6 ms·

is out by a few percent .. numbers wise it's more inaccurate than claiming there's no gold in the earths crust. ( see [1] ) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I

by causi 4y ago

is out by a few percent .. numbers wise it's more inaccurate than claiming there's no gold in the earths crust. ( see [1] ) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex I thought you were going to mention how there are more male embryos than female embryos created since males have a higher death rate. Why is sex the only category in which we have to constantly qualify ourselves with regard to birth defects? Someone who's talking about how the three types of cones work to create color vision doesn't have to constantly harken back to how some people are color-blind, despite that population being an order of magnitude larger than intersex individuals. Not mentioning people with phocomelia does not mean your lesson on the anatomy of the arms and legs is wrong or inadequate.

nextaccountic 4y ago
[flagged]
- causi 4y ago
  Is attacking intersex people a political platform? I believe you're referring to transgender people who, while subject to all those horrible things you mention, have nothing to do with the biology of sex. Exempting them from bans on genital surgery for infants/children certainly is a political choice. That's very interesting, I didn't know that. Personally I believe in a blanket ban of all unnecessary surgical procedures/body mods on newborns and infants, including "genital correction", circumcision, and piercing.
  - ryan-c 4y ago
    > Is attacking intersex people a political platform? Exempting them from bans on genital surgery for infants/children certainly is a political choice.
  - digging 4y ago
    Trying to step lightly here, but > have nothing to do with the biology of sex is not true. The motivation for dehumanizing trans people is largely based on the (completely erroneous) twin ideas that "gender is sex" and "there are two sexes". Both of those things being false really takes the wind out of the argument.
    - Alupis 4y ago
      We understand it now, 2 + 2 = 5 In all seriousness, changing language to fit some weird political philosophy and then berating others for not going along is as dangerous as it is outrageous. Constructs in your head are not real. When you die, they are gone forever. Yet, when they dig up your body 1,000 years from now as some sort of archeological dig, they will study your skeleton and determine your biological sex with certainty. You (or anyone) is free to think whatever you want about yourself or others - but you are not free to force others to think like you, particularly when your thoughts are irrational and not grounded in reality or scientific fact. And people make fun of the flat-earthers for denying reality and objective facts...
      - sobkas 3y ago
        > We understand it now, 2 + 2 = 5 "if someone says 2+2=5, the correct response is, ‘What are your definitions and axioms?’ not a rant about the decline of Western civilization". From Wikipedia because math is hard, let's go right wing. Use a wiki or something. Because when even I know that 2 + 2 = 5 can be true in some cases then you might want to reconsider your arguments. BTW. A + B != B + A also can be true. > Constructs in your head are not real. When you die, they are gone forever. Almost all of you is a construct, there are few things directly wired into the brain(but they aren't irrelevant) but most of it is learned. And when you die everything you had in your brain is gone forever. And then by your definition things that make us us are fiction. And they are as fictional as gender(btw. gender is not sex, and sex is more complex).
      - digging 4y ago
        Woof, I'm not going to engage fully with this post. It is too loaded. I am not sure I can fully parse this post, but I am going to state some assertions that I believe respond to the statements made. I am going to agree (?) that gender is a construct. I assert that it is a social construct. It does not exist inside our cells, only in our minds (individually and collectively). I am going to disagree that sex is determined by our skeletons. I assert that skeletal structure and other phenotypical features are symptoms of sex, which is determined by genes. This is a scientific consensus as far as I can tell. I believe I am disagreeing with you when I say that there are more than two possible outcomes of genetic sex determination. This is obvious, because there are multiple sex-determination systems in animals, not just XY. There is X0, there is ZW, and there are others. Even within XY, there are variations. An individual can be born with XXY chromosomes. Or they can be born male with XX chromosomes, or female with XY chromosomes. Or, a human can be born female with XX chromosomes, no outward differences from typical female phenotype, and feel they are a man. This is because, as stated above, gender is a social construct. Not actually sure if we agree or disagree on that. There is no berating happening here or anything else that should make a person feel victimized. Just science. A little more advanced than grade school science, but still science.
  - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
    > Exempting them from bans on genital surgery for infants/children certainly is a political choice. Who is trying to do that? Gender-affirming genital surgery is not commonly, if ever, practiced on minors and no one is advocating for that except maybe a few people on the lunatic fringe. The whole idea that doctors are going around performing genital surgery on trans-kids is a baseless political attack by people trying to ban reversible gender-affirming treatment like social transitioning and puberty blockers under the guise of banning more extreme treatments that aren't actually performed on minors.
    - antiteetyeet 4y ago
      Genital surgery typically isn't performed until the child is at least 16 years of age, usually older, but 'gender-affirming' breast removal is being done to female children as young as 12 years old. There's increasing scepticism as to whether social transitioning is reversible in practice (see the interim report of the Cass Review for more detail on this), and the long-term adverse effects of puberty blockers are currently unclear. This is part of the reason why the health authorities in many countries are starting to halt or restrict the gender-affirming approach, as it may be causing more harm than good to gender non-conforming children.
- nicenewtemp84 4y ago
  If colorblind people were trying to indoctrinate kids and make them feel like they too might be colorblind because those children sometimes ponder if they see colors correctly, I'd be pretty annoyed too. Even the simple dumbing down of gay rights to talk in schools about people who love others of the same gender, just let them love whoever they want! You have been free to love whoever you want for centuries. Im a male that loves my father, and would help a few of my friends fight to the death if they were being attacked. I love them. That has nothing to do with being gay. Why do we even need to have a flag raised at school that talks mainly about the right to stick sexual organs into other people? Because that's the only distinction I see between me loving my male friends and me being gay.
  - digging 4y ago
    > You have been free to love whoever you want for centuries. Um, no. It was a criminal act to be gay in the US earlier this century. > Im a male that loves my father Oh, I see. You're either practicing illegal love, or you're being purposely obtuse by conflating two different meanings of love. > Because that's the only distinction I see between me loving my male friends and me being gay. You hold hands with them? In public? You kiss and cuddle with them? In front of children? Because gay people have been murdered for that in living memory. I guess they just should have avoided touching sexual organs (in private) and everything would have been fine.
    - nicenewtemp84 3y ago
      My entire point was that there are two different types of 'love', yet the left wants to talk to grade school children about LGB people 'loving' each other constantly. And since theyre not talking about family or platonic love, were talking about romantic/sexual 'love', I don't think that's an appropriate subject for school children.
midoridensha 4y ago
>Someone who's talking about how the three types of cones work to create color vision This isn't scientifically accurate either. Some people have 4 types of cones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy

by causi 4y ago

nextaccountic 4y ago

[flagged]

causi 4y ago
Is attacking intersex people a political platform? I believe you're referring to transgender people who, while subject to all those horrible things you mention, have nothing to do with the biology of sex. Exempting them from bans on genital surgery for infants/children certainly is a political choice. That's very interesting, I didn't know that. Personally I believe in a blanket ban of all unnecessary surgical procedures/body mods on newborns and infants, including "genital correction", circumcision, and piercing.
- ryan-c 4y ago
  > Is attacking intersex people a political platform? Exempting them from bans on genital surgery for infants/children certainly is a political choice.
- digging 4y ago
  Trying to step lightly here, but > have nothing to do with the biology of sex is not true. The motivation for dehumanizing trans people is largely based on the (completely erroneous) twin ideas that "gender is sex" and "there are two sexes". Both of those things being false really takes the wind out of the argument.
  - Alupis 4y ago
    We understand it now, 2 + 2 = 5 In all seriousness, changing language to fit some weird political philosophy and then berating others for not going along is as dangerous as it is outrageous. Constructs in your head are not real. When you die, they are gone forever. Yet, when they dig up your body 1,000 years from now as some sort of archeological dig, they will study your skeleton and determine your biological sex with certainty. You (or anyone) is free to think whatever you want about yourself or others - but you are not free to force others to think like you, particularly when your thoughts are irrational and not grounded in reality or scientific fact. And people make fun of the flat-earthers for denying reality and objective facts...
    - sobkas 3y ago
      > We understand it now, 2 + 2 = 5 "if someone says 2+2=5, the correct response is, ‘What are your definitions and axioms?’ not a rant about the decline of Western civilization". From Wikipedia because math is hard, let's go right wing. Use a wiki or something. Because when even I know that 2 + 2 = 5 can be true in some cases then you might want to reconsider your arguments. BTW. A + B != B + A also can be true. > Constructs in your head are not real. When you die, they are gone forever. Almost all of you is a construct, there are few things directly wired into the brain(but they aren't irrelevant) but most of it is learned. And when you die everything you had in your brain is gone forever. And then by your definition things that make us us are fiction. And they are as fictional as gender(btw. gender is not sex, and sex is more complex).
    - digging 4y ago
      Woof, I'm not going to engage fully with this post. It is too loaded. I am not sure I can fully parse this post, but I am going to state some assertions that I believe respond to the statements made. I am going to agree (?) that gender is a construct. I assert that it is a social construct. It does not exist inside our cells, only in our minds (individually and collectively). I am going to disagree that sex is determined by our skeletons. I assert that skeletal structure and other phenotypical features are symptoms of sex, which is determined by genes. This is a scientific consensus as far as I can tell. I believe I am disagreeing with you when I say that there are more than two possible outcomes of genetic sex determination. This is obvious, because there are multiple sex-determination systems in animals, not just XY. There is X0, there is ZW, and there are others. Even within XY, there are variations. An individual can be born with XXY chromosomes. Or they can be born male with XX chromosomes, or female with XY chromosomes. Or, a human can be born female with XX chromosomes, no outward differences from typical female phenotype, and feel they are a man. This is because, as stated above, gender is a social construct. Not actually sure if we agree or disagree on that. There is no berating happening here or anything else that should make a person feel victimized. Just science. A little more advanced than grade school science, but still science.
- TheCoelacanth 4y ago
  > Exempting them from bans on genital surgery for infants/children certainly is a political choice. Who is trying to do that? Gender-affirming genital surgery is not commonly, if ever, practiced on minors and no one is advocating for that except maybe a few people on the lunatic fringe. The whole idea that doctors are going around performing genital surgery on trans-kids is a baseless political attack by people trying to ban reversible gender-affirming treatment like social transitioning and puberty blockers under the guise of banning more extreme treatments that aren't actually performed on minors.
  - antiteetyeet 4y ago
    Genital surgery typically isn't performed until the child is at least 16 years of age, usually older, but 'gender-affirming' breast removal is being done to female children as young as 12 years old. There's increasing scepticism as to whether social transitioning is reversible in practice (see the interim report of the Cass Review for more detail on this), and the long-term adverse effects of puberty blockers are currently unclear. This is part of the reason why the health authorities in many countries are starting to halt or restrict the gender-affirming approach, as it may be causing more harm than good to gender non-conforming children.
nicenewtemp84 4y ago
If colorblind people were trying to indoctrinate kids and make them feel like they too might be colorblind because those children sometimes ponder if they see colors correctly, I'd be pretty annoyed too. Even the simple dumbing down of gay rights to talk in schools about people who love others of the same gender, just let them love whoever they want! You have been free to love whoever you want for centuries. Im a male that loves my father, and would help a few of my friends fight to the death if they were being attacked. I love them. That has nothing to do with being gay. Why do we even need to have a flag raised at school that talks mainly about the right to stick sexual organs into other people? Because that's the only distinction I see between me loving my male friends and me being gay.
- digging 4y ago
  > You have been free to love whoever you want for centuries. Um, no. It was a criminal act to be gay in the US earlier this century. > Im a male that loves my father Oh, I see. You're either practicing illegal love, or you're being purposely obtuse by conflating two different meanings of love. > Because that's the only distinction I see between me loving my male friends and me being gay. You hold hands with them? In public? You kiss and cuddle with them? In front of children? Because gay people have been murdered for that in living memory. I guess they just should have avoided touching sexual organs (in private) and everything would have been fine.
  - nicenewtemp84 3y ago
    My entire point was that there are two different types of 'love', yet the left wants to talk to grade school children about LGB people 'loving' each other constantly. And since theyre not talking about family or platonic love, were talking about romantic/sexual 'love', I don't think that's an appropriate subject for school children.

midoridensha 4y ago

>Someone who's talking about how the three types of cones work to create color vision This isn't scientifically accurate either. Some people have 4 types of cones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy