Quote from: pawsplay on January 23, 2024, 04:06:19 PM
You don't even know what X and Y chromosomes are. And you want to talk to me about real biology?

Quote from: pawsplay on January 23, 2024, 04:06:19 PM

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on January 22, 2024, 03:33:53 PM

Quote from: pawsplay on January 22, 2024, 03:30:44 PM

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on January 22, 2024, 03:14:42 PM

Quote from: pawsplay on January 22, 2024, 03:08:54 PM
I am prepared to do genetics at twenty paces with anyone who is not an actual practicing or former genetic researcher.

Male is XY and Female is XX, easy right.

Son, Male is a biological

LOL!

There's quite a bit more to it than that, but that's a discussion tangent.

For this discussion yes.  Why don't you bring up Klinefelter, I love that ole chestnut by the social constructionist.

"Male is XY and Female is XX" is a social construction. There are numerous conditions where this just isn't true, first of all. Klinefelter is a variation that involves something other than XX or XY configurations. But androgen insensitivity syndrome is a situation where an XY individual has feminine characteristics; CAIS leads to the development of the vulva.

But that really ignores a more central problem with your 6th grade, 20th century biology lesson. There are lots of different genes for eye color. There are blue eye genes, and brown eyes genes, and within those categories, countless genetic variations. That is equally true of X and Y. There is no one X gene, there is no one Y gene. There are genes that fit those roles (at least, in typical development) and occupy certain positions on the chromosome (again, excepting certain variations like Klinefelter). But the genes themselves come in hundreds of variations. So if the Y chromosome is what determines your gender, then there are millions of genders in the male category, even among typical, non-intersexed, cisgender males. There are in fact about 70 genes on the Y chromosome. There are hundreds on the X, and most do lots of important things that have nothing do do with sex determination, per se.

So if I accept your construction at face value, that XY is your sex, then your social construction is that there are more genders than there are people who visit Disneyland each year. If your "sex" is the expression of your X and Y chromosomes, and you are a male, then most likely your "sex" (the influence of that chromosome on the body) is mostly your mom's sex, with a little add-on package from your dad. There is nothing at all about the Y chromosome that is essential to your human development; genetically typical women (in this sense, most people AFAB) get along fine with none of it.

You don't even know what X and Y chromosomes are. And you want to talk to me about real biology?

Son, Male is a biological term for an individual possessing XY chromosome.  Female is a biological term for an individual possessing XX chromosome.  Is Klinefelter successful?  Does klinefelter breed true?  Could you take a Klinefelter and have him fuck you in your wound between your legs you use to pleasure gay men and would you be able to produce a child?  Lets pretend the social construct between your legs could give birth, would it be XXY, would it then be a third sex?  Now, the next thing a leftard like you will say is yes Klinefelter can breeed, with genetic engineering through cloning sure or gene therapy to try to produce viable sperm.  Is Klinefelter successful, no.  Successful are able to breed true with no intervention through mankind.  At best klinefelter is intersexed or simply an unsuccessful genetic mutation.  Could you even take a klinefelter, breed him to a woman and breed a new line of xxy in the wild, no, no you could not.  Why, because sex in humans is binary.  There are unsuccessful genetic mutations, hermaphrodites and intersex depending on your preference, but they are not successful they will not breed true.

I used Klinefelter for you to show your ass to the board son.  I was surprised  you are so far gone into the gender neutral cult you are calling biological terms social constructs.  How long have you been leftarded because for someone to go that far down the gender neutral cult is quite impressive.  How do you keep yourself from joining the 41%, I'm truly amazed.

And then you can't even argue your point and maintain consistency, sex is a biological term, gender is a social construct term that originated by John Money.  Do you want to talk about John Money next.  Because what that man did to those two boys led them to their deaths.  And his research is used for "gender is a social construct".  Have you listened to their parents discuss what Money did to their sons getting them to commit incest for his "research" and how they wished they never met the monster that leftards use to justify genital mutilation of children.

Let's listen to David's own words before he took his own life in 2000.  You know he died so that fucktards like you could use his death to spread the misery to children:



John Money, pure fraud.  Same as gender is a social construct line of reasoning.

Lets read about the death of Reimer, denied of his ability to sire a child who was put on a cross for leftards like you paws to state "gender is a social construct".

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-may-13-me-reimer13-story.html

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on January 23, 2024, 05:50:12 PM
Son, Male is a biological term for an individual possessing XY chromosome.  Female is a biological term for an individual possessing XX chromosome.  Is Klinefelter successful?  Does klinefelter breed true?  Could you take a Klinefelter and have him fuck you in your wound between your legs you use to pleasure gay men and would you be able to produce a child?

Substantive science is based on observable experimental results, not nomenclature. For example, debates like whether Pluto is a planet or a dwarf planet aren't science vs anti-science.

Is there a case where you think transgender advocates would predict one observable result (i.e. not just nomenclature), but the observable physical result is different?

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on January 23, 2024, 05:50:12 PM
And then you can't even argue your point and maintain consistency, sex is a biological term, gender is a social construct term that originated by John Money.

Today's transgender people have completely rejected John Money's ridiculous assertions from the 1970s. They don't think that sex-based tendencies are just social conditioning. If anything, they sometimes place too much on genetics. And in any case, they support more scientific research into genetics as well as into the effects of hormones like testosterone and estrogen. They believe in genetic effects -- just that they also want research into how to simulate some of those genetic effects through hormones and/or intervention.

This can also be a help to non-transgender patients, like intersex patients who want to live as if they were a more average man or woman.

Whereas, say, anti-racism advocates sometimes push against conducting more genetic studies of racial characteristics, transgender advocates don't object to genetic research. They tend to welcome it.

Quote from: pawsplay on January 23, 2024, 04:06:19 PM
"Male is XY and Female is XX" is a social construction.

No, it's innate and sound biological science.  The idea that you can choose your gender: that is the artificial social construct.
Everything else you said isn't even worth dicussion since it's entirely built upon on your above flawed, nonsensical delusion.


Male is XX, and female is XY.  There are a few rare genetic variants, like Turner's Syndrome, Superfemale, etc., but they all are still based on X and Y: No Y chromosome: female.  Y chromosome: male.

It's time to move on past Pawsplay's annoying posts.  There's no way to have a rational discussion with people with no grasp on reality.

Quote from: Cathode Ray on January 23, 2024, 09:51:24 PM

Quote from: pawsplay on January 23, 2024, 04:06:19 PM
"Male is XY and Female is XX" is a social construction.

No, it's innate and sound biological science.  The idea that you can choose your gender: that is the artificial social construct.
Everything else you said isn't even worth dicussion since it's entirely built upon on your above flawed, nonsensical delusion.


Male is XX, and female is XY.  There are a few rare genetic variants, like Turner's Syndrome, Superfemale, etc., but they all are still based on X and Y: No Y chromosome: female.  Y chromosome: male.

It's time to move on past Pawsplay's annoying posts.  There's no way to have a rational discussion with people with no grasp on reality.

Or forget about chromosomes all together. Let's dumb it down for us at the back. Male has genitalia to impregnate female who carries and delivers offspring. Aside from diseases or medical conditions, that's how a sexual animal reproduces.

It's so weird that we're treating what in most cases is a mental illness with body-altering hormones and surgery. The lobotomy was considered good medicine at one point.

Should we treat transgender people with kindness and compassion? Yes, of course, but those insisting we should ignore common sense are fools.

Quote from: jhkim on January 23, 2024, 09:23:18 PM

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on January 23, 2024, 05:50:12 PM
Son, Male is a biological term for an individual possessing XY chromosome.  Female is a biological term for an individual possessing XX chromosome.  Is Klinefelter successful?  Does klinefelter breed true?  Could you take a Klinefelter and have him fuck you in your wound between your legs you use to pleasure gay men and would you be able to produce a child?

Substantive science is based on observable experimental results, not nomenclature. For example, debates like whether Pluto is a planet or a dwarf planet aren't science vs anti-science.

Is there a case where you think transgender advocates would predict one observable result (i.e. not just nomenclature), but the observable physical result is different?

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on January 23, 2024, 05:50:12 PM
And then you can't even argue your point and maintain consistency, sex is a biological term, gender is a social construct term that originated by John Money.

Today's transgender people have completely rejected John Money's ridiculous assertions from the 1970s. They don't think that sex-based tendencies are just social conditioning. If anything, they sometimes place too much on genetics. And in any case, they support more scientific research into genetics as well as into the effects of hormones like testosterone and estrogen. They believe in genetic effects -- just that they also want research into how to simulate some of those genetic effects through hormones and/or intervention.

This can also be a help to non-transgender patients, like intersex patients who want to live as if they were a more average man or woman.

Whereas, say, anti-racism advocates sometimes push against conducting more genetic studies of racial characteristics, transgender advocates don't object to genetic research. They tend to welcome it.

I suggest you read "Irreversible Damage" by Abigail Shrier if you want to get an idea of how much trans advocates want to openly support research.  You'll find there is quite a lot of reistance against trans research that is objective, as long as its subjective based and pro-trans they will allow it.  You have biologists stating that biological sex is a range and there are more than two sexes.  Look at paws as a layman spouting that rubbish.  There is male, female and at best intersex to be a catch all for harmful genetic mutations that prevent procreation. 

Money was the originator of "gender is a social construct".  We are having people right now advocating for putting children on drugs only approved for chemical castration as an off label use to prevent puberty.  Those children put on puberty blockers for some reason has over a 90% progression to trans and yet those children who were allowed to go through puberty have at least an 80% desistance.  Most children do not develop sexual attraction until after puberty.  And yet that common sense knowledge is being stymied by people who are trans and wish they transitioned at 9.  Well they are less than 0.5% of the population before the "gender is a social construct" has been hoisted upon people.  So one could say quite reliably that 0.5% of the population might be trans to some degree.  Gen Z is now sitting at 3%, so its likely that if we went ahead all the 2.5% of Gen Z supposed trans that got "treated", or 83% are not trans, and the treatment was butchery.  Its more likely than not, a large number of children being put on puberty blockers are not trans, but straight, gay or gee maybe a tomboy or mommas boy and are still not trans and what is being done to them is over ideological views, or better put left wing religious view at this point than anything compassionate or science based.  Just watch "I am Jazz" if you want to see how bad things goes, he's ballooned up in size, talked about regretting it, had his mother threaten on camera to shove the dilator if he didn't use, was put on puberty blockers too early so they had to use his bowl for his hole, its a textbook example of leftwing religious orthodoxy for the view on this rather than letting the boy go through puberty.

If we really were at 3% trans for instance, then we'd have these men and women in their 50's+ who would transition, because really 3% of the population is trans, we aren't seeing that.  When you have researchers try to run studies on the social contagion of trans that you see really bad in girls with autism in the same school, they get blasted as transphobic by trans activists.  We are not looking for facts, when it comes to trans we are looking at very far to the left social constructivists arguments and how dare you question any of it.

We are creating a lot of mentally depressed people who will be on drugs by Pfizer, seeing psychologists for a lifetime and getting follow up surgeries for a lifetime making a lot and I do mean a lot of money for the medical industry.  A child cannot consent, when they turn 18 whatever they want done, its on their own cognizance.  At the very least before this is being pushed onto children then laws need to be in place to protect detransition to allow them to sue to Phycologist, Hospital and Parents who transitioned them when it was obvious a religious push by a parent(s), pscyhologist or doctor, not actual care for the client.  the 3% trans for Gen Z would drop because the profit has been taken out.  Just look at Tavistock in Great Britain for the religious left view where they did not care just give the tits, balls and genital track to rip out, it might as well been their holy sacrament.  Horror story after horror story came out of there before Great Britain had to shut them down.  When you listen to the detransitioners from there, its eerie, they all say they didn't do proper mental health check ups it was all about pushing them through to the surgery.

And when I say religious left, its people on the left end of politics (social constructivist) essentially new marxists.  And yes its a god damn religion.  As an atheist when you sit down at a dinner table and you hear this from a family member "you are going to raise your children gender neutral", its one hell of a smack to the face when you realize, great now we've a new evangelical cult and they want to remove genitalia of children as part of their holy rites and they are spreading.  There are genetic traits towards religion and in the removal of organized religion we are seeing people taking up the social constructivist faith as their religion.  Hell during the Soviet Union there are records of communists getting released from the gulags and then asking if brother stalin is ok because they were seriously worrying about Stalin - you know the guy who sent them to the gulags - that's religion they worshipped stalin as some sort of savior - he wasn't he was a butcher.  The trans ideology as being foisted upon children is a religious view not based on medicine.  Doing it at 18 and above, no issues, because you can consent at 18, not at 6.

Greetings!

*Napalm* is the answer. No mercy.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: rytrasmi on January 23, 2024, 11:17:14 PM
Or forget about chromosomes all together. Let's dumb it down for us at the back. Male has genitalia to impregnate female who carries and delivers offspring. Aside from diseases or medical conditions, that's how a sexual animal reproduces.

The reason chromosomes are important is because it's biology at the most fundamental level.  Ultimately, this is what identifies one's gender.  Genitalia and everything else about one's gender is built upon that principle.  Genitals don't 100% reliably provide the answer, because someone can have birth defects with "intersex" results, or someone who makes classic RPGs for decades, then changes his name, can castrate himself and say, "see?  (No, I don't want to.)  No genitals... FEMALE!" but the chromosomes don't lie, and one's DNA determines one's gender on a fundamental level, regardless of what's going on with that person's privates.

Quote from: Cathode Ray on January 24, 2024, 06:08:02 AM

Quote from: rytrasmi on January 23, 2024, 11:17:14 PM
Or forget about chromosomes all together. Let's dumb it down for us at the back. Male has genitalia to impregnate female who carries and delivers offspring. Aside from diseases or medical conditions, that's how a sexual animal reproduces.

The reason chromosomes are important is because it's biology at the most fundamental level.  Ultimately, this is what identifies one's gender.  Genitalia and everything else about one's gender is built upon that principle.  Genitals don't 100% reliably provide the answer, because someone can have birth defects with "intersex" results, or someone who makes classic RPGs for decades, then changes his name, can castrate himself and say, "see?  (No, I don't want to.)  No genitals... FEMALE!" but the chromosomes don't lie, and one's DNA determines one's gender on a fundamental level, regardless of what's going on with that person's privates.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. Genitalia is part of it but the main idea is the capability to produce offspring. It's harder to bafflegab that one but obviously the genetic argument is stronger.

As for age in your other comment, crazy ain't it. The car rental companies long ago figured out that the brain does not fully mature until about 25. Yet child can start a boulder down a hill based on a feeling.

This thread has, expectantly, gone full Retard.  You don't go full Retard.

I miss Jaquays and all the quite remarkably varied work they did across so many different platforms.

Art.
Writing.
Digital work such as for video games.
Organizing groups.
And more.

Roger Moore was another like that. Versatile and branched into new venues.

Quote from: THE_Leopold on January 24, 2024, 09:41:09 AM
This thread has, expectantly, gone full Retard.  You don't go full Retard.

Was going fine till the usual suspects got involved.

Quote from: rytrasmi on January 23, 2024, 11:17:14 PM
Or forget about chromosomes all together. Let's dumb it down for us at the back. Male has genitalia to impregnate female who carries and delivers offspring.

I heard a definition by the biologists Bret Weinstein and his wife that goes something like "male are individuals who can potentially produce small, mobile gametes at some point of their lives; and females are individuals who can potentially produce big, barely mobile gametes at some point of their lives". I remember them saying they prefer to define by the types of gametes animals (including the human animal) produce because that accounts for all chromosomal issues individuals can have. They are evolutionary biologists, but they were kicked out academia for holding wrongthinking, despite being left-liberals.

Quote from: Omega on January 24, 2024, 03:43:13 PM

Quote from: THE_Leopold on January 24, 2024, 09:41:09 AM
This thread has, expectantly, gone full Retard.  You don't go full Retard.

Was going fine till the usual suspects got involved.

Not sure why the admin or mods haven't gotten involved since the usual suspects are posting clearly in bad faith.

I shall cherish my Jaquasian products all the more now.  The world was better with this person making games in it.

I could be swayed to avoid using Paul - certainly where it would be hurtful - but it will be a cold day in hell before I ever, EVER adopt the term Xandering.

Just, no.  If Justin Alexander existed, I'd say fuck that guy.  Gladly, I've selected a world where he does not - to the best of my ability anyway.  Going on 13 years or so now...