4 ms·

This is just an anti-trans dogwhistle

by babelfish 2mo ago

kardianos 2mo ago
Truth is what corresponds with reality.
- babelfish 2mo ago
  Yes, and reality (+ biology) show that trans people have been around as long as humans have. They are a biological reality. Reality has a left-wing bias.
  - throwawaypath 2mo ago
    [flagged]
    - babelfish 2mo ago
      Are you able to differentiate between sex and gender, or is any nuance too complicated for you? Maybe Grok can explain it!
      - throwawaypath 2mo ago
        [flagged]
        blaps 2mo ago
        [flagged]
        defrost 2mo ago
        Reality is more complex than the uninformed can imagine. A true hermaphrodite rabbit served several females and sired more than 250 young of both sexes. In the next breeding season the rabbit, which was housed in isolation, became pregnant and delivered seven healthy young of both sexes. It was kept in isolation and when autopsied was again pregnant and demonstrated two functional ovaries and two infertile testes. A chromosome preparation revealed a diploid number of autosomes and two sex chromosomes of uncertain configuration. ~ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2382355/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2382355/ Hermaphrodites in Australian pigs. Occurrence and morphology in an abattoir survey - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/559485/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/559485/ That's biology for you.
        throwawaypath 1mo ago
        >Reality is more complex than the uninformed can imagine. Reality is more simple than the delusional can image. Yes, intersex is weird. Literally states "hermaphrodites" in the title. Glad you agree males cannot be pregnant.
      - throwawaypath 1mo ago
        Glad you agree biological males cannot be pregnant. I guess reality has a conservative bias. >Maybe Grok can explain it! Glad that Grok is outputting facts.
    - ben_w 2mo ago
      A trait I share with dictionary editors is a preference for linguistic descriptivism, so for me it's not a real problem that the common definition of "sex" and the scientific use are different. Unfortunately, reality doesn't care at all about the categories humans create, so there's always some exception like the following two no matter how you try to cut reality at the joints with word definitions. Even in humans, we see all kinds of interesting things going on. No reason to think this would be limited to downstairs and not in our brains, assuming there even are any differences between male and female brains (which is unclear to me, given vitamins and cortisol and how much sleep we get all impact our brains): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovotesticular_syndrome#Fertility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovotesticular_syndrome#Fertili... Beyond us, but in the same general category, biologists collectively chose to define "sex" in sexually reproducing creatures such that the one with the smaller gamete is male. To illustrate how arbitrary this is: seahorses. The sex which gets pregnant has the smaller gamete, i.e. males get pregnant.
      - throwawaypath 1mo ago
        A wall of text that agrees with the fact: human males cannot be pregnant. Intersex defects prove the point that human males cannot become pregnant. Thanks for playing.
        ben_w 1mo ago
        > A wall of text that agrees with the fact: human males cannot be pregnant You need a lot more practice reading if you think this was a wall of text. > Intersex defects prove the point that human males cannot become pregnant. If your preferred (culture-warring yourself into thinking you know more than all the doctors whose job is to work on this) definition of "male" is simply "can't get pregnant", aside from all the thigs wrong with that, it also means you'd have to accept that if and when a womb gets transplanted into someone who was born without one, they changed gender. This is a thing being researched. Worse for you: it is trans men (i.e. identified female at birth, transitioned to men) who have the capacity pregnant, though only in certain conditions that I'm not qualified to enumerate. If they have a hysterectomy as part of their bottom surgery, no pregnancy, so do you accept they're men afterwards? Me, I prefer to go by simple (clothed, even) exterior phenotype, it doesn't require invasive scans or being a creep.
- ben_w 2mo ago
  Men and women are both made of atoms. It is objectively physically possible with sufficient effort to rearrange atoms* to turn one human into any other of equal or lesser mass regardless of gender**. The only question is: what's the smallest possible rearrangement which is sufficient to count? If the surgical eversion of genitalia is sufficient, great, we got that. If you require DNA, give it a few years. * well, technically neutrons protons and electrons; I'm sure any two people will be slightly different in their counts of carbon atoms just from body fat percentages, or calcium from bone mass. ** regardless of if you mean the chromosome, the phenotype, or the social identity

This is just an anti-trans dogwhistle

kardianos 2mo ago

Truth is what corresponds with reality.

babelfish 2mo ago
Yes, and reality (+ biology) show that trans people have been around as long as humans have. They are a biological reality. Reality has a left-wing bias.
- throwawaypath 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - babelfish 2mo ago
    Are you able to differentiate between sex and gender, or is any nuance too complicated for you? Maybe Grok can explain it!
    - throwawaypath 2mo ago
      [flagged]
      - blaps 2mo ago
        [flagged]
      - defrost 2mo ago
        Reality is more complex than the uninformed can imagine. A true hermaphrodite rabbit served several females and sired more than 250 young of both sexes. In the next breeding season the rabbit, which was housed in isolation, became pregnant and delivered seven healthy young of both sexes. It was kept in isolation and when autopsied was again pregnant and demonstrated two functional ovaries and two infertile testes. A chromosome preparation revealed a diploid number of autosomes and two sex chromosomes of uncertain configuration. ~ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2382355/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2382355/ Hermaphrodites in Australian pigs. Occurrence and morphology in an abattoir survey - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/559485/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/559485/ That's biology for you.
        throwawaypath 1mo ago
        >Reality is more complex than the uninformed can imagine. Reality is more simple than the delusional can image. Yes, intersex is weird. Literally states "hermaphrodites" in the title. Glad you agree males cannot be pregnant.
    - throwawaypath 1mo ago
      Glad you agree biological males cannot be pregnant. I guess reality has a conservative bias. >Maybe Grok can explain it! Glad that Grok is outputting facts.
  - ben_w 2mo ago
    A trait I share with dictionary editors is a preference for linguistic descriptivism, so for me it's not a real problem that the common definition of "sex" and the scientific use are different. Unfortunately, reality doesn't care at all about the categories humans create, so there's always some exception like the following two no matter how you try to cut reality at the joints with word definitions. Even in humans, we see all kinds of interesting things going on. No reason to think this would be limited to downstairs and not in our brains, assuming there even are any differences between male and female brains (which is unclear to me, given vitamins and cortisol and how much sleep we get all impact our brains): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovotesticular_syndrome#Fertility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovotesticular_syndrome#Fertili... Beyond us, but in the same general category, biologists collectively chose to define "sex" in sexually reproducing creatures such that the one with the smaller gamete is male. To illustrate how arbitrary this is: seahorses. The sex which gets pregnant has the smaller gamete, i.e. males get pregnant.
    - throwawaypath 1mo ago
      A wall of text that agrees with the fact: human males cannot be pregnant. Intersex defects prove the point that human males cannot become pregnant. Thanks for playing.
      - ben_w 1mo ago
        > A wall of text that agrees with the fact: human males cannot be pregnant You need a lot more practice reading if you think this was a wall of text. > Intersex defects prove the point that human males cannot become pregnant. If your preferred (culture-warring yourself into thinking you know more than all the doctors whose job is to work on this) definition of "male" is simply "can't get pregnant", aside from all the thigs wrong with that, it also means you'd have to accept that if and when a womb gets transplanted into someone who was born without one, they changed gender. This is a thing being researched. Worse for you: it is trans men (i.e. identified female at birth, transitioned to men) who have the capacity pregnant, though only in certain conditions that I'm not qualified to enumerate. If they have a hysterectomy as part of their bottom surgery, no pregnancy, so do you accept they're men afterwards? Me, I prefer to go by simple (clothed, even) exterior phenotype, it doesn't require invasive scans or being a creep.
ben_w 2mo ago
Men and women are both made of atoms. It is objectively physically possible with sufficient effort to rearrange atoms* to turn one human into any other of equal or lesser mass regardless of gender**. The only question is: what's the smallest possible rearrangement which is sufficient to count? If the surgical eversion of genitalia is sufficient, great, we got that. If you require DNA, give it a few years. * well, technically neutrons protons and electrons; I'm sure any two people will be slightly different in their counts of carbon atoms just from body fat percentages, or calcium from bone mass. ** regardless of if you mean the chromosome, the phenotype, or the social identity