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

It not ever an exact copy

https://cattledogpublishing.com/blo...c-prove-that-cloning-wont-resurrect-your-pet/

 

Clone means a carbon copy at the DNA level. That's the idea of what clone is.

"Cloning is the process of producing individual organisms with identical or virtually identical DNA, either by natural or artificial means. In nature, some organisms produce clones through asexual reproduction. In the field of biotechnology, cloning is the process of creating cloned organisms (copies) of cells and of DNA fragments (molecular cloning)."

This is not our species reproducing and certainly not something we can naturally do. So I'm not sure why we are getting caught up with cloning as an idea of a new sex. genetic cloning is not a natural ability we posses as a means for reproducing. It's not like a person can just naturally "clone" themselves. lol.

 

And gene expression, something you would have understood if you had read my link, causes variances in appearance, behaviour and even disease manifestation

Look the declaration that only reproduction is relevant is “reduction ad absurdium”. Sexuality, like all other chromosomes and genes has a vast genetic variance ergo a range in expression

 

I'm very specific about what a clone is. Different memories or hair patterns on a cat doesn't discount that.

But we are a binary species. That is the declaration. That is what nature designed for us as a species. We don't "naturally" clone. You either produce eggs, or a sperm and that's it. There is no "range" There is only your imagination of which I reject as it's not scientific or based on reality.

 

What you are not “getting” is GENE EXPRESSION. Genes can be turned on or off depending on the environment.

 

There is not gene you are turning on that allows you to reproduce outside of sperm or egg. So why the hell are you bringing this up?

You are trying to invent a new sex or put sex on a spectrum when it's binary. Binary as in how we as a species reproduce. Based off of the definition of the *******n word.

sex
sĕks
noun

1. Sexual activity, especially sexual intercourse.
2. The sexual urge or instinct as it manifests itself in behavior.
3. Either of the two divisions, designated female and male, by which most organisms are classified on the basis of their reproductive organs and functions.

Thanks for playing.

 

Because YOU claimed clones are exact copies and you seem not to be aware of the complexity of genetics in relation to reproductive biology - something that is actually explained in the video in the OP

 

Not only are they still EXACT copies as based off of the definition and process of cloning. There DNA structure is still identical. That's the process of cloning. Nothing you are suggesting after the fact of creation is nothing to do with anything. And this entire discussion is meta bullshit of which you have no point.

 

I don't get why you dislike this. I do it to ensure I address all points.

Going against "nature" seems to distinguish us most from other species. We can innovate and design things. We can transcend it. The appeal to nature fallacy suggests that something is better because it's natural. This isn't true.

This thread is about how many genders should be acknowledged in official records. I think I can resolve this for you even under your terms of keeping to the natural. Imagine you kept a record of the colors of some animal and they usually come in black or brown. Now, every once in awhile, they can be albino through a defect. Because albinos exist, you need more than 2 categories for colors. You can use "other" or albino or none but to be accurate, more than 2 categories are needed. The same is true of sex and gender.

You said identical DNA means they're not another individual. This is false. Period. If you were cloned, that clone would become another person as soon as they have a mind. The mind defines the individual.

The rest of the post is just reiterating your previous points. It's addressed above.

 

For you to define a new gender, or sex...you have to have reproduced successfully with something other than a sperm or an egg. You can't show me that. So you havn't created any new sex. Only your feelings or imagination. There is no "albino" you can present that is a successful new gender or sex.

It's male or female. Sperm or egg. Nothing else exists.

Oh and why do I dislike seperate quotes? Because your points eventually become redundant and uneccessary. It's also incredibally obnoxious and tiring to respond to every damn point. Just gather up 2 or 3 of your main points and put them down.

 

Still having difficulty with the concept of gene expression?b

 

You are insisting reproduction and sex are the same thing

 

They are how you define sex. Sex is a means of reproduction. That's the entire point of sex. And I don't seperate sex from gender. Gender is sex. And we've had no problem with these definitions dating back to as far as the 15th century. It was only like 3 days ago that the minority decided to try and redefine everything in an attempt to feel "special"

The vast majority of the human population agrees with this.

 

Some cultures do have 3rd genders, but it’s true biological sex is derivative of male or female. This doesn’t actually change the need for 3+ categories. Bimodal is a good term for it. I am definitely a student of biology and do not find your biology comments compelling. You just want to keep it to 2 because of a prejudice you have against trans, it seems. But ironically, this wouldn’t apply to most of them since they usually DO identify as one or the other.

A hermaphrodite will essentially be both male and female biologically as we all are as embryos. A sterile person who doesn’t produce sperm or eggs would be neither under your definition.

You saying they don’t exist or need to be acknowledged in records is not logical. Having an other category is almost always useful in terms of accuracy. Something as complicated as sex is not going to be straightforward all of the time, and frankly if I were doing research where sex mattered I would not want AIS or hermaphrodites treated exactly the same as women, or men.

 

Defects. Not a legit gender or sex.

 

Defect is irrelevant. Existence is what matters. The point is more than two categories are needed to correctly categorize all that exist. A vague answer (other) is better than an inaccurate answer. It’s like being asked a yes or no question when neither is perfectly the answer for you (as may be the case for ais with a vagina but xy chromosomes, though most think of themselves as women despite male genetics). An other option is necessary to preserve accuracy.

 

Sure. Just like the human-werewolf spectrum where some are born with tails and some are not.

Or like the aquaboy spectrum when some people have webbed hands/feet.

Then of course you have the x-man spectrum where some people are born with blue skin.

 

Gender is a spectrum but black and white are not.

Nice pseudo-science.

TLR of video: "Hey guys sex exists on a spectrum! Here's male, here's female, and here's a bunch of people afflicted with syndromes!"

 

I agree with you that going against nature is really a human thing to do in fact some of our religions are all about going against your nature. That's actually how civilization works

you're referring to gender. Gender has been reduced to essentially a costume or a performance. In fact all I have to do to change my gender is say I'm the other gender and makes it nothing. It doesn't describe anything that's different except for a word you use to describe yourself.

That has nothing to do with nature or jeans it's like if I describe to myself as Hindu.

As far as sex goes first off what is the point of dimorphic sexes within a species? Meaning of species that takes more than one individual to procreate?

In humans how many people do you need to procreate it and how many sexes? If you don't need hermaphrodites or non-binaries or third genders none of that is a sex. Some of them are genetic anomalies some of them are identities.

I agree with this line of thought people tend to place a lot more important on genetics as a determining factor of who you're going to be when in reality genetics really just says what color hair you have how tall you are or what illnesses your predisposed to what color eyes you have and so forth.

Someone can be an exact genetic copy and be a completely different person.

I think tough talk should make the distinction he's talking about your identical genetically to your clone if you're cloned.

One example I can think of is the morning geckos and these are reptiles obviously geckos are reptiles but they're parthenogenic meaning they don't need males to reproduce. So every generation of these geckos is a duplicate of the previous generation

 

I still hold to the idea that gender is nothing. At least in regards to something that's separate from sex. If I can say I'm a woman and then I'm a man and then I'm an non-binary in a minute and change my gender that quickly with out changing anything else it's nothing it's not even a costume anymore that's not a performance.


The term gender as separate from sex was at first used to describe secondary sexual characteristics broad shoulders and narrow hips for men smaller stature for women that sort of thing.

I deposit that the trans activist types are trying to suggest that gender and sex are the same thing but that they're not based on biology.

If we include the anomalies which everyone tries to rely on when they're talking about sex in general then sure it's a spectrum but it's still a binary spectrum. It isn't like light invisible light spectrum comes in Severn this thing to wavelengths biological sex only comes in a spectrum between 1 and 0 or a binary

But I reject the idea that anomalies makes a rule hermaphrodites and people with Turner's syndrome and so forth there are anomalies they're not typical they're atypical. Dimorphic sex is in a species that reproduces sexually a method for which to reproduce. If you only need two of this category and that category to reproduce there is only two there's nothing else all the other things that people can dream up or point to anomalies none of that is a sex because you don't need it to reproduce.

 

It's a interesting video but I dispute the idea that all of these anomalies and irregular births are a different sex.

It can be a blend of both that's not a sex that's a genetic anomaly.

What defines a sex in a sexually dimorphic species is being on the opposite end of reproduction that's really the only reason we differentiate between male horses and female horses or boys and girls. That's because when we get one of each together and a pair they can make another person assuming there's no anomalies.

That's why there's only two sexes you don't need a boy and a girl and a hermaphrodite so hermaphrodite isn't a sex. It's a description of sexual characteristics.

Someone with three X's is not a sex nobody needs someone with three X's to participate between a male and a female to make a baby.

 

Guess what the purpose of sex is.

 

Untrue.

Without the binary of male and female you couldn't define intersex.

 

Gender is changed as fast as those who say I'm gay. No, I hetero. No, I'm binary.
How often do you change your sex orientation? Or anyone for that matter?

 

Pleasure.