AuroraSaab
Squire
They are variations within the binary though. There's no 3rd gamete.
Self-knowledge isn't necessarily reality though. It's a mistake to prioritise subjective opinions of self over that of material reality in law.
Gender again. Sorry!
- Thread starter theclaud
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
They are variations within the binary though. There's no 3rd gamete.
Self-knowledge isn't necessarily reality though. It's a mistake to prioritise subjective opinions of self over that of material reality in law.
monkers
Legendary Member
They are variations outside what is typical, ie, outside of the binary. There's no 3rd gamete because gametes are parts of reproductive sex, which is binary. Chromosomes are not binary. Hormones are not binary. Therefore sex is not binary unless you are adamant that sex can only be defined as reproductive sex, which biologists tend to agree that it isn't.
monkers
Legendary Member
Law prioritises the rights of humans to self-determination without discrimination from others.
The attacks on trans rights are encouraged in the UK by a government that has a long-held desire to abolish human rights.
The myopic anti-trans activists with their ideological zeal to exclude people from society will be in for something of a shock. Sunak, Raab, Patel, Truss, Braverman, Badenoch, Caites, Mogg, and co all wish to abolish the UK Human Rights Act, disband the Commission, emasculate the judiciary and withdraw from the ECtHR. Women's rights go out the window with that. Maternity pay - gone. Abortion rights - gone, and so on.
You people believe yourselves to be on the winning side hanging out with the ultra-right Tories. But be warned.
AuroraSaab
Squire
That simply isn't true. Biologists don't agree with you that reproductive pathways do not define sex and that therefore sex isn't binary. You make these statements with no evidence.
The law requires the balancing of rights between groups and individuals. It has never been the case in modern UK law that you can do what you wish regardless of its effect on others.
D
Deleted member 159
Guest
D
Deleted member 159
Guest
In nature mammals reproduce with male and female. Any genetic reproductive anomoly will likely result in that individual not reproducing, thus removing the defective genetics from the next generation, cleansing the species.
Pretty much what's happens on humans, thankfully some individuals recognise their deficiencies and don't bother trying to have off spring
bobzmyunkle
Senior Member
Sex is assigned at birth. What's the margin of error on that do you think?
I'm guessing you weren't a science teacher.
monkers
Legendary Member
I have posted links previously any number of times. The trouble is Aurora you'll always deny it. There are people with intersex conditions that get very cross about all this.
There are some highly regarded old school scientists who just are not up-to-speed, and others who make a name for themselves by use of controversy.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=089Dnu7cWJs
AuroraSaab
Squire
You've posted this guy before. He's the one who thinks fruit flies have something to tell us about sex in mammals.
Can you direct me to his research papers? The academic posts he has held at accredited universities? He's an Internet poster who generates income from views, not an academic.
The Paradox Institute have taken his claims apart and every correction of his claims is referenced with a referral to the academic literature:
https://www.theparadoxinstitute.com...nces-detailed-analysis-of-sex-and-sensibility
People with dsds also get cross when people like you claim they aren't male nor female, and when you use a medical condition to support giving men access to women's spaces.
You'll have to do a lot better than simply calling Dawkins an old fuddy duddy and expecting us to believe the world's scientists 'aren't up to speed' if you want us to abandon scientific methodology in favour of You Tubers.
Can you direct me to his research papers? The academic posts he has held at accredited universities? He's an Internet poster who generates income from views, not an academic.
The Paradox Institute have taken his claims apart and every correction of his claims is referenced with a referral to the academic literature:
https://www.theparadoxinstitute.com...nces-detailed-analysis-of-sex-and-sensibility
People with dsds also get cross when people like you claim they aren't male nor female, and when you use a medical condition to support giving men access to women's spaces.
You'll have to do a lot better than simply calling Dawkins an old fuddy duddy and expecting us to believe the world's scientists 'aren't up to speed' if you want us to abandon scientific methodology in favour of You Tubers.
Last edited:
monkers
Legendary Member
I have taught science, physics but not biology.
Even the term 'sex is assigned at birth' is problematic as Badenoch, for one example, is vocally against the term. The process relies on the one test - can we see a penis? Even if sex is always 100% determined by the presence of a penis, this test still goes wrong.
A few weeks ago I was standing in a queue in the Co-op. A customer was telling the cashier that her few weeks old grandchild was identified at birth as female, before the mother realising after two months that her child appears male when a penis suddenly appeared The birth certificate was already issued. Although certificates can be changed for administrative errors, this was not an admin error; she was worrying about that.
Sex is not only assigned at birth. Trans people with a GRC are given a birth certificate with sex amended. Even then the system fails a bit. In some regions the term 'sex' is used on the birth certificate, in others the term 'gender's is used. These are legacy issues.
There is no available data for us to be able to know precisely the numbers of people born with atypical anatomy / physiology since we just don't test for it. People sometimes only find out that they are atypical as a result of testing as an adult - often being investigated for infertility.
monkers
Legendary Member
(Some people). Quite understandable. As I consistently say, we each have the human right to self-determination. Who are you to say that people are male or female according to your very limited understanding of the science? And yet you frequently do.
monkers
Legendary Member
No. He's the one who knows that only fruitcakes believe that human sex if strictly binary. He gives many examples of other species where there are huge variations between them, and where there are variations within a single species. He is making the point that nature sets its own rules, it does not follow the thinking of someone who prefers to identify people by limited understanding of science. You are placing yourself in the camp of being an evolution denier.
Last edited:
monkers
Legendary Member
It amuses me how we must trust and accept the academics you present as authorities. Stock for example. When it is argued that she has no scientific background you step up to defend her, even when she presented a false interpretation of data to an all party select committee.
But here you are asking me to direct you to the academic qualifications of an actual scientist. Under forum etiquette I am not required to for two reasons: 1) I never claimed he has published research papers, so I have no need to substantiate that he has. 2) you do not follow the same forum etiquette of producing evidence to underpin your views, even when asked politely. Instead we get ''we all know'',and even refuse to identify the people you say are ''we''.
monkers
Legendary Member
You probably are: the ignorant often live in fear of something.
You'll probably next try to have us believe that a vulcano is due to erupt in Lincolnshire tomorrow or something equally ludicrous.
monkers
Legendary Member
Yes the judiciary always attempts to balance rights. The judiciary does not tend to support exclusion. 'TERF' is a term that was originally adopted by feminists to state their political position. Remind me what the 'E' stands for in the acronym.
