5 ms·

Every living thing is defined by their DNA. It produces the visible specimen with all its features and behaviors. DNA is a giant specification program, and when

by proc0 4y ago

Every living thing is defined by their DNA. It produces the visible specimen with all its features and behaviors. DNA is a giant specification program, and when they're identical, they produce identical living beings. Could we group DNA according to some similarities? We can observe DNA sometimes makes creatures that breath air, sometimes it makes creatures that breath water, others can fly, etc... surely we can group DNA into species EVEN IF some of the "edges" are fuzzy (the categories exist, but the borders blend together smoothly between categories). This classification of DNA is recursive, and can be done within a species. A great number of species consistently produces TWO main categories... the creature with eggs, and the creature with sperm. Again, this doesn't mean the borders are perfectly defined, but the main category is. I'm illustrating this to show that in fact this duality in types of humans exists, and this duality is the main mechanism to keep the species alive. Maybe we'll soon reproduce in labs; maybe test tube babies will have DNA that is neither man or woman, and maybe we're in the process of transitioning there. Even if that's the case, it doesn't mean that up until now there was no such thing as a man or a woman, and we had it wrong all this time. I would have more respect for this gender movement if it was about transhumanism and moving beyond our evolution, but instead it's trying to shame everyone into believing contradicting ideas (i.e. by changing definition of words and undermining established science).

paulryanrogers 4y ago
DNA can express with both genders organs in the same being. While they are rare, such organisms are still people, and their identity is certainly worthy of some consideration. We can argue about thresholds and terminology. But I don't think it's asking too much to address an individual in the way they prefer.
- rhapsodic 4y ago
- proc0 4y ago
  > DNA can express with both genders organs in the same being. Again, those are edge cases of the category, which does not mean the category does not exist. > But I don't think it's asking too much to address an individual in the way they prefer. That is only a part of what is being asked. The real ask is to actually believe in this whole theory of self-identification, and if ANY objections are raised it's punished with shame.
nicoburns 4y ago
> Every living thing is defined by their DNA Sure, but that's not the only thing they're defined by. We might for example like to categorise people by their profession, and doing so is not in conflict with categorising them by their DNA.
- proc0 4y ago
  That's the same except it's closer to the "ground" in terms of abstraction (DNA is the bird's eye view here). You can't self-identify yourself as being of a certain profession because you first have to do it. I cannot declare "I am a nuclear scientist now, and you must address me as doctor", and then expect people to actually do it without questioning the veracity of the claim. Self-identifying as a species doesn't work because of DNA, self-ID as a sex doesn't work because of DNA, and self-ID of a profession doesn't work because it's based on knowledge, skill, and credentials (etc).
  - nicoburns 4y ago
    > You can't self-identify yourself as being of a certain profession That's true, but there are identities where self-identity does make sense. Religious identity would be a good example. I think it's best to think of feelings-based gender identities as akin to religious identities. They don't replace the category of sex, but they are valid in their own right.
    - orand 4y ago
      100%. Lawyers such as Candice Jackson believe that applying religious freedom laws to gender identity is the clearest path out of this mess. The true believers should get no more and no fewer rights than anyone else. It's important that law also protects "gender atheists", and their right to not believe or be forced to use the newspeak of the believers.

by proc0 4y ago

paulryanrogers 4y ago

DNA can express with both genders organs in the same being. While they are rare, such organisms are still people, and their identity is certainly worthy of some consideration. We can argue about thresholds and terminology. But I don't think it's asking too much to address an individual in the way they prefer.

rhapsodic 4y ago
proc0 4y ago
> DNA can express with both genders organs in the same being. Again, those are edge cases of the category, which does not mean the category does not exist. > But I don't think it's asking too much to address an individual in the way they prefer. That is only a part of what is being asked. The real ask is to actually believe in this whole theory of self-identification, and if ANY objections are raised it's punished with shame.

nicoburns 4y ago

> Every living thing is defined by their DNA Sure, but that's not the only thing they're defined by. We might for example like to categorise people by their profession, and doing so is not in conflict with categorising them by their DNA.

proc0 4y ago
That's the same except it's closer to the "ground" in terms of abstraction (DNA is the bird's eye view here). You can't self-identify yourself as being of a certain profession because you first have to do it. I cannot declare "I am a nuclear scientist now, and you must address me as doctor", and then expect people to actually do it without questioning the veracity of the claim. Self-identifying as a species doesn't work because of DNA, self-ID as a sex doesn't work because of DNA, and self-ID of a profession doesn't work because it's based on knowledge, skill, and credentials (etc).
- nicoburns 4y ago
  > You can't self-identify yourself as being of a certain profession That's true, but there are identities where self-identity does make sense. Religious identity would be a good example. I think it's best to think of feelings-based gender identities as akin to religious identities. They don't replace the category of sex, but they are valid in their own right.
  - orand 4y ago
    100%. Lawyers such as Candice Jackson believe that applying religious freedom laws to gender identity is the clearest path out of this mess. The true believers should get no more and no fewer rights than anyone else. It's important that law also protects "gender atheists", and their right to not believe or be forced to use the newspeak of the believers.