I recently saw a good example of many TRA nonsensical claims, mixed with the usual contempt:
A: Stop Using Phony Science to Justify Transphobia - Scientific American Blog Network
B: this has to be the funniest crap I've read all week. Thank you for the laugh!
A: oh dear. Struggling to read and understand? Learning isn’t for everyone.
The 6 Most Common Biological Sexes in Humans
C: You are talking about chromosomal conditions, Not biological sex. XXXY, as you point out,, Is a chromosomal condition in boys and men.
Edge cases and genetic mutation/deformity do not make a new sex. There are only two sexes.
48,XXXY syndrome: MedlinePlus Genetics
A: no. There are a few and some are surprisingly common. When it gets to sex / gender science has long understood the spectrum of complexity around chromosomal/ hormonal etc. very little in nature is black and white because of the complexity of the system. Science understands this.
C: So to be clear, you're taking the position that XXXY disorder is not actually a chromosomal disorder but a valid sex.
A: lol you picked the 1/20000 rather than 1/500 to make a point? Read what I said again. Slowly. “Some are surprisingly common” some are not. That’s what makes a spectrum. Try reading.
btw. That’s still half a million people. Quite a lot right?
C: I picked an example that I knew off the top of my head was a chromosomal disorder and not a valid sex.
Just because a disorder is surprisingly common doesn't make it a valid sex.
It surprisingly common for people to be born with four digits on one hand, that doesn't make that Not an edge case..
But we can do XXY also. '47,XYY syndrome is characterized by an extra copy of the Y chromosome in each of an individual's cells. Although many people with this condition are taller than average, the chromosomal change sometimes causes no unusual physical features. Most individuals with 47,XYY syndrome have normal production of the male sex hormone testosterone and normal male sexual development, and they are usually able to father children.
47,XYY syndrome is associated with an increased risk of learning disabilities and delayed development of speech and language skills. Affected children can have delayed development of motor skills (such as sitting and walking) or weak muscle tone (hypotonia).'
This is also not as sex, this is a genetic disorder.
So back to my original question, is XXXY Not a genetic disorder? Is it a valid sex? XXY?
That's quite a lot of people with a chromosomal disorder, yes. That doesn't make it a sex.
About 1 in 500 people are born with a cleft lip/palate. It's still a medical issue and not a different type of person.
A: personally I wouldn’t call it a disorder. You’re talking about what society deems as “normal” xxy is 15 million people. Are you saying they aren’t normal? And that’s just biological sex. If you’d bothered to read what I provided you’ll see the further complexity of it all. So no. I’m not going to label millions as abnormal.
I think you’re confusing genes that influence the structure of the face with genes that influence sex and gender.
Weird whataboutery.
C: I did read what you provided. The problem is that what you provided is conflating genetic mutations with sex. Edge cases do not constitute a center case. The number of people affected by disorder do not make it valid.
Cleft lip is abnormal, but millions of people are affected by it. Cancer is abnormal, but millions of people are affected by it.
You can continue to play whatever sort of mental gymnastics you'd like, there are two sexes. Disorders which result in mutation and infertility are abnormal. Usually biological sex is defined by gametes. But you know.
Also, the sources you provided weren't very good.
But hey, have a good one. π
A: I would question why you are so desperate to want me to label a difference as a disorder. Who is defining sex as being only two karyotypes? It isn’t science that’s for sure. We’ve learned and adapted. You’re trying to say that it’s akin to a facial deformity that causes a loss of quality of life.
I’d question the mental gymnastics of someone who wanted to do that. And I’d refer you back to my original article.
also other genetic differences - such as red hair are pretty rare. 1-2% population - oh look about the same as trans.
Different / rare doesn’t mean disorder or abnormal. That’s your language and your bias.
D: exceptions don't disprove the rule. There are 2 genders.
A: please read what was provided. There are more than two. At a similar occurrence to red hair
also you’re confusing sex and gender
E: You do not understand what sex is or how it is defined, which is by gonads/gametes.
Gender is outside the realms of science. Scientific endeavors are limited to things we can either directly or indirectly observe and measure in the natural world. Gender is dependent entirely on faith. What is that saying... "Only you can know your own gender?"
This is on the same level as any other religion or ideology. It's perfectly fine to study or explore, but it does not belong in a science classroom.
A: I do hun π
And yes it does.
F: >a chromosomal disorder doesn't make it a sex
They've really been pushing for that lately. Trying to count the margin of errors as valid.
A: wow. Why do you hate so much? No need.
millions of people. It isn’t a disorder
I have no idea what you’re on about. I’m an atheist and a biochemist. I don’t think religion should be anywhere near schools. Nor have I said it should be.
F: >there's millions
Doesn't mean it's still not a disorder and it doesn't make their experience any less valid for being so
A: what makes it a disorder exactly? Is red hair a disorder? Neither are negative.
So please explain why some genetics are differences and others you’d class as a disorder.
E: If gender is a matter of trust and there is no object of measure or evidence for it, then it is a faith-based entity and does not belong in a science classroom. There is zero evidence that there is any biological link between the two, so there's nothing to teach.
There is a reason psychology (which is an appropriate venue) is not part of the natural sciences departments in universities. I didn't say it cannot be discussed in any educational setting, but the biology classroom is not the appropriate place.
Gender theory is modern day alchemy, which also isn't taught in the science classroom. Neither is creationism, ghosts, witchcraft... None of these topics are either verifiable or falsifiable in a scientific context. As a biochemist, you should understand the limitations of science.
D: I don't hate. I'm just not delusional.
A: there’s a ton of papers on this. Zero evidence is a lie. Try reading what was provided.
again your lack of knowledge doesn’t equal what should and shouldn’t be taught.
E: Sex Is Not a Spectrum - by Colin Wright
G: Wow. No bias there. π
It can more accurately be described as a bimodal spectrum.
"The Society For Evidence-Based Gender Medicine is a non-profit organization that is known for opposing standards of care for transgender youth and engaging in political lobbying."
"The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research is an extremely conservative, corporate-funded, New York-based policy group."
A: lol oh dear. No. I’ll stick to sciemce but thanks.
E: You mean his bias of campaigning to keep pseudoscience out of science classrooms and to define it as such? Yes.
Secondary sexual characteristics are bimodal, sex is binary. End of. I posted a excellent white paper co-authored by a published evolutionary biologist and developmental biologist that does a brilliant job of explaining this, but you'd rather Google him. I enviurage you to dig into JSTOR and read some of his other published articles. He studies arachnids.
Do you have anything written by a developmental or evolutionary biologist you can share? I spend half my week reading journals and white papers, so I'll gladly add them to my reading list.
Man are you are proving up right. This is precisely the reason Dr. Wright started his organization. You do not understand bias. He has nothing to gain by putting his entire career on the line.
Why are you trusting an opinion piece by a neurobiologist (not experts in sex) who identifies as trans. Not only do you not understand sex, you do not understand bias.
I posted a different article above with Sir Richard Dawkins, one of my inspirations.
G: He left academia a few years ago. What career are you talking about? His blog? Making the rounds on various social media outlets and podcasts? Rubbing elbows with Ben Shapiro, et al.? He may have "PhD" after his name, which he uses for clout, but he is not working in science any more.
E: You argue the validity of the man's chatacter based on the shows who have actually ALLOWED him to speak because you can't argue against his claims with any evidence or reasoning to reject them. It's the same tactic used by activists- "I don't like what you say, so I'll label you a bigot who spews hate speech." It's pathetic and transparent.
Rather bold to tell someone whose academic research focused on sexual reproduction to discount my entire academic career and the vast works of other biologists without providing any evidence or logical reasoning for doing so.
There is one thing that Ben Shapiro has right. Facts really don't care about your opinions.
