Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

The author of that article is Claire Ainsworth ....

View attachment 8411

She doesn't think there are more than 2 sexes. The article is about the medical condition called dsds and nothing to do with men who don't have one of these medical conditions having access to women's spaces.

View attachment 8412

Did you read the article?

Research gives the number of people with a DSD as about 1%.

If you have 100 UK friends on facebook, then there is some possibility that one of those friends has a DSD. There's a strong possibility that they don't even know it.

The more rare DSD are said to have a frequency of 1% of all DSDs. These are classified as very rare.

If you have 600 UK friends on facebook, then there is some possibility that one of those friends has a very rare DSD.

Some people have their sex recorded at birth, live in that gender for years, only discover by some chance that the biology of their reproductive sex is different from what they had assumed. This can be devastating news. Are you saying or suggesting they must transition to fit in with your expectations?

 

[CXRAndy]

You're using the rarest of the rare to bolster your position.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

Supreme court confirmed that for the case of women. Their privacy and dignity outweighs the rights of a few trans

 

[AuroraSaab]

It was a dozen. Clearly democracy is another concept alien to you.

So a motion voted on by a dozen people means you can claim 60k doctors and the entire BMA think the supreme court's decision is "biologically nonsensical"? It doesn't work like that. It's certainly not the official position of the BMA but I suppose you have to grab on to whatever crumbs of comfort that you can at the moment.

 

[monkers]

You're using the rarest of the rare to bolster your position.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

Supreme court confirmed that for the case of women. Their privacy and dignity outweighs the rights of a few trans

It must be quite cosy to live in your head where everything is just simple. Life's more complicated than you know.

Christine Goodwin took the British government to the European Court of Human Rights after exhausting every opportunity for effective remedy in the UK. The ECtHR always rules that no person can be excluded from their human rights. Human Rights are universal, hence unlike ''common sense'' they apply to everyone rather than a (supposed) majority.

Accordingly the UK were obliged to put a Bill through parliament, which was enacted so that Christine Goodwin could have her gender identity recognised by the state. Thereby every person like Christine Goodwin has the same opportunity, because the law applies to all people.

Now the UK government is seeking to row back on it's obligations. The European Court will take a view on it.

 

[monkers]

So a motion voted on by a dozen people means you can claim 60k doctors and the entire BMA think the supreme court's decision is "biologically nonsensical"? It doesn't work like that. It's certainly not the official position of the BMA but I suppose you have to grab on to whatever crumbs of comfort that you can at the moment.

You do love nonsensical embellishment and mind-reading skills don't you. I reported here what the BMA representing their members said in response as criticism of the Supreme Court decision. I don't need to defend the BMA.

I am ill. I didn't ask for a second opinion from elsewhere. I'm satisfied with the opinion. I would not ask for 5000 medical opinions, reject them all and accept one from you instead.

Accordingly I don't need to know that all of the doctors they represent voted the same way. I'm happy with the opinions of 12 doctors democratically represented by BMA members rather than anything you, a campaigning ideologist and activist has to say.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Did you read the article? Research gives the number of people with a DSD as about 1%.

No, it said 'some researchers say 1 in 100 people may have some form of dsd', without giving a reference for that stat.

Other stats say 1 in 1200 to 1 in 1500 births ie a rare occurance. Dsds are a sex specific medical condition. They are nothing to do with the demands of transactivism to get men into women's spaces.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5866176/

Stop using the existence of individuals with a medical condition to force women to accept men who don't have one into their spaces.

 

[Ian H]

What's more, new technologies in DNA sequencing and cell biology are revealing that almost everyone is, to varying degrees, a patchwork of genetically distinct cells, some with a sex that might not match that of the rest of their body.
“I think there's much greater diversity within male or female, and there is certainly an area of overlap where some people can't easily define themselves within the binary structure,” says John Achermann, who studies sex development and endocrinology at University College London's Institute of Child Health.

 

[AuroraSaab]

“I think there's much greater diversity within male or female, and there is certainly an area of overlap where some people can't easily define themselves within the binary structure,” says John Achermann, who studies sex development and endocrinology at University College London's Institute of Child Health.

So a sex binary - male and female - with some variation of genetics, resulting in varied medical conditions and varied genital/reproductive presentation, within that binary. This isn't news.

Again though, how are the existence of these rare disorders an argument for allowing men who do not have them into women's spaces?

 

[Ian H]

“I think there's much greater diversity within male or female, and there is certainly an area of overlap where some people can't easily define themselves within the binary structure,” says John Achermann, who studies sex development and endocrinology at University College London's Institute of Child Health.

So a sex binary - male and female - with some variation of genetics and genital presentation within that binary. This isn't news.

Again though, how are the existence of these rare disorders an argument for allowing men who do not have them into women's spaces?

You missed out the first part of the quote.
...almost everyone...

 

[monkers]

No, it said 'some researchers say 1 in 100 people may have some form of dsd', without giving a reference for that stat.

Other stats say 1 in 1200 to 1 in 1500 births ie a rare occurance. Dsds are a sex specific medical condition. They are nothing to do with the demands of transactivism to get men into women's spaces.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5866176/

Stop using the existence of individuals with a medical condition to force women to accept men who don't have one into their spaces.

I checked the frequency against other sources.

Oh here we go, you pretending that something is being said that is not. What is being said by the BMA is that the Supreme Court decision is flawed because for one thing it excludes people other than trans people.

Biological sex can not be reduced to all people are strictly like, or otherwise strictly like this. Even in a strict sex binary, we not all alike, we are all individuals. There are no standards. And thank goodness for that.

What do you want to do next, euthanise post-menopausal women since they no longer have functional reproductive sex?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Given that there are millions of cells in our bodies, if the sex of some of these individual cells doesn't match the sex of every other cell in your body, what is the significance of that? Other than saying at a cellular level some cells might be different to others, nature still seems to result in all but a tiny minority of people being unambiguously male or female.

It's not exactly a revelation that upends a billion years of evolution that has resulted in 2 sexes.

 

[AuroraSaab]

What do you want to do next, euthanise post-menopausal women since they no longer have functional reproductive sex?

This is the embarrassing level of histrionics that you reduce yourself to because you have so few arguments to offer.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Maybe you can educate me and show me where ''biological sex'' is defined in law so that it cuts across all primary legislation?

Why?

 

[Psamathe]

Given that there are millions of cells in our bodies, if the sex of some of these individual cells doesn't match the sex of every other cell in your body, what is the significance of that?

Human body contains more cells that have no sex (ie neither male nor female) than cells that are either male or female.

Ian

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Well if you want to pretend that your own medical scientific knowledge is superior to the collective knowledge of some 5000 doctors at the BMA, then be prepared for me to treat you with equal suspicion.

Except it didn't happen like that did it. Post a link to scientific research* that says there's no such thing as biological sex and I'll have to admit I'm wrong.
*Peer reviewed science please, no Canadian surveys of 'grey' literature allowed.

---