So you thought that sex was binary with a strict division between male and female

But the Data IS available with a modicum of internet research. I chose the video as it presented things simply enough that even the anti-science people could grasp the message. I am and have been following that up with further studies supporting what was stated, Feel free at any point to post links debunking any point made.

 

Why Boys Will Be Boys: Two Pathways of Fetal Testicular Androgen Biosynthesis Are Needed for Male Sexual Differentiation
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000292971100262X

 

Almost nothing in the carbon based life form world can be binary.

 

The defect exists but it's not a gender or a sex. It's just a defect. Lol The reality is and always will be that we are a binary species because that's what is required to create one of us. That has never changed.

 

Similarly it has not changed that not everyone must or even should play a part in procreation. Your “argument” is nonsense and based on logical fallacy Reductio ad absurdum

 

I'm sorry science is a bitch. Only two sex or genders can come together and create a fertilized egg. That's nature slapping you in the face with hard truth.

Anything else beyond that is emotions.

 

you have not provided one link, one argument, one idea that you have based on science.
THIS is science
https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php/Genital_System_Development

Get back to me when you have passed the course

 

You keep avoiding the point provided to go off on your own strawman. The concept put forth is that biological sex is on a spectrum. Out of these however many sexes are being claim, two specifically have the ability for reproduction, and only the combination of those two. They are the majority produced in offspring, but a minority of others are also produced.

 

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-22964-0_5

 

There is only male and female and the very infrequent hermaphrodite.

Then there are those who are confused about what they see when they look between their legs.

Read a biology book instead of that pseudoscience you like to follow.

 

Can't look at the clip at the moment. Hopefully can get to it later.
But an atypical sexual development isn't automatically a sex other than male or female. A micro penis is an atypical sexual development, but the person is still male. Many of the intersex conditions lists the person as male or female, sometimes opposite that of the external genitalia (ex: AIS).

This is not to be commentary on gender or the concept of self that is separate from the biological sex. And indeed we might need to rethink our labeling of biological sex, as something that extends beyond genitalia and reproductive function. Maybe there are 4 sexes. Either A or B can mate with either C or D in order to produce offspring. They are just so close that until our knowledge grew enough we couldn't tell the difference. That's just a supposition of a possibility. I'm not making any claims.

 

This can include a lot of the intersex who end up with genitalia opposite what their DNA says, such as a male with certain forms of AIS, where they are born with XY DNA, but female external genitalia. Or those who have an SRY gene transference and have the opposite external genitalia from their chromosome pair, either because there was no SRY to cause the penis and scrotum (among other organs) to develop in a male or the unexpected presence of an SRY to cause a female to develop male external genitalia.

 

The Pacific Islanders, Native American Indians, Jewish and many other cultures believed there were more than the two sexes

 

This IS biology intersex/ DSD is real and far more common than is realised

 

Sure it is.....
There is male and female and the very rare hermaphrodite and then there are the mentally ill who have no idea what their genitals mean.

 

Na not really. It’s certainly possible to reproduce without sperm or eggs. Research has been limited due to ethics, but one could create a clone using any nucleated cell via induced pluripotency. It’s also possible for an individual to have both sperm and eggs as all embryos start with the precursors of both male and female parts. In rabbits self fertilization was documented. But in any case who cares? No need to deny mules exist just because they don’t produce fertile offspring. Same for infertile or sterile intersex people.

 

Okay - you obviously believe that sex is only determined by the X and Y chromosomes yes?

https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php/Genital_System_Development

https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/..._-_Abnormalities#Disorders_of_Sex_Development

Get back to me when you have completed the embryology on line course I just linked to

 

You can quote all of the new pseudoscience that you want but that doesn't change reality.

If you have a penis, you are a male if you have a vagina you are a female. Just because you think that you're something different doesn't magically make you something different.

I'm sure you can also link to some gibberish that "proves" that a male can get pregnant.

 

We also know that what they were referring to as such is what is now getting the label of gender

 

Hermaphrodism is part of intersex, but is not the whole of it. There are many other intersex conditions besides hermaphrodism. Further, those who claim a "mental illness" never bother to see if the person in question is in possession of a condition such as an XY male with AIS born with female genitalia, or a human chimera born from a male/female fraternal twin fusing.

 

SO then the chromosome pair is irrelevant?

 

In nature. So cloning doesn't count. Clones are a copy or a duplicate, not a new individual. And I do recall an individual born with a defect of having both sex organs whom could have theoretically cloned himself. Rare defects or scientific interference do not define our species.

With science I could breathe underwater. Would you suggest that our species could breathe under water? No.

If by some mutation some individual was born with gills and could breathe under water would you declare us now as having the ability to breath under water? No.

You are being dishonest.

Oh and the third example? We are not rabbits.

So lol. Ya. Really.

 

There's no way to do that though, is there?

The arguments we present are those that are lopping off existing body parts as an extension of the plastic surgery machine.

If you accept the 0.0012% of all births, that's about 400,000 people out of the entire US population.

Nobody I've seen, including myself, discounts this fact, but clearly the majority of the transgenderism "movement" doesn't fall into the category of genetic mutations.

 

Why do we care about "in nature?" Humans "naturally" spend a lot of time circumventing what happens in nature.

False. They have nearly-identical or identical DNA, like identical twins, but if allowed to develop a mind they would be as much an individual as identical twins are each individuals.

The goal is to define the possible sexes or genders, not just what is usual for the species. Conservatives talk about gender dysphoria as a mental illness. The existence of physical intersex disorders shows it is more complicated than that in itself. So even if the "other" category is seen as going along with what you view as mental illness, there are some cases where that thinking does not apply, and some of them also have gender dysphoria on top of the physical disorders.

It would require quite a bit of alteration, but who we are is defined by our minds more than our bodies. If you could (unsure if we ever could) take a human mind and put it in a computer, it would still be a person.

It's kind of an impossible example... Impossible is not a word I use lightly... but that person would be able to breath underwater, and most still could not. If it were possible and was something that sometimes happens, one could say humans are rarely amphibious, I guess. But unsure why it matters to whatever your point is.

I disagree. You are failing to appreciate what morally and logically matters, I think. Appeal to nature is a fallacy for a reason.

So? The point is a similar species could do it (mammals as opposed to something more distantly related), so by inference we could too. But perhaps if you're a researcher in veterinary medicine, you may be able to explain why it's possible in rabbits but not people.

You didn't make any relevant points clearly. Whatever it is, it seems to make sense to you, but to me it comes across as an appeal to nature fallacy... possibly.

 

Oh we're gonna quote every ****ing line now like children? Ok! Why do we care "in nature"? Because that's how we've came to be. That's how we are designed by nature. That defines us.

This means **** all. They are carbon copies in DNA because that's the meaning of the word "clone". Nobody gives cares that their personal experiences would create different memories. It's still a CLONE. And it's not some ability our species is capable of naturally. You are now using science to alter our species into doing something it naturally can't do. So sorry. True. Not false.

Progressives can't define "woman" so I'm not sure why they want to bother trying to make up more make believe theories and definitions. But we are a binary species. We always will be a binary species. That's just biology. There is no third "sex" There is only made up mental gymnastic bullshit.

No. That's nonsense and muddy and ridiculous. Who we are is based on the normative biological reality.

No we would call that an abnormal defect which would not define our species. Cajoined twins? People born with two heads? Do not define the human species. Tis a defect. People born with abnormal defects like your made up "sexes" or "genders" do not define our species. They are simply male or female with abnormalities. That's it. Nothin special about em.

Here's me not giving a rat's ass about what you agree with. Facts don't care about your feelings. Here's a rat genetically engineered to grow a human ear. Does this now define what a rat is? No. Because that would be insane.

Well for as far back as you can go, we've always been a binary species. Man/woman. Male/female. That's just the reality of it.

Oh once again, I could give two shits about your opinion as to what points I've made. I've been clear. Science/biology is sound. We do not define our species based off of defects and we can't reproduce without male sperm and female eggs. That's the reality of it. So there is man or woman and anything you try to branch off of that is either your imagination or a defect that doesn't define a new sex. Because your new sex either produces a sperm or an egg to reproduce. It's not creating a new ingredient. And if it can't produce either, then you are a defect. A broken version of one or the other.