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

Yes that's all the nihilist left believes in or understands. Certainly explains the mental health issues among leftists.

 

Gender is nothing it describes nothing.

Sexual orientation is based on your sex that's something you can't change you can change how you identify. Watch this I identifying as a purple leprechaun from the Moon. Now I identify it as a 6 ft tall house cat.

All of that means nothing the sex I am and the sex my partner is that doesn't change.

 

That's sexual intercourse

 

LOL. Sex is a normal needed function for the animal world, of which humans are a part of.
The nihilist right is the largest terrorist group in USA perhaps because they can only do sex while married with the lights out and under the covers.
Certainly explains the mental health issues among the MAGA crowd.

Note: I mocked your words and changed them to your kind, but those are your words. Just in case you recognize how silly your post was. LOL.
Is that the best you have?

 

Yep, the purpose of sex is sexual intercourse

 

Binary means one or the other, like 0's and 1's in computing. There is no 0.5. Sex is bimodal.

 

Of course you have to have procreation to ensure the species doesn't die out, that doesn't mean there only has to be two distinct sexes.

I won't argue that it takes a egg and a sperm to create another human being. So are you trying to say there can be no other variation to either a male or female? I am assuming that you are calling a 'defect' any male who does not have an XY chromosome and any female who doesn't have an XX chromosome. Are you saying anything out of the XX and XY set up is a defect because they can't procreate?

Human beings are not capable of procreating until certain processes happen within the body especially during puberty when viable sperm is produced in the male and mature eggs in the female -- the two come together and boom, procreation. I guess when something goes wrong along the way with those non-defect XY and XX chromosome people, eg -- nuts get mangled so no sperm made, girl gets injured with resultant removal of ovaries or maybe environmental factors cause infertility, or hormonal factors cause infertility -- Are all these infertile people defects too because they can't procreate? That reminds me of some dude with a moustache stating who was defective or not back in the 40's. Variations in 'sex' are not defects in humans, they are natural variations that are driven by a huge number of factors.

You keep conflating sex with gender. Sex and gender are not meant to be interchangeable terms because they are two different concepts.

The 'sex' of an individual refers to the biological aspects of an individual.

Gender is a social construction relating to behaviour and attributes based on labels of masculinity and femininity. Gender identity is a person perception of yourself as opposed to biology.

The person in the video in the OP is only discussing the biological aspects of sex only, -- specifically chromosomes, hormones, gonads, and genitals. As explained there are differences in sexual development. There are a lot of variations in what is biologically 'male' or 'female' because male and femaleness depends on more than chromosomes.

Human beings are mammals and there are at least five species of mammals with the males not having the male sex chromosome, but they develop into phenotypic males. Sex is more than just the presence of XX and XY chromosomes dictating your sex. These species still procreate. In humans, it's the female who incubates the eggs inside the body -- a totally female characteristic for human beings. Yet, male seahorses incubate their eggs. Hmm, what does that mean? It means, in nature, the ways in which chromosomes and phenotype relate to biological sex is not clear cut and is extremely complex.

Your notion is outdated and incorrect. As far back as you can go, there wasn't enough advances in genetics/biology/epigenetics to make many statements about being a binary species. We are very much more advanced now. The differences that you refer to as 'defects' exist naturally in nature based on variation in sex chromosomes, gonads, genitalia, hormones, or a combination. Any biologist who is an expert in 'sex' will tell you that humans are not a binary species. In fact, research is showing this more and more to be the case. Nature repeatedly shows us, via other mammals and via humans, that it is possible to have many variations and still continue as a species.

What expertise do possess related to human biology as related to biological sex? I can conclude from your statements, you are not up-to-date on the research.

 

it actually does. As that's how our species procreates. That's how nature designed us to be and that's really the end of the discussion.

Nature designed twoards gestation or impregnation. That's the skinny of it. That's the entire purpose of gender or sex. There is no "gradient"

The rest of your post is just nonsense. The majority of the population of the world. The VAST majority. And I would dare say the majority of the United States is not on board with this gender spectrum bullshit. This craving to feel special by inventing a made up gender or sex.

That's not what sex is. Sex is how we procreate. You are either one or the other. Outside of that binary, nobody gives two shits about you or your made up identity.

 

I have to stop you here because you are doing some conflating of your own. The label gender was once indeed synonymous with biological sex, although before it wasn't. The concept that you and I apply the label of gender to is a new concept overall. And there is, in all honesty, a question as to whether the label gender is the best label for this concept, especially given the term's history. But the reality that we have is that there are still many people who have not accepted the new concept, yet alone agree that the label gender applies to that concept.

The problem with this definition is that were it to be true, then the whole basis of argument for transgenders go away. Transgenders see themselves as other than their body regardless of what the current gender/sex expressions are, regardless of what the current expected behaviors are. If such were the case then drag queens would consider themselves women. But the majority of drag queens still consider themselves men.

These were just specific point within your post that I felt needed addressing. I agree with most of what else you wrote.

 

Interesting link. where is the actual medical study published to support the youtube video?

 

No that's not it. There are also those who produce neither, and I am not counting those who lost the ability when they previously had it. So if you define sex by what one produces, then you at least 4 sexes, by that logic. Those who have a penis and produce sperm, those who have a penis and don't produce sperm, those who have a vagina and produce eggs, and those who have a vagina and don't produce eggs. While the vast majority will fall under 1 and 3, your very argument makes 2 and 4 separate sexes.

 

That's one of the things that I don't get about the whole "nature" argument. Somehow, if we build a dam, that's going against nature. But if a beaver builds a dam, that is nature. We are natural beings. Therefore all we do is within nature, for our species at the very least.

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.[/QUOTE]

 

I have seen those posts, and they refer to studies, but don't actually present the actual studies. So, again, where are these published studies that could be reviewed or find reviews of?

 

That's your problem. Most of the rest of us do that. Don't like it, leave. You don't see us complaining that you won't separate out lines to make it clearer what you are responding to do you?

 

Sorry. Still only 3 potentials, male, female and intersex. Future fertility isn't a definition used by credible people. When folks try to explain intersex, and split that 46 different ways, that starts to sound very very specific and well outside the real of public policy.

the actual data doesn't suggest that ~2% of the population are effected by some mutation.. not supported in the data. The actual number is far closer to ~<.018% at best.

 

That's rather like telling Galileo that we've not had a problem with the geocentric model for centuries and that he's just making up the heliocentric.

Bring out the actual statistics.

 

I know what it means.

The left claims sex is not binary. My point is that all their "intersex" mutations are based on male or female characteristics gone haywire, but they're still male and female.

If one of them could pull off reproduction by budding maybe they'd have a point.

 

Well first, I was making a point of the problem of the argument given. Even if I agree with your conclusion, I will point out problems with the arguments used to support them. And while I can agree with you on the point of an excessive number of specific subsets, at least to a point, where do we really draw that line? For the most part, Intersex is still divided between male and female. AIS is considered a male condition, even if they were born with a vagina. Further, how do we really know how extensive these things are? Because it's not like we test for them. We only really see them if something happens to make us specifically look for them. Take human chimeras for example. Since the only way to know if a person is one is to DNA at multiple point of the body looking for separate DNA sets, if nothing comes up to warrant multiple site testing, how would we know if a person is a chimera or not?

 

Turn off the CW? The use of the term is wasted, non specific, and describes something not meant by the term. Chimera's aren't folks with infused twin DNA, they are mythical shape shifters that exist in the minds of fantasy minded folks. And nothing more.

 

I have to disagree with this statement, although I am perfectly willing to listen to arguments to the contrary. Last I learned, we are essentially female in form until something kicks in, usually the SRY gene, to begin the male development. But I don't see where we are both male and female as embryos, especially if there is no male development gene or other "device" to make the embryo male.

Also a hermaphrodite is not what the porn and legends say they are. They are not people who are naturally born with functioning penises and vaginas. They are people who have both testicular and ovarian tissue within them, but that doesn't automatically separate them out into another sex category.

That's should probably be specified as a born sterile person, as anyone who lost their fertility later don't suddenly transition into a different sex.

 

Are you talking about the network? Given that I don't watch straight TV anymore, I am not influenced by FOX, or MSNBC or CW or any of them.

Karen Keegan, Lydia Fairchild, and others show that you are wrong.

 

If leftists were any good at sex they'd be able to figure out what a woman looks like with their clothes off.

"Men can get pregnant" "sex is assigned at birth" "a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman" "cis-gender patriarchal inter-sectional basket weaving". Yeah sure, we're the mentally ill ones.

 

Show me one time when they shape shifted. Just one.

 

In the OP, go to the video at 7:00-7:30. It will show a figure of the Wolffian and Mullerian ducts at 6 weeks. Essentially, we start out with the primordial structures for both male and female. With input normally determined by whether there is a Y chromosome, one or the other will involute and at various stages hormones will tell tissues whether to feminize or become more masculine.

So in a physical structure sense, an embryo has both male and female parts. But it is true that the "default" development is female, not male. (contrary to what the bible suggests)

Well, it makes them neither or both, along a spectrum between fully male and fully female. Sex is bimodal.

 

Like many other things with the human body, there are multiple purposes. Still the existence of reproduction through a limited condition does not prove that there are not other sexes out there that cannot reproduce.