advertisement


Jerry Sadowitz cancelled

stevec67 said:
They reflect what happens in a vanishingly small number of abnormal, chromosome defect, situations.
Click to expand...

Sorry to disagree, but not what the article is suggesting at all (and others I have read in the past) - in fact quite the opposite.
Not really much point, but I could cut and paste sections from the article that suggest a much more complex and widespread scenario that a 'vanishingly small number'

I would suggest that anyone interested read the article IN FULL and post links to any more recent research that reinforces the traditional XX/XY position.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/
 
DonQuixote99 said:
Definitions. By 'gender' you mean culturally-defined reproductive-type category, and by 'sex' you mean genetically-determined reproductive type? Then I agree gender = sex is non-disprovable. So the attempts to use the authority of science to support any belief about the relationship of the two fail. And it is not a failure of science for a scientist to tacitly say so.
Click to expand...
Yes, those are the generally accepted definitions. Sex is the biological definition, involving which chromosomes you were born with and which type of genitals the midwife looked at before saying "Congratulations, Mrs xxx, it's a xxx!". That doesn't change. Gender may do, because it's cultural.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cav
miktec said:
Sorry to disagree, but not what the article is suggesting at all (and others I have read in the past) - in fact quite the opposite.
Not really much point, but I could cut and paste sections from the article that suggest a much more complex and widespread scenario that a 'vanishingly small number'

I would suggest that anyone interested read the article IN FULL and post links to any more recent research that reinforces the traditional XX/XY position.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/
Click to expand...
I have read it IN FULL.
 
stevec67 said:
Yes, those are the generally accepted definitions. Sex is the biological definition, involving which chromosomes you were born with and which type of genitals the midwife looked at before saying "Congratulations, Mrs xxx, it's a xxx!". That doesn't change. Gender may do, because it's cultural.
Click to expand...
I wish you hadn't brought up apparent-at-birth genitals as determinative. That can be unreliable for numerous reasons. And please don't wave these off as 'rare abnormalities.' Abnormalities is a too-loaded word, and rare is immaterial. We aren't talking about huge numbers of people, just a very definite minority that has a hard row to hoe in the first place, and has become a highly-persecuted political football.
 
Cheese said:
Hang on guys. As far as I know, none of the members currently involved in this thread consider themselves being something else than cis-man or cis-woman. In other words, there are neither any trans nor non-binary people among us at the mo.
Click to expand...

Indeed. This is why I have very deliberately steered well clear of mansplaining feminism or cissplaining transgender issues. I have merely linked to a couple of highly articulate voices on the front line and I hope over the years I have learned a little that may help me make my forum/business a safer and more respectful space.
 
DonQuixote99 said:
I wish you hadn't brought up apparent-at-birth genitals as determinative. That can be unreliable for numerous reasons. And please don't wave these off as 'rare abnormalities.' Abnormalities is a too-loaded word, and rare is immaterial. We aren't talking about huge numbers of people, just a very definite minority that has a hard row to hoe in the first place, and has become a highly-persecuted political football.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, I will use the words "rare abnormalities" in a scientific discussion about biology because in biological terms that's what they are. I'm sorry that the word "abnormal" has become politically charged but as a scientist I reserve the right to use scientifically accepted words in their original and correct form. If they have been picked up and used incorrectly by others then take that up with them and not me. "Rare" likewise is not immaterial, being rare is part of it being abnormal. That's by definition. Again, that's precise use of the language.
I'm sorry for anyone that gets used as a political football. That's unacceptable. However when someone asks me what I mean by "sex" I will use very precise language in order to be very clear. It's a scientific definition. I was born with XY chromosomes and the normal (scientific meaning, not politically charged meaning) set of primary sexual characteristics. However these are facts and part of the *biological* definition of being male and, yes, normal. Had I had the misfortune to be born without the normal (yes, that word again) set of primary sexual characteristics I would describe myself as biologically abnormal. I'm not going to change that correct scientific word in a scientific discussion because it may have been misused by others.

You will note that at no point here in this discussion or in others have I ever referred to LGBTQ people as "abnormal" and nor will I. I have referred to LGBT+ people as "not of conventional sexuality". This is factual and non pejorative.

Edit - be aware that scientists are also prone to (correctly) using words like "freak", which again has a specific usage defined by things like the number of deviations from the mean that the individual represents. As ever, context is all. I'm a scientist, I'll use scientific words in a scientific conversation accordingly. I'd describe a woman of 6'6, 2m in height as "a freak" if we were talking about physical size in a biological context. I wouldn't describe her as such to her face in a different context, for obvious reasons.

The discussions above where I was talking about "abnormalities" were scientific in nature. I took great care with the language I used.
 
45 percent, 45 percent and ten percent.
Seems a little overdone to describe the ten percent as not of conventional sexuality.
 
stevec67 said:
I'm sorry, I will use the words "rare abnormalities" in a scientific discussion about biology because in biological terms that's what they are. I'm sorry that the word "abnormal" has become politically charged but as a scientist I reserve the right to use scientifically accepted words in their original and correct form. If they have been picked up and used incorrectly by others then take that up with them and not me. "Rare" likewise is not immaterial, being rare is part of it being abnormal. That's by definition. Again, that's precise use of the language.
I'm sorry for anyone that gets used as a political football. That's unacceptable. However when someone asks me what I mean by "sex" I will use very precise language in order to be very clear. It's a scientific definition. I was born with XY chromosomes and the normal (scientific meaning, not politically charged meaning) set of primary sexual characteristics. However these are facts and part of the *biological* definition of being male and, yes, normal. Had I had the misfortune to be born without the normal (yes, that word again) set of primary sexual characteristics I would describe myself as biologically abnormal. I'm not going to change that correct scientific word in a scientific discussion because it may have been misused by others.

You will note that at no point here in this discussion or in others have I ever referred to LGBTQ people as "abnormal" and nor will I. I have referred to LGBT+ people as "not of conventional sexuality". This is factual and non pejorative.

Edit - be aware that scientists are also prone to (correctly) using words like "freak", which again has a specific usage defined by things like the number of deviations from the mean that the individual represents. As ever, context is all. I'm a scientist, I'll use scientific words in a scientific conversation accordingly. I'd describe a woman of 6'6, 2m in height as "a freak" if we were talking about physical size in a biological context. I wouldn't describe her as such to her face in a different context, for obvious reasons.

The discussions above where I was talking about "abnormalities" were scientific in nature. I took great care with the language I used.
Click to expand...
My objections to the term 'rare abnormalities' are not so much to the term per see, but to the implication that they are therefore not important to our understanding, and to policy.

And I note you give me practically an essay in defense of saying 'rare abnormalities,' but ignore my primary objection, which was to your sex = phenotype at birth position.
 
DonQuixote99 said:
My objections to the term 'rare abnormalities' are not so much to the term per see, but to the implication that they are therefore not important to our understanding, and to policy.

And I note you give me practically an essay in defense of saying 'rare abnormalities,' but ignore my primary objection, which was to your sex = phenotype at birth position.
Click to expand...
No. Sex = chromosome type. Phenotype at birth is dictated by chromosomes in all normal cases.

Policy is not a matter of science. I was discussing biology. Abnormalities in biology are just that. Not normal. Biologically.
 
ff1d1l said:
45 percent, 45 percent and ten percent.
Seems a little overdone to describe the ten percent as not of conventional sexuality.
Click to expand...
Not in my opinion. By definition 10% isn't conventional when viewed against the other 90% who are conventional.
 
stevec67 said:
Not in my opinion. By definition 10% isn't conventional when viewed against the other 90% who are conventional.
Click to expand...
People seem to be struggling with definition Vs label or stick to beat someone with. Even when you have comprehensively detailed how the definition 'rare abnormalities' is quantifiable in science there are complaints around the emotive element - which is not what the definition is there for.
 
stevec67 said:
Not in my opinion. By definition 10% isn't conventional when viewed against the other 90% who are conventional.
Click to expand...
Hell, that is close to being statistically insignificant - I can only imagine the blood pressures rising in response to that definition
 
myles said:
People seem to be struggling with definition Vs label or stick to beat someone with. Even when you have comprehensively detailed how the definition 'rare abnormalities' is quantifiable in science there are complaints around the emotive element - which is not what the definition is there for.
Click to expand...
That's precisely the point I have gone to great lengths to make. To deaf ears, apparently.
 
Cheese said:
Hang on guys. As far as I know, none of the members currently involved in this thread consider themselves being something else than cis-man or cis-woman. In other words, there are neither any trans nor non-binary people among us at the mo.
Click to expand...

At least one member who identifies as non-binary is a regular poster. Though they have chosen not to post on this thread - who can blame them!

As a slight aside when @claire.foxx transitioned a few years ago I recall the response from fishies being overwhelmingly support and admiration for her courage and self-knowledge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top