Asinine strawman duly noted FTR! Genetic VARIATIONS are how EVOLUTION functions. Only the UNINFORMED refer to them as "rare defects". For example if there were to be a pandemic that killed off all XY males but allowed those males with XX chromosomes to survive and impregnate women then that would be evolution at work ensuring survival of the species.
IRONIC given that your own REFUSAL to accept the Scientific data for transgenderism by INSISTING that it can ONLY be "psychological" is the equivalent of a vacuous ad hom and is also NOT a counter argument but instead just your own baseless OPINION.
What else would it be? I don't mean to be insulting to you here, but it seems to me others should be laughing at you with this opinion, rather than the other way around.
I think there are plenty of biological males with more feminine aspects to their brain than masculine. That doesn't make them transgender. Likewise I think there are plenty of men who have chosen to be transgender whose brains are not much more feminine than the average male. There might be some overlap but the two are not necessarily the same. A "female" brain in a man's body might not necessarily want to be in a female body. The argument for gender-like brain differences justifying people being transgender seems to be a weak one. Maybe we just accept the gender we are born into, the same way that a white person accepts being born into a white body, or a black person accepts being born into a black body.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200205084203.htm https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/24/...cking-science-turban-gill-peterson/index.html https://www.ama-assn.org/press-cent...-interfering-health-care-transgender-children FACTS matter!
AKA gaslighting! No one should be FORCED into being something that they are NOT! The concept of FREEDOM is based upon universal ACCEPTANCE that individuals have the RIGHT to SELF DETERMINATION. DICTATING that someone MUST conform to STEREOTYPES from the Stone Age is NOT a valid basis for DENYING them their RIGHTS. I was BORN transgender so why should I be FORCED to "accept" something that I am NOT? Facts matter!
Posturing is a non argument ( your over use of caps, your emojis) and do not constitute a counter argument. Vacuous (unsubstantiated) claims do not constitute a counter argument. You need to back up your vacuous claims. Science indicates sex is a spectrum. But to call the shades in the spectrum as 'transgender' is a sociological construct. But, in the final analysis, there are two dominant sexes, and intersex is an anomaly of nature.
IRONIC given your ongoing FAILURE to substantiate any of your utterly vapid and vacuous allegations. See post #455 above for yet another of my FACTUAL substantiations of the SCIENCE that underlies the cause of transgender. Sad that YOU will PREDICTABLY "cherry pick" something utterly IRRELEVANT from that content yet again but I don't have any expectations that you will be able to overcome the Confirmation Bias that underlies all of your fallacious allegations.
My reading the article will change nothing. There will still be the fact that he quoted the source and you claimed, without support, that he quoted out of context. My reading the article does nothing to change that. I've not even claimed that he hasn't quoted out of context. But I'm not the one who claimed he did. You are. And as such it is on you to support your claim, by showing the context of his quotes, and how they are changed by his lack of that context. What he quoted was indeed factually in the article. Even you know that because if you thought he made those quotes up out of air you would have asked exactly where he got that from in the article. I could disagree with his point and position 100%, but that still will not change the fact that you have not shown how his quotes from your source are given out of context. Your refusal to do so leads me to believe that you have discovered that they were not out of context, and now you are trying to avoid the issue altogether. That may not be your motivation, but it certainly is looking like it.
Do you have any documentation on XX males who were fertile? While I've not gone over every case, everything I have read indicates that they are sterile, as it is extremely rare for the gonads to form into functional testes. Or are you just making a premise that there might be some fertile XX males?
There is a lot of woke science going around, and that is all it is. There is no such thing as a 'transgender dna'. If dna reflects spectrum on the male to female scale, to call either side anything but male or female is a sociological construct to accommodate gay persons who are tired of being gay, and by changing their sex, they can become straight. In my view, if you are a feminine man, it is more honest to accept the reality of what you are, than to pretend to be something you are not. I totally accept the fact that some men are very feminine and/or homosexual, I thoroughly believe in 'live and let live'. What I don't like are lies. What is happening is that woke psychiatrists and woke psychologists are empowering gays and feminine men to change their sex, rather than empowering them to accept who and what they are. I find this troubling, to perpetuate lies. I know that my male brethren, well, the male mind is a cunning one, ever so cunning, and I view transgenderism as highly suspect. Some have made the transformation, and those who succeed I applaud, but most just look and sound like men in drag. I have no problem with the drag crowd, they are fun, funny, and beautiful people, but they do not lie about who they are. That's the issue, here, for me, is 'honesty'. The mind can easily deceive oneself. Here is an evolutionary biologist who is talking some sense on the subject. Proving, once again, that not all 'science' accepts your premise. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-dangerous-denial-of-sex-11581638089 I sorry to point out a biological fact, for you, and that if you have a penis, you are not a woman. You could be a feminine man, and there is nothing wrong with that. I accept that in some males. It is my view that you should acknowledge who and what you are, rather than pretend to be a woman. No hetero male I know would marry a transwoman. A gay man, might, but not a hetero. If a hetero does, then he needs to admit to himself that he's actually gay. There is nothing wrong with being gay. What is wrong is not being honest. Honesty is the issue. Not sex. You keep tossing the term about 'stereotype' but you misuse use this word, it is apparent you do not know what the word means.
I will be commenting further on this when I get home and can use my laptop to better view the linked articles. However have you not noticed that in all the scientific articles you linked there is a prolific use of terms like "may" and "might" and the like? This indicate that science is seeing a possibility but has not determined anything as fact, no matter how much you want to claim it as a fact.
You are making the claim. There was no cherry picking , because there was nothing else in the article which mitigated the quotes. You make claims but you do not substantiate them. When you do, the 'science' doesn't actually prove your claim.
“What is happening is that woke psychiatrists and woke psychologists are empowering gays and feminine men to change their sex, rather than empowering them to accept who and what they are. “ It’s actually worse than this.Psychiatrists and psychologists aren’t allowed to ask you to question the idea that you are trans. So you could be a 12 year old kid who feels awkward because you don’t feel as beautiful or as feminine as other girls, pick up the idea that you are trans from an online community like tumbler and then when you go see a Counsellor about it they aren’t allowed to do anything but encourage you to become a man. Feel awkward about your breasts? Let’s bind them up and pretend you don’t have any. That’s a great solution. It used to be that psychology accepted that there would be friction between an adolescent and their same sex parent because the adolescent would be trying to find their own way of expressing their gender but it’s so easy today for that to detour into expressing a completely different gender since there is an online community of people willing to raise a kid for you. And, you can be any gender you want. Some people say that their gender is the sun, or a flower or a bunny rabbit. And these kids want you to call them such. It used to be that someone who tried to force you to refer to them in the third person was arrogant royalty; now it’s a requirement to avoid the kid committing suicide. Because yeah, that’s on the table at all times with the movement too. The constant threat that if you aren’t referring to this kid in the third person or as “the sun” that they are going to have a hissy fit and jump off a building. Or, if you aren’t referring to them in third person it’s because you are “transphobic”. You must hate them so it’s ok to hate you. Personally, I know some people who are transgender as adults who really don’t seem to want to discuss it. They just want you to be chill and treat them like any other dude. That’s fine, I have no problem with that. To me, it’s more about how the Zoomer generation has incorporated changing gender like you might change your pants.
Exactly. This idea that DNA 'proves' transgenderism is nonsense. I accept their are shades on the spectrum. But, a feminine man is not a woman, he is a feminine man. Women do not have penises, and males do not have vaginas. I do not know one hetero male who would marry a transwoman, though a bi or gay man might. There are some men who are in the closet who might marry a transwoman, but they are in denial they are gay. There are a lot of woke psychiatrists and woke psychologists empowering feminine men to change their sex, when, in my view, they should be empowering them to accept who and that they are, and not try to be something they are not. Transgenderism is sociological construct. Hey, as a bi guy myself, I envy women, I was a fem boy growing up, got picked on a lot, but I never pretended to be anything but that. As I progressed to my 20s, 30s and 40s, I found that Gay guys found me a lot more attractive than girls did. This bothered me because I love women, but they tend to prefer more masculine women. I would have loved nothing more than to have been born female, (I would have been predominantly lesbian, though ) but nature did not have that in store for me. I believe in honesty. And this I know about the male mind, it is one cunning mechanism, oh, people have no idea how cunning the male mind is. I think the subject is not about sex, it is about honesty. there are two sexes, and there is intersex, which is an anomaly. Okay, there are two ways of looking at this. One way is to say there are two sexes. and the anomaly of intersex. The other way is to say all the shades are separate sexes. In my view, the latter invites chaos and is only the result of the modern era, occuring with the advent of wokism. Wokism is infecting science. Sure, I could be wrong, but this is what I see, what my eyes tell me, and this is my honest opinion. Not all science agrees on these points. Here is one evolutionary biologist who apparently is trying to talk some sense on the subject. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-dangerous-denial-of-sex-11581638089 It's a paywall, but since it was posted to FB without challenge, https://www.facebook.com/2661698474...ms-women-gaysand-especially-/668178397251947/ I'll post it here: "The Dangerous Denial of Sex. Transgender ideology harms women, gays—and especially feminine boys and masculine girls. By Colin M. Wright and Emma N. Hilton Transgender ideology can take on a comical character, as in a recent American Civil Liberties Union commentary objecting to sales tax on tampons and similar products while pondering: “How can we recognize that barriers to menstrual access are a form of sex discrimination without erasing the lived experiences of trans men and non-binary people who menstruate, as well as women who don’t?” Yet it’s one thing to claim that a man can “identify” as a woman or vice versa. Increasingly we see a dangerous and antiscientific trend toward the outright denial of biological sex. “The idea of two sexes is simplistic,” an article in the scientific journal Nature declared in 2015. “Biologists now think there is a wider spectrum than that.” A 2018 Scientific American piece asserted that “biologists now think there is a larger spectrum than just binary female and male.” And an October 2018 New York Times headline promised to explain “Why Sex Is Not Binary.” The argument is that because some people are intersex—they have developmental conditions resulting in ambiguous sex characteristics—the categories male and female exist on a “spectrum,” and are therefore no more than “social constructs.” If male and female are merely arbitrary groupings, it follows that everyone, regardless of genetics or anatomy should be free to choose to identify as male or female, or to reject sex entirely in favor of a new bespoke “gender identity.” To characterize this line of reasoning as having no basis in reality would be an egregious understatement. It is false at every conceivable scale of resolution. In humans, as in most animals or plants, an organism’s biological sex corresponds to one of two distinct types of reproductive anatomy that develop for the production of small or large sex cells—sperm and eggs, respectively—and associated biological functions in sexual reproduction. In humans, reproductive anatomy is unambiguously male or female at birth more than 99.98% of the time. The evolutionary function of these two anatomies is to aid in reproduction via the fusion of sperm and ova. No third type of sex cell exists in humans, and therefore there is no sex “spectrum” or additional sexes beyond male and female. Sex is binary. There is a difference, however, between the statements that there are only two sexes (true) and that everyone can be neatly categorized as either male or female (false). The existence of only two sexes does not mean sex is never ambiguous. But intersex individuals are extremely rare, and they are neither a third sex nor proof that sex is a “spectrum” or a “social construct.” Not everyone needs to be discretely assignable to one or the other sex in order for biological sex to be functionally binary. To assume otherwise—to confuse secondary sexual traits with biological sex itself—is a category error. Denying the reality of biological sex and supplanting it with subjective “gender identity” is not merely an eccentric academic theory. It raises serious human-rights concerns for vulnerable groups including women, homosexuals and children. Women have fought hard for sex-based legal protections. Female-only spaces are necessary due to the pervasive threat of male violence and sexual assault. Separate sporting categories are also necessary to ensure that women and girls don’t have to face competitors who have acquired the irreversible performance-enhancing effects conferred by male puberty. The different reproductive roles of males and females require laws to safeguard women from discrimination in the workplace and elsewhere. The falsehood that sex is rooted in subjective identity instead of objective biology renders all these sex-based rights impossible to enforce. The denial of biological sex also erases homosexuality, as same-sex attraction is meaningless without the distinction between the sexes. Many activists now define homosexuality as attraction to the “same gender identity” rather than the same sex. This view is at odds with the scientific understanding of human sexuality. Lesbians have been denounced as “bigots” for expressing a reluctance to date men who identify as women. The successful normalization of homosexuality could be undermined by miring it in an untenable ideology. Those most vulnerable to sex denialism are children...."
It was a hypothetical example to explain how EVOLUTION functions. Sad that you are so utterly focused on NITPICKING something that does NOT alter the FUNCTIONALITY of evolution.
Nothing could be further from the truth, at least as you've stated it. Is "who we are," in your mind, not in large part, a result of our experiences? If that is so, do you maintain that one's experiences are not greatly affected by whether they are born male or female? Do you believe that environment plays a great role, in shaping a person? And would that environment not include our interactions with others, and how we are treated in society? So do you believe that boys and girls are seen and treated exactly the same? Mostly the same? The sex we are born is not "irrelevant," to who we are, or who we will become. The concept of gender is clearly important, in the human psyche. If this was not the case, there would not be so many languages-- which are our symbolic codes, for describing & understanding the world-- in which words are considered as being either male, or female. And, since all reality is actually experienced, in our minds, therefore concepts ingrained there, are also "real."
The use of those terms only indicates that MORE detailed studies are required in order to CONFIRM or REFUTE these findings. However the CURRENT studies CONFIRM my position. Get back to us when YOU have anything that refutes my position.
Explain to me how my reading the article will change the fact that you have not, or maybe can not, shown how he made those quotes out of context? Will my reading the article suddenly make new material appear for you to use in showing how it was out of context?
And yet you have not provided either the actual link to the actual study that shows transgender DNA or the post number that you originally posted the link in if already given.
I hear ya. And parents who allow children to change their sex, as in mutilation, that's child abuse. Only adults should be allowed to make such irreversible decisions.
