparent understanding of human development or medicine - thinks that their own opinion trumps the opinions of the world experts who report to the WHO, because of so-called 'common sense'.

Aurora on one hand pleas to follow the science, but then rejects the science when it is presented to her, because like you, without too much understanding of the scientific process feels she knows best.

It isn't that I know enough of the science to be able to say that 'I know this to be true. I just need to know that what you are saying is wrong and fuelled by bigotry.

 

[Deleted member 159]

prevalence of the whole range of intersex conditions

It's a relatively tiny proportion around 1-2%.

It's also not a separate sex, it's a genetic deformation of either male or female.

 

[classic33]

It's a relatively tiny proportion around 1-2%.

It's also not a separate sex, it's a genetic deformation of either male or female.

But you've claimed its been disproved!
From the link given earlier.
"Let’s start with genetic sex. This may seem like a home run for binary sex, with females being XX and males XY, but on closer inspection this is not true. Again, yes, most people fall into one of these two chromosomal patterns, but we also see other patterns, such as XXY, XYY, XXX, etc. Further, some people can be mosaics, with some cells having XX and others XY."

Which is it?

 

[monkers]

Sex can not be binary, when people exist who are outside of the binary. It doesn't matter if you reference for external genitalia, gametes, chromosomes, hormone levels, you find yourself seeing that 98% of people fit the binary model, while 2% do not. This does not imply that there are characteristics of other sexes, just that there is overlap, so not truly binary.

 

[Deleted member 159]

Your argument falls flat the majority of trans are either males or females wanting to be the opposite. Not intersex which is a genetic deformity of male or female

 

[AuroraSaab]

I'm not calling for tests - I asked a question; if determining sex is so important at birth why rely on the one so-called test of looking for a penis. We know this is not an accurate test, and we know this plays badly for intersex people.

Observing sex at birth is accurate in 99.8% of births. There is no reason for other tests. You should campaign for genetic testing at birth if you are that concerned about the 0.02% of people born with dsds.

The prevalence of the whole range of intersex conditions is said to be about the same rate as people with ginger hair - so more like 2% than 0.001%. Be honest you just clutched that number from thin air didn't you.

No, it isn't as common as ginger hair. The 2% figure comes from a book by Anne Fausto Sterling and includes disorders that most doctors don't recognise as disorders of sexual development. It's actually around 0.02%.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/

Sex actually is bimodal because there are variations in human sex.

The 'variations' are genetic disorders of sexual development, not variations in sex - all well-known and recorded, some specific to males, some to females. They are not other sexes or other points on a spectrum.

Aurora on one hand pleas to follow the science, but then rejects the science when it is presented to her, because like you, without too much understanding of the scientific process feels she knows best.

Your science rests on opinion pieces from activists. There is no peer reviewed independent science that disproves the binary nature of sex.

Let's have a look at your graph:

1. What are the points on the green y axis?
2. What are the points marked on the black x axis?
3. What's the difference between someone born at the black dots I've marked on area A? Is one less male than the other? Same for the yellow dots on B.
4. What are people born at the apex? Super-extra-full on males and females?

I could go on and on about that graph but anybody can see it's nonsense. No man is more or less male than any other man, no woman is more or less female than any other female.

Most of all though stop using people with medical conditions as an argument to allow access to women's spaces for people who don't have those conditions.

 

[monkers]

Your argument falls flat the majority of trans are either males or females wanting to be the opposite. Not intersex which is a genetic deformity of male or female

My argument does not 'fall flat' because it was never my argument - it was your argument that sex is binary. At least you now recognise that it can't be.

OK let's make progress.

A cisgender woman who has an hysterectomy. Where does she fit in any model of sex? She has lost some female plumbing and no longer has gametes, so by that metric she does not fit the narrative of 'women have cervixes' = not a woman. My assessment: It's not necessary to have a cervix to be a woman, or a vagina, or ovaries - still every bit a woman.

A post menopausal woman woman has no gametes. Not a woman? My assessment: of course, it's not necessary to have gametes to be a woman.

A woman who expresses her gender identity as non-binary. Still a woman? My assessment: no, not a woman if she says not. Women have the right to express their own sense of self.

Trans man with top surgery, a surgically constructed penis, and testosterone leading to a male sounding voice, facial hair, and 'guns'. My assessment: a man, just not a cisgender man, but a man nonetheless. Why? Because like a woman, a man has the right to live their life without interference from others.

Trans woman? You know where this going now, don't you?

Summary. Nobody needs CXRAndy or anybody else to question who they are, or to run around like a toddler thinking it fun to take the piss.

 

[monkers]

Observing sex at birth is accurate in 99.8% of births. There is no reason for other tests. You should campaign for genetic testing at birth if you are that concerned about the 0.02% of people born with dsds.

The number is said to be 2%, but I'm not too fussed about the accuracy. I am not calling for genetic testing at birth or at any other stage of life.
I'm quite happy for 'sex' to not be put on a birth certificate or any other document. That attitude all seems a bit Stonehenge to me.

 

[Deleted member 159]

This is a better graphic

Full blooded male, female and intersex deformity

 

[monkers]

Let's have a look at your graph:

It's not 'my graph'. In fact it's not a graph at all. Nor does it set out to show bimodal sex. So what is it? It's an example of what the model of bimodality looks like. Should have been obvious.

 

[monkers]

1. What are the points on the green y axis?
2. What are the points marked on the black x axis?
3. What's the difference between someone born at the black dots I've marked on area A? Is one less male than the other? Same for the yellow dots on B.
4. What are people born at the apex? Super-extra-full on males and females?

I could go on and on about that graph but anybody can see it's nonsense. No man is more or less male than any other man, no woman is more or less female than any other female.

Most of all though stop using people with medical conditions as an argument to allow access to women's spaces for people who don't have those conditions.

For real? You think the only context for bimodality is human sex?

 

[Deleted member 159]

She is still a woman. Like a female who loses a leg, she is still a female.

Male who loses his testicles to cancer is still a male

 

[AuroraSaab]

A cisgender woman who has an hysterectomy. Where does she fit in any model of sex?

She is a woman obviously.

She has lost some female plumbing and no longer has gametes, so by that metric she does not fit the narrative of 'women have cervixes' = not a woman.

Her body has developed around one of 2 possible reproductive pathways - the female one - regardless of whether her cervix/uterus/ovaries are present or not, she is and remains a woman. The same applies to females born with dsds, obviously.

My assessment: It's not necessary to have a cervix to be a woman, or a vagina, or ovaries - still every bit a woman.

Correct. It's necessary only to be born female and grow into an adult.

A post menopausal woman woman has no gametes. Not a woman? My assessment: of course, it's not necessary to have gametes to be a woman.

See above.

A woman who expresses her gender identity as non-binary. Still a woman? My assessment: no, not a woman if she says not. Women have the right to express their own sense of self.

See above. Your self expression doesn't change your sex.

Trans man with top surgery, a surgically constructed penis, and testosterone leading to a male sounding voice, facial hair, and 'guns'. My assessment: a man, just not a cisgender man, but a man nonetheless. Why? Because like a woman, a man has the right to live their life without interference from others.

Their sex hasn't changed. Body modifications, whether by drugs or surgery are simply that.

 

[Deleted member 159]

I'm quite happy for 'sex' to not be put on a birth certificate

Of course you are, it suits your delusional concept.

There are male and female in mammalian creatures

 

[classic33]

Observing sex at birth is accurate in 99.8% of births. There is no reason for other tests. You should campaign for genetic testing at birth if you are that concerned about the 0.02% of people born with dsds.


No, it isn't as common as ginger hair. The 2% figure comes from a book by Anne Fausto Sterling and includes disorders that most doctors don't recognise as disorders of sexual development. It's actually around 0.02%.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/



The 'variations' are genetic disorders of sexual development, not variations in sex - all well-known and recorded, some specific to males, some to females. They are not other sexes or other points on a spectrum.


Your science rests on opinion pieces from activists. There is no peer reviewed independent science that disproves the binary nature of sex.

https://www.sapiens.org/biology/bio...s-the-sex-binary-and-thats-good-for-humanity/

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-...sex-binary-and-that-s-good-for-humanity-70008

Most of all though stop using people with medical conditions as an argument to allow access to women's spaces for people who don't have those conditions.
[/QUOTE]
You're not beyond using people with medical conditions to "further" your argument/case for limiting use of single sex spaces. Whilst saying that trans men should be accommodated in male spaces.
Your false lack of concern, for single sex spaces, has shown more than once.