Quote from: jhkim on January 21, 2024, 10:20:07 PM

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on January 21, 2024, 09:16:30 AM
The scary thing about people like pawsy, they are against genetics as a science.  The social constructivist fucks took over Russia, put up Lysenko as a biologist who went against genetics, sent thousands of biologists to gulags to get them to comply and then that whackjob who was against the enlightenment and scientific method went back to magical creation model (think 1200 AD) where he put rye in a freezer to create wheat.

I haven't talked with pawsplay about genetics - but in general, the transgender people who I have known are all very well informed about the genetics of sex including chromosomes, human sexual dimorphism, and the effects of testosterone and estrogen not just for those in transition, but in general human development. If I asked a tricky scientific question about sexual differences - like say, whether men or women on average had a higher white blood cell count, or the different intersex conditions - I'd guess that a transgender person is more likely to get the right answer. They are typically well-read on medical science relating to their situation.

A good friend of mine wrote a memoir about her transition over the last few years, and some of the more intriguing parts were when she explained about the science of sexual differences and medical details. This is her book:

https://www.amazon.com/Dragonfly-Memoir-Marie-Maxham/dp/B0BSJBWWTT

I would expect that Jaquays was also well-informed and believed in the medical science of sexual differences.

The argument that a man can put on a costume and become a woman is a social constructivist argument.  The social constructivist argument discounts genetics over environment, or put in laymen's terms make believe is real if they say so.  So yes anti-genetics and anti-science.  But hey with enough threats made to bilogists they can get them to say whatever they are told to agree with the social constructivist arguments even though its all magical thinking.

I am prepared to do genetics at twenty paces with anyone who is not an actual practicing or former genetic researcher.

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.

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on January 22, 2024, 12:32:10 AM

Quote from: jhkim on January 21, 2024, 10:20:07 PM

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on January 21, 2024, 09:16:30 AM
The scary thing about people like pawsy, they are against genetics as a science.  The social constructivist fucks took over Russia, put up Lysenko as a biologist who went against genetics, sent thousands of biologists to gulags to get them to comply and then that whackjob who was against the enlightenment and scientific method went back to magical creation model (think 1200 AD) where he put rye in a freezer to create wheat.

I haven't talked with pawsplay about genetics - but in general, the transgender people who I have known are all very well informed about the genetics of sex including chromosomes, human sexual dimorphism, and the effects of testosterone and estrogen not just for those in transition, but in general human development. If I asked a tricky scientific question about sexual differences - like say, whether men or women on average had a higher white blood cell count, or the different intersex conditions - I'd guess that a transgender person is more likely to get the right answer. They are typically well-read on medical science relating to their situation.

A good friend of mine wrote a memoir about her transition over the last few years, and some of the more intriguing parts were when she explained about the science of sexual differences and medical details. This is her book:

https://www.amazon.com/Dragonfly-Memoir-Marie-Maxham/dp/B0BSJBWWTT

I would expect that Jaquays was also well-informed and believed in the medical science of sexual differences.

The argument that a man can put on a costume and become a woman is a social constructivist argument.  The social constructivist argument discounts genetics over environment, or put in laymen's terms make believe is real if they say so.  So yes anti-genetics and anti-science.  But hey with enough threats made to bilogists they can get them to say whatever they are told to agree with the social constructivist arguments even though its all magical thinking.

Agreed. They're no better than Jamie Gumm from Silence of the Lambs.

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.

LOL!

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

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.

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.

I'm late to this particular party.  I'll refrain from talking about most of Paul's work because I don't share the admiration, but I am grateful to him for keeping the Citybook series alive for an additional three volumes.  The Citybooks are the only original RPG works from that era I've bothered to keep.

Quote from: daniel_ream on January 22, 2024, 04:17:03 PM
I'm late to this particular party.  I'll refrain from talking about most of Paul's work because I don't share the admiration, but I am grateful to him for keeping the Citybook series alive for an additional three volumes.  The Citybooks are the only original RPG works from that era I've bothered to keep.

I'm not familiar with the Citybook series. What are they like, and why do you like them more than any other stuff from the era?

Quote from: daniel_ream on January 22, 2024, 04:17:03 PM
I'm late to this particular party.  I'll refrain from talking about most of Paul's work because I don't share the admiration, but I am grateful to him for keeping the Citybook series alive for an additional three volumes.  The Citybooks are the only original RPG works from that era I've bothered to keep.

If you want to look at an autopsy of D&D Zines, in The Dungeoneer Jennel put out an attempt of an early faction based dungeon, one of the earlier examples.  For its time it was a revolutionary, like 3d6 for stats being revolutionary concept. 

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on January 22, 2024, 04:25:06 PM

Quote from: daniel_ream on January 22, 2024, 04:17:03 PM
I'm late to this particular party.  I'll refrain from talking about most of Paul's work because I don't share the admiration, but I am grateful to him for keeping the Citybook series alive for an additional three volumes.  The Citybooks are the only original RPG works from that era I've bothered to keep.

If you want to look at an autopsy of D&D Zines, in The Dungeoneer Jennel put out an attempt of an early faction based dungeon, one of the earlier examples.  For its time it was a revolutionary, like 3d6 for stats being revolutionary concept.

I've been looking over Caverns of Thracia which has a number of factions. My limited personal experience of Judges' Guild dungeons was going through a gonzo-ish hodgepodge of monsters and traps -- but Caverns of Thracia seems very differently organized and looks great. I'm just starting to go through it, though.

How would you (speaking to anyone) compare material in The Dungeoneer vs Caverns of Thracia vs Citybooks?

Quote from: jhkim on January 22, 2024, 04:58:44 PM

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on January 22, 2024, 04:25:06 PM

Quote from: daniel_ream on January 22, 2024, 04:17:03 PM
I'm late to this particular party.  I'll refrain from talking about most of Paul's work because I don't share the admiration, but I am grateful to him for keeping the Citybook series alive for an additional three volumes.  The Citybooks are the only original RPG works from that era I've bothered to keep.

If you want to look at an autopsy of D&D Zines, in The Dungeoneer Jennel put out an attempt of an early faction based dungeon, one of the earlier examples.  For its time it was a revolutionary, like 3d6 for stats being revolutionary concept.

I've been looking over Caverns of Thracia which has a number of factions. My limited personal experience of Judges' Guild dungeons was going through a gonzo-ish hodgepodge of monsters and traps -- but Caverns of Thracia seems very differently organized and looks great. I'm just starting to go through it, though.

How would you (speaking to anyone) compare material in The Dungeoneer vs Caverns of Thracia vs Citybooks?

Nah dude, that's the adventures, its F'chelrak's Tomb.  It should be in the dungeoneer 1.  I can't find the video by the guy who did the walk through of it, pretty well done.

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on January 22, 2024, 05:31:25 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 22, 2024, 04:58:44 PM
I've been looking over Caverns of Thracia which has a number of factions. My limited personal experience of Judges' Guild dungeons was going through a gonzo-ish hodgepodge of monsters and traps -- but Caverns of Thracia seems very differently organized and looks great. I'm just starting to go through it, though.

How would you (speaking to anyone) compare material in The Dungeoneer vs Caverns of Thracia vs Citybooks?

Nah dude, that's the adventures, its F'chelrak's Tomb.  It should be in the dungeoneer 1.  I can't find the video by the guy who did the walk through of it, pretty well done.

Thanks. I wasn't clear which adventure you were referring to. Is this the video you were thinking of?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9SYF--k3HU

Also, this was a print overview of the dungeon.

https://princeofnothingblogs.wordpress.com/2022/02/26/review-fchelraks-tomb-odd-back-to-the-source/

F'Chelrak's Tomb sounds historically significant as one of the first published dungeons ever, but it doesn't sound like it has factions and has little backstory. Caverns of Thracia has a very intricate history and factions like the dryads clashing with the Minotaur King - and all ancient Greek themed.

Quote from: jhkim on January 22, 2024, 04:22:24 PM
I'm not familiar with the Citybook series. What are they like, and why do you like them more than any other stuff from the era?

They're a series of system-less sourcebooks (six volumes total) of standalone establishments and their inhabitants of various types one might find in aTypical Fantasy City.  Each establishment was generally written by a different author. The first three are the best; most of the contributors either were or went on to be published fantasy authors and so the quality and verisimilitude is quite high.  The early volumes are generally fairly low-magic, non-humans are rare, and the individual entries independent; the later volumes tend to suffer from the gonzo D&D problem and the writers/editors trying to tie everything together.

Quote from: daniel_ream on January 22, 2024, 04:17:03 PM
I'm late to this particular party.  I'll refrain from talking about most of Paul's work because I don't share the admiration, but I am grateful to him for keeping the Citybook series alive for an additional three volumes.  The Citybooks are the only original RPG works from that era I've bothered to keep.

The Citybook series is a great set and I have at least two from it One being Sideshow which Jaquays studio did. I have seen the other the studio put out, Uptown think was the name.

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.

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?