3 ms·

Your answer is recursive and sort of leaves the question unanswered, so my reply is kinda an repetition of what i already asked: How do we know what the normal

Your answer is recursive and sort of leaves the question unanswered, so my reply is kinda an repetition of what i already asked: How do we know what the normal function is? How do we know how things are intended to work? (Intended by whom?)

CoastalCoder 1y ago
Some people use "normal" to mean "typical". Some others use "normal" with a connotation of "proper" with regards to the designer's intent or (maybe?) some moral framework. The ambiguity might cause trouble in this kind of topic.
anon84873628 1y ago
Are you actually confused by this? From a biological perspective it's pretty clear what "normal function" is expected. Sexual reproduction is a core goal of human organisms, so when the sex organs don't function, that is a disorder of the machinery.
Aurornis 1y ago
> How do we know what the normal function is? How do we know how things are intended to work? (Intended by whom?) Is this intentionally obtuse to prove a point? In the case of these conditions, a specific receptor in the body is not working properly. The receptor exists to bind to androgens and trigger downstream activity. In people with this condition, the receptor isn't properly activating in the presence of androgens. That receptor serves numerous functions in not only humans but across countless other species. For an analogy, imagine you're trying to plug a device into an outlet in your country. Yet it doesn't fit. When you look at the prongs you discover it actually has 6 prongs pointing in random directions and can't possible fit into any standard outlet in your country. In fact, you can't even see how it would possibly work at all in any outlet anywhere because it doesn't make sense. It's safe to say that the connector isn't "normal". That's basically what's happening here. There's a clear and obvious version of what's typical, and it's likewise clear when a rare variant can't be observed to have some differences that can't possibly work. Meanwhile you can go anywhere else and observe typical plugs inserted into typical outlets and they're functioning typically. There is a very clear "normal" in this case and it's easy to see how the receptors are supposed to work. Call it "typical" if that makes you feel better, but the medical community isn't using these terms for judgment or scorn. There's a movement to pretend like we can't call anything "normal" lest we hurt someone's feelings. Yet most of these patients are discovered prior to the age of 10 (e.g. pre-puberty) because they seek treatment for various symptoms that they recognize as "not normal".
- neallindsay 1y ago
  I don't think that blueflow is being obtuse at all. If you assert that genes have an intended way of working, then the questions > How do we know how things are intended to work? (Intended by whom?) are very salient. Your reply talking about > …a specific receptor in the body is not working properly. just raises the same question again. What does it mean for something in our biology to be working "properly"? Who is deciding what is "proper"?

CoastalCoder 1y ago

Some people use "normal" to mean "typical". Some others use "normal" with a connotation of "proper" with regards to the designer's intent or (maybe?) some moral framework. The ambiguity might cause trouble in this kind of topic.

anon84873628 1y ago

Are you actually confused by this? From a biological perspective it's pretty clear what "normal function" is expected. Sexual reproduction is a core goal of human organisms, so when the sex organs don't function, that is a disorder of the machinery.

Aurornis 1y ago

> How do we know what the normal function is? How do we know how things are intended to work? (Intended by whom?) Is this intentionally obtuse to prove a point? In the case of these conditions, a specific receptor in the body is not working properly. The receptor exists to bind to androgens and trigger downstream activity. In people with this condition, the receptor isn't properly activating in the presence of androgens. That receptor serves numerous functions in not only humans but across countless other species. For an analogy, imagine you're trying to plug a device into an outlet in your country. Yet it doesn't fit. When you look at the prongs you discover it actually has 6 prongs pointing in random directions and can't possible fit into any standard outlet in your country. In fact, you can't even see how it would possibly work at all in any outlet anywhere because it doesn't make sense. It's safe to say that the connector isn't "normal". That's basically what's happening here. There's a clear and obvious version of what's typical, and it's likewise clear when a rare variant can't be observed to have some differences that can't possibly work. Meanwhile you can go anywhere else and observe typical plugs inserted into typical outlets and they're functioning typically. There is a very clear "normal" in this case and it's easy to see how the receptors are supposed to work. Call it "typical" if that makes you feel better, but the medical community isn't using these terms for judgment or scorn. There's a movement to pretend like we can't call anything "normal" lest we hurt someone's feelings. Yet most of these patients are discovered prior to the age of 10 (e.g. pre-puberty) because they seek treatment for various symptoms that they recognize as "not normal".

neallindsay 1y ago
I don't think that blueflow is being obtuse at all. If you assert that genes have an intended way of working, then the questions > How do we know how things are intended to work? (Intended by whom?) are very salient. Your reply talking about > …a specific receptor in the body is not working properly. just raises the same question again. What does it mean for something in our biology to be working "properly"? Who is deciding what is "proper"?