You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
The troll is here. I'm out.
@brucewee The number is ~0.018% Females with PCOS that only becomes apparent later in life are females.
Fausto Sterling is nonsense.
That's why I also used variance. The wording changes and yes, it is so difficult to find more neutral terminology. Intersex is so last century.
A person with ovaries containing eggs (that developed from week nine post-conception whilst they were an embryo/foetus in their mother's womb) would be female.
The 5-ARD example is effectively a person with at first sight apparently non-male genitalia and testes. A male.
The number is ~0.018%
The number that have ambiguous genitalia at birth? Yes, that sounds about right.
And yes, the medical world has come up with definitions to cram the rest of the 1.7% into the male or female category.
You are aware that these definitions were created by medical practitioners (ie human beings) and not God? I know doctors often struggle to tell the difference but still...
And if these sex classifications are infallible, why are the rates of gender dysphoria so much higher amongst intersex people than the general population?
I do like the fact that someone who intentionally refers to transmen when they mean transwomen sees no irony in calling my terms last century. I think I'll stick with InterACT and the various other Intersex groups rather than someone who is dancing on the line of hate speech, thanks.
I'm bowing out for a little while because Reasons outside of STW (not least "I'm prepping for holiday" and "I haven't eaten in 20 hours,") but I'll just leave this here for your consideration.
https://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/it-hurts-it-really-bloody-hurts/
transmen when they mean transwomen
He did not, it was just your expectation and misreading, when he said transmen, he meant female sex that have taken male gender.
The (my) medical world finds categorization very useful in assessing likely prognosis, risks of disease etc. These assessments are under continuous evaluation as to appropriateness and accuracy. They are observations of the natural world.
Both GIDS and WPATH noted that karotype distribution was in line with a matched population. However, it would not be surprising that people with more fundamental problems have dysphoric issues.
I did mean females, the term trans(gender) identifying females a.k.a. transmen could be seen as problematic however, I have endeavoured in this thread to clearly distinguish between sex and gender terminology.
This confusion of 'meaning' is unhelpful.
The (my) medical world finds categorization very useful
For sure, though one thing I think is great about the idea of non-binary for gender is that it demedicalises the issue making it one of social understanding and respect for all of us (ie using the correct pronouns now and then etc).
This has to be better than framing it as a medical matter, with doctors responsible for diagnosis and then psychiatric/drug/surgical intervention (effectively to put people into socially sanctioned categories). What actual bits people have is firmly in the category 'none of my business'.
Ah ok. Let me get this straight.
You want to have an Open bathroom that anyone can use and a Women's bathroom that transwomen aren't allowed to use but transmen are?
And the intersex people are allowed to use the women's bathroom provided the classification they were given at birth says 'Female' regardless of how they actually identify?
And this is all in the name of protecting women (sorry, Females)?
I mean, when you read it back doesn't it sound crazy?
The (my) medical world finds categorization very useful in assessing likely prognosis, risks of disease etc.
And do you understand that insisting that biological sex trumps self identified gender in day to day life for no apparent reason is very insulting to transgender people?
Because honestly, all I've seen from you is a ridiculous impractical suggestion that would result in transwomen being assaulted more often than they are at the moment and an insistence that there are only two biological sexes since most intersex people can be classified as male or female with 'variations'. It seems like you are using biological sex and it's 'immutable binary' state to justify your prejudices.
If you don't believe that being transgender is a 'real thing' it would be good to know that now. Not much point in discussing toilet etiquette with someone if their underlying belief is that transgender identity isn't legitimate.
There's one non-binary person in our lab.
One of my colleagues is actually a specialist in hormone cancers in trans-patients. Her recent study here -
A lot of the students in work give their preferred gender/title at the end of their emails etc
To many people its not a big deal, to some it still is, but things change, culture and societies are dynamic, they evolve and change.
I mean, when you read it back doesn’t it sound crazy?
Single sex, female only provision.
As for your latter post, my transgender acquaintances, although they wish it were otherwise, accept that they remain in their original sexed bodies whilst living the best life they can in/with their gender identity.
Accommodations need to be made for all, transgender or not whilst protecting the vulnerable.
And do you understand that insisting that biological sex trumps self identified gender in day to day life for no apparent reason is very insulting to transgender people?
So the Drs should just offer xervical screening to everyone? The paper above shows 50 odd% of Transmen do not go to cervical screening when they should, thats a terrible uptake.
I think you are over reacting.
Clarkpm4242 is adding useful scientific info, I cant see any hate or prejudice.
He has supported gender non binary.
The issue here is you conflating gender and sex, again.
Clarkpm4242 is adding useful scientific info, I cant see any hate or prejudice.
No, he's pretending that science backs up his prejudices (even though some of his best acquaintances are transgender).
I couldn't help but notice he didn't answer my key question so I'll ask you as well.
Is your underlying belief is that transgender identity isn’t legitimate?
Is your underlying belief is that transgender identity isn’t legitimate?
No.
Gender is a construct, how people express their gender is not something that can even be considered legitimate or not. Its like saying the your preference for blue riding gloves is not legitimate. Its not something that can have any judgement on it.
Note he did answer your question.
remain in their original sexed bodies whilst living the best life they can in/with their gender identity.
Accommodations need to be made for all, transgender or not whilst protecting the vulnerable
What about this denies transgender legitmacy, it explicitly supports it.
How do you classify a woman with female external genitalia but testes instead of ovaries. Likewise for a man with ovaries?
Klinefelter syndrome or XXY is male
XYY is male
polysomy X and/or Y is abnormal male
X or turners syndrome is abnormal female
polysomy X is abnormal female
Swyer syndrome XY is abnormal female (have gonads not ovaries or testes. Don't make estrogen or progesterone so no breasts, uterus or menstrual cycle.
CAIS (XY) are born phenotypically female but lack uterus, ovaries and fallopian tubes. Testes can be located internally. Vagina tends to be 1/2 the size.
Gender is a construct, how people express their gender is not something that can even be considered legitimate or not. Its like saying the your preference for blue riding gloves is not legitimate. Its not something that can have any judgement on it.
So you believe that gender identity that differs from the sex you're born with is entirely down to experiences? People aren't born in the wrong bodies, their environment makes them transgender?
What about this denys transgender legitmacy, it explicitly supports it.
Someone on this thread has already described outcome of transwomen using the Male bathroom from their own experience. You both seem to have ignored these experiences because the 'immutable binary' sex classification must come first in the name of protecting cisgender women from hypothetical danger.
I would be interested in hearing clarkpm4242's transgender acquaintances reactions when he told them about his plan to have cisgender women and transmen use the Women's bathroom while transwomen are banished to the Open (not the Men's, that's a very important point) bathroom.
Depends on your definition of 'all' really. There's plenty of folk who would throw vulnerable group A under the bus to protect vulnerable group B. Which is what I've been arguing against all along, we can help look out for and respect both.
Note he did answer your question.
Out of interest, have we established that the good doctor is a he, or assumed it?
Makes you think.
Swyer syndrome XY is abnormal female
Is that not the XY46 case our A&E doctor was asserting was biologically male?
Klinefelter syndrome or XXY is male
XYY is male
polysomy X and/or Y is abnormal male
X or turners syndrome is abnormal female
polysomy X is abnormal female
Swyer syndrome XY is abnormal female (have gonads not ovaries or testes. Don’t make estrogen or progesterone so no breasts, uterus or menstrual cycle.
CAIS (XY) are born phenotypically female but lack uterus, ovaries and fallopian tubes. Testes can be located internally. Vagina tends to be 1/2 the size.
While there is nothing factually incorrect about what you posted, it doesn't answer the point I was making earlier which is that biological sex is not binary.
The medical community has made it binary by assigning male or female to the various manifestations of intersex but just because the medical community said it (unless you want to try to argue that the medical community is 100% free from prejudice) these were labels added by people who were desperate to maintain the facade that biological sex can only ever come in two flavours. If you don't entirely conform to one or the other, don't worry. we'll cram you in somehow.
unless you want to try to argue that the medical community is 100% free from prejudice
And how are we defining "the medical community" here? All of them? That's a lot of people.
With (sincerely) the greatest of respect and I apologise in advance if I'm wrong, I wouldn't have thought that sex and gender assignment was a primary calling in A&E. "I've fallen off a roof and now I'm a girl!" What you've got there isn't ambiguous gonads or a requirement for DNA sampling, it's concussion.
And how are we defining “the medical community” here?
With (sincerely) the greatest of respect and I apologise in advance if I’m wrong, I wouldn’t have thought that sex and gender assignment was a primary calling in A&E. “I’ve fallen off a roof and now I’m a girl!” What you’ve got there isn’t ambiguous gonads or a requirement for DNA sampling, it’s concussion.
I understood the first part, I have no idea what you're saying in the second part.
My point is that it seems to be very important to some people that there are only two biological sexes.
'But what about intersex people?', we say.
'Well,' says the medical community, 'every time we find a variation of intersex we assign it a sex. So you see, there is only biological male and biological female because anything that wasn't entirely male or entirely female we assigned them a biological sex so now there are still only two biological sexes with 'variations'.
But being transgender suggests that the biological sex might not be a simple binary and therefore it is WRONG.
I have no idea what you’re saying in the second part.
I'm trying to politely and respectfully question whether an A&E doctor is qualified to present as an authority on this particular topic.
Probably they are, relatively, they're almost certainly more knowledgeable than I am.
So you believe that gender identity that differs from the sex you’re born with is entirely down to experiences? People aren’t born in the wrong bodies, their environment makes them transgender
I did not say that. You are making things up.
immutable binary’
Neither of used this phrase, you are making things up.
while transwomen are banished to the Open (not the Men’s, that’s a very important point) bathroom.
He did not say that you are making that up.
I have realized Bruce that we are responding to your misreadings, innaccurate conflations and hyperbole. So unless you improve ypur aim, I wont bother responding to you again.
I’m trying to politely and respectfully question whether an A&E doctor is qualified to present as an authority on this particular topic.
The authority status is your assumption, its not relavent. He is presenting his 'facts' if you disagree present the evidence to show he is wrong? I mean nobody has questioned your status. If you just beleive/or disbelieve purely based on status you will get gaslighted. I keep looking up the stuff he mentions to check, and if correct to check I understand.
I did not say that. You are making things up.
It was a question not a statement.
Neither of used this phrase, you are making things up.
The crux of the argument seems to come down to the assertion that there are two and only two biological sexes and this does not change. That's what I mean by immutably binary. If this is somehow not what you've been saying I'd love to hear how.
He did not say that you are making that up.
I gave my long handed analysis of what you two meant and neither one of you corrected it. Now you have a problem with the short hand version?
That's an awful lot of calling me a liar without explaining how I'm factually wrong in what I've said. Please correct me or just answer my questions.
I have realized Bruce that we are responding to your misreadings, innaccurate conflations and hyperbole. So unless you improve ypur aim, I wont bother responding to you again.
If you don't want to respond that's fine. I hope you do because I genuinely don't understand where you are coming from and I want to understand.
The question of legitimacy is crucial so let me phrase it. Do you believe that transwomen
are real women entitled to the same rights and protections (I'm focusing on transwomen because that seems to be where most of the conflict in this comes in) or are they opting into their womenhood and therefore not entitled to all the rights as cisgender women?
You may note I've offloaded some 'blame' for any inaccurracies to more expert colleages in clinical specialties. Actually ex-colleagues as I wouldn't be engaging in any of this dialogue if I was still working with patients.
Swyer syndrome is a good example of how science/medicine works, extremely rare however, when it becomes apparent, usually around puberty the most likely outcome is that female hormone treatment is given. The almost non-existent (a.k.a streak) gonads have ambiguous structure. There is a much greater risk of cancer! SRY (or sex chromosome) mutations are not the main cause of Swyer. The most frequent (known) cause are mutations in a gene involved in the male development pathway, but it has links to ovarian differentiation too (the last two sentences are from experts). They don't get hung up on the (fe)male question as it really isn't in the best interests of the patient and treat the person they are presented with to get the best outcome.
Humans still only produce male or female sex cells (gametes) in the process of sexual reproduction.
As someone neatly put it, sex is biologically determined and gender is a societal construct.
They are not like for like attributes and observing that you are biologically male or female at birth does *not* restrict any gender identity in later life. People with differences in *sexual* development (or appropriate label) therefore don't need to be used validate gender identities.
It also does not demean the importance of gender/identity/personality. We are who we are, a whole range of genders/personalities/identities. The learned stereotyping is a real problem.
I am attempting to disengage from this thread as we are getting quite 'circular' and am conscious of how attempts at clear statements of the best known/current scientific positions can be quite upsetting to other readers (doubt there are any lurkers).
I need to read the 'everesting tips' thread on the Bike forum (probably a good indication of my sanity).
I don’t feel British anymore.
Sure ,all the bits of paper say that I am , I get spoken to in English when I’m abroad and I certainly sound British.
In realty I want nothing to do with the ****wits that are prevalent in this country at the moment, I can’t identify with their thinking.
Not sure what nationality I feel like, so just let me be me.
Bruce, I'm repeating myself, you came late to the conversation, if you want to know my feelings in detail read the thread from page 7, see my interactions with boriselbrus and others.
As someone neatly put it, sex is biologically determined and gender is a societal construct.
Thanks that was me.
The question of who to allow in which toilets is important but also moot since you can't enforce it. Are you planning to submit everyone to an inspection in entry? Or are you going to have to register everyone with biological status on an ID card to be checked on entry, with biometrics?
Vulnerable people need protection (not just women) so we need a better solution. Banning trans women from going into women's toilets is stupid, unworkable, ineffective and only serves to harm people who are also vulnerable. I mean, we're worried about women being victims of abuse in toilets, but we apparently don't give a crap about trans women being victims?
As someone neatly put it, sex is biologically determined and gender is a societal construct.
And like so many things that seem to boil everything down to neat packages it is at best incomplete and at worst completely wrong.
Sex is biological reality and gender is a societal construct and never the twain shall meet CANNOT be stated as undisputed truth.
For this next part I'm going to do my best not to sound like Jordan Peterson so here goes. There seem to be differences between male and female brains.
https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html
It also seems that these differences in brains cause differences in behavior.
Now, it's entirely possible that the brain differences have no discernible effect on self image but you cannot state for a fact that it doesn't.
We have already seen that intersex people can present a mixture of male and female characteristics so why is it inconceivable that someone could have an entirely male body with a female brain?
You are entitled to say, 'In my opinion sex is biologically determined and gender is a societal construct.'
You are not entitled to say, 'It is a fact that sex is biologically determined and gender is a societal construct' until the research becomes far more conclusive.
Banning trans women from going into women’s toilets is stupid, unworkable, ineffective and only serves to harm people who are also vulnerable
Agree, the option of "another" space seems to offer solutions, but it's a mirage.
You posted a link without any comment so I'm not entirely sure what to make of it.
Are you saying you feel this article gives you the right to say, ‘It is an indisputable fact that sex is biologically determined and gender is a societal construct’?
My understanding was that any difference between male and female brains was nurture rather than nature. Ie, there isn't any, really.
The authority status is your assumption, its not relavent.
Their very first sentence on this thread was presenting their credentials. If they have direct access to experts then that's a different matter and very useful.
I mean nobody has questioned your status.
I don't have a status, I'm a random person on the Internet and very far from an authority here. I know bits about I'm only just touching on understanding it all myself.
Cougar
Full MemberMy understanding was that any difference between male and female brains was nurture rather than nature. Ie, there isn’t any, really.
This study makes an attempt to avoid the nurture aspect and does show a difference between social behaviour of males and females (albeit in monkeys).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4726418/
Some interesting thoughts and lived experiences. Thanks.
I don’t have a status, I’m a random person on the Internet and very far from an authority here. I know bits about I’m only just touching on understanding it all myself.
I treat all posters like that.
Only because authority does not mean correct. ie Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Well treating authority opinion without considering checking is dangerous, so I tend to follow up on what anyone says. Hence clarkpm4242's status does not concern me. He could be making it up. So far all his stuff checks out so he seems knowledgeable.
On the subject of intersex and there not being only binary sexes....
How many fingers does a human have?
Now, knowing why I am asking you will probably say " that depends" but I would argue that the norm and most peoples answer would be 10. That's not to say that people with 9 fingers aren't human, just that they have a abnormality. I would argue that intersex is the same. It is not evidence that there are more than two sexes, it just evidence of an abnormality.
I would argue that intersex is the same. It is not evidence that there are more than two sexes, it just evidence of an abnormality.
I don't think anyone's saying there are more than two sexes, are they? I think it's more that whilst there are mainly two sexes, there's a lot of inbetween. That's why it's called 'non binary' not 'trinary'.
The point is that you can have aspects of both sexes. This is provided as a rebuttal to those who claim that there are only two biological sexes and consequently we should only have two genders.
It wouldn't matter, however if biological sex truly were binary. So what? What's to stop me being me and being respected for that?
It wouldn’t matter, however if biological sex truly were binary. So what? What’s to stop me being me and being respected for that?
In an ideal world it wouldn't and shouldn't matter. I'm all for that world but I think too many people will abuse the system and take advantage of it. We shouldn't have to worry about people safety but the reality is we do.
I teach teenagers and find there is much less disrespecting and bullying towards each others gender, sensuality, religion, background etc than when I was their age 20 years ago. It does still happen, but much less. I think non binary will become more widely accepted but it will take time.
It wouldn’t matter, however if biological sex truly were binary. So what? What’s to stop me being me and being respected for that?
nothing.
I don’t think anyone’s saying there are more than two sexes, are they? I think it’s more that whilst there are mainly two sexes, there’s a lot of inbetween. That’s why it’s called ‘non binary’ not ‘trinary’.
Isnt non-binary in this context related to gender identity? There are not "lots inbetween" there are two biological sexes, anything else is an anomaly.
It wouldn’t matter, however if biological sex truly were binary. So what? What’s to stop me being me and being respected for that?
I 100% agree with this. I ended up in this discussion because in any fight against discrimination the ones who want to discriminate always make some claim apparently backed by science.
They present things like
sex is biologically determined and gender is a societal construct.
as if it is an indisputable science fact and, after a couple of dubious jumps in logic, say that is why transgender women cannot pee in the same place as cisgender women.
But yeah, even if their science fact was was actually a science fact it would still not be a justification for discrimination.
Isnt non-binary in this context related to gender identity? There are not “lots inbetween” there are two biological sexes, anything else is an anomaly.
Approximately 1.7%% of the population are intersex and 0.6% are transgender. That doeesn't include non-binary.
What percentage of the population does it have to get to before you stop using disrespectful language like 'anomaly'?
Let's leave the question of semantics for a minute. What point are you trying to get across when you describe intersex and transgender people as an anomaly?
What percentage of the population does it have to get to before you stop using disrespectful language like ‘anomaly’?
How is it disrespectful. I suggest you google "intersex"
There are not “lots inbetween” there are two biological sexes, anything else is an anomaly.
Can you explain how these two positions are different? The 'anomalies' as you call them exist, therefore there is lots of inbetween by definition surely?
Can you explain how these two positions are different?
May be just the way i am reading it, but sounds to me like you are suggesting that there are lots of different biological sexes (in between). I am saying that are only two and everything in between is an anomaly of those two, and not a new classification of biological sex.
Just had a little lad in the shop for a treat as he's stopped using nappies.
He really took a shine to a soft toy flower which was £12.99 . Mum would rather spend £27.99 on a toy shark rather than let him have the flower that he so wanted.
The line is still very much there.
Just had a little lad in the shop for a treat as he’s stopped using nappies.
He really took a shine to a soft toy flower which was £12.99 . Mum would rather spend £27.99 on a toy shark rather than let him have the flower that he so wanted
What does this have to do with anything in this thread. You are imposing gender stereotyping on a situation you know nothing about. Maybe the mother thought the stuffed flower toy was poorly made and not worth £12.99. Maybe her son already has 15 other stuffed flower toys at home and she wanted to get him something different. Meh.
How is it disrespectful.
Another way of saying anomaly is 'not normal'. Would you described disabled people as anomalies? Homosexuals?
It's using scientific sounding language to hide the fact you are calling an entire group of people abnormal.
I suggest you google “intersex”
I'm going to go ahead and assume you haven't bothered reading the last couple of pages.
May be just the way i am reading it, but sounds to me like you are suggesting that there are lots of different biological sexes (in between). I am saying that are only two and everything in between is an anomaly of those two, and not a new classification of biological sex.
I've asked before but I'll ask again, what point are you trying to make by saying that biologically there are two sexes and 'anomalies'?
I think the term ‘statistical anomaly’ would be correct. IIRC 5% is the bar for something to become ‘statistically significant’. No reflection on the data it represents.
This debate has been good, I’ve learnt a fair bit, but it is becoming a bit of a circular shouting match now. Chill.
I don’t think anyone’s saying there are more than two sexes, are they?
Define "sex".
there are two biological sexes, anything else is an anomaly.
And you too.
That's a dichotomy right there. If there two only two possible sexes then there cannot be anomalies. If there can be anomalies then there are ipso facto more than two sexes. Which is it?
I think the term ‘statistical anomaly’ would be correct.
I think we have to be careful about how we use language to describe human beings, particularly scientific language. Scientific language aims to remove the human element for good reason.
When you use it to describe real people outside a scientific context you really have to ask yourself 'am I using this language because it is the only way of getting my point across or am I attempting to dehumanise a section of society?'
On your (very silly) 'fingers' analogy, it is of course fair to say that people usually have ten fingers, but it would clearly be bogus to assert that the only possible permutation of fingers is ten. And those anomalous folk with eight or 12 might get a bit upset about the suggestion that they don't exist. Except when they do. But they don't, really.
Me, I have eight fingers and two thumbs. Funny how initially simple-looking things often turn out be be a bit more complicated, isn't it.
I think we have to be careful about how we use language to describe human beings, particularly scientific language.
Where's that [like] button?
At the risk of channelling my inner Molgrips: You - we all - need to keep in mind that we are discussing real issues that deeply affect real people. Whatever our opinions, do you think leaping onto the Internet essentially going "yeah, they're just freaks" is going to make readers feel better about themselves?
In one of BB's earlier posts they said something like "for years I thought it was just me". Then the Internet came along and they realised they weren't alone and it was liberating. And here we are now going "nope, you're just a weirdo, get back in your box."
I appreciate that this is probably ironic coming from an argumentative little shit but, have a little care please folks.
IIRC 5% is the bar for something to become ‘statistically significant’.
I thought a 4% split was considered an overwhelming majority? Shame no-one mentioned that in 2016 really.
(Bit of politics there for you, my name's Ben Elton, goodnight.)
It’s using scientific sounding language to hide the fact you are calling an entire group of people abnormal.
Somewhere between 98.3% and 99.93% of people are male or female biologically at birth. So i think its fair to say that normal (adjective meaning conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.) is male or female. Anything outside that is not normal, or if you like an anomaly.
This is interesting
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5017538/
Anything outside that is not normal, or if you like an anomaly.
You are also an anomaly, just so you know.
I have no idea how you are not normal but statistically speaking, if you fell into the 'normal' range for every conceivable biological and social marker you would be in a tiny minority.
Which would also make you an anomaly.
For the third time, what point are you trying to make by saying there are two biological sexes and some 'anomalies'?
Try "common" or "majority" rather than "normal." Or most of the other adjectives you posited. Same broad meaning, less pejorative.
"Normal" implies that the alternative is "abnormal." Would you like to be described as abnormal? Would you like to believe you were abnormal?
You are also an anomaly, just so you know.
I have no idea how you are not normal but statistically speaking, if you fell into the ‘normal’ range for every conceivable biological and social marker you would be in a tiny minority
I'm am a normal male. I have all the standard anatomical features of a male and can reproduce with the female of the species.
Jesus Christ, can you people hear yourselves?
Yes, I'm a scientist and I'm using scientific language.
Just out of interest, if I called you sub-human, would you think I was attempting to insult you or dehumanise you?
There is nothing scientifically wrong with calling you sub-human. You belong to the category of human but also the subcategory of male, female, or intersex.
I am being factually correct. You have no reason to be insulted.
Of course, if I called you a subhuman in the non-scientific context like we have here you would rightly feel that I was trying to dehumanise you.
Can we please stop using terms like anomaly, abnormal, aberration, and mutation to describe human beings on this thread?
Just out of interest, if I called you sub-human, would you think I was attempting to insult you or dehumanise you
I'd think you were calling me an extinct clade of Hominina say Homo Erectus.
There is nothing scientifically wrong with calling you sub-human. You belong to the category of human but also the subcategory of male, female, or intersex
yes there is - see above.
I’m am a normal male.
I disagree.
If I belonged to a group that comprised of <1% of the population and you called that group abnormal i would not have an issue at all. That is the very definition of the word. If people choose to be offended by that it is their problem not mine.
Edit - At no point have i used the word abnormal. I used anomaly, there are subtle differences.
Easy to say that when you're in the other 99% and haven't had to deal with it all your life. Do 'all lives matter' as well?
Jesus H Corbett.
yes there is – see above.
You don't consider male and female to be categories?
Actually, forget it. I'm not getting into yet another argument on semantics on a thread that is dealing with the subject of people's lives and identity.
The level of scumbaggery on this forum is through the ****ing roof.
I'm done. The mountain biking community is small so who knows, maybe we'll meet IRL at some point. I look forward to hearing you use dehumanising language in front of me instead of via the keyboard.
See you on the trails.
ou don’t consider male and female to be categories?
There is nothing scientifically wrong with calling you sub-human.
That statement was not scientifically correct.
@trailwagger you have to appreciate that the language you use can have very damaging effects on people. You may be able to justify to yourself that the term 'abnormal' is harmless, but I can assure you it certain isn't, it's extremely damaging.
May be just the way i am reading it, but sounds to me like you are suggesting that there are lots of different biological sexes (in between).
I'm saying that there is a lot of space in between the two sexes. Physically you can be typically male, typically female or somewhere in between. It's not binary, that's why they call it non-binary. There's a whole range of physical characteristics that are commonly associated with one sex or the other but can be present in either. And some people are even a mix of characteristics.
In much the same way that we consider people to have either blue or brown eyes (see GCSE biology genetics) but in fact eyes are a spectrum of colours, some people are very blue, some a bit blue, some bluey-brown, some grey, some pink, some green and some even have two different coloured eyes. But for some reason this doesn't cause any controversy...
@trailwagger you have to appreciate that the language you use can have very damaging effects on people. You may be able to justify to yourself that the term ‘abnormal’ is harmless, but I can assure you it certain isn’t, it’s extremely damaging
At no point have I used the word abnormal. The term I used was anomaly.
Physically you can be typically male, typically female or somewhere in between. It’s not binary, that’s why they call it non-binary.
It is binary scientifically. Someone can say they are non-binary socially but they are still male or female biologically. That’s what people here are getting their knickers in a twist about. You can’t change being male or female. A lot of people in this thread don’t get that saying it an anomaly or a mutation is discussing the genetics not actually labelling a person as such. Wild type is XX or XY, mutations are anything different.
At no point have I used the word abnormal. The term I used was anomaly.
The antonym to 'normal' is not 'anomaly,' it is 'abnormal'. If you're arguing one then you're implying the other.
Oh, you know what, I'm out too. The two of you are both failing to engage in discussion and being grossly offensive. You win, well done.
Wow if you find the recent few posts grossly offensive then good luck with the rest of life! A lot of good debate in this thread... it has moved my thinking on quite a bit. But also some pedantic point-scoring!
Seems to me that language is confusing everybody and offending plenty.
I've never really liked the label disabled
Are Autism and Asperger's disorders
Much disagreement about the correct use of the terms intersex, DSD or VSD
Birth defects doesn't sound great
Obesity
Etc, etc
We are just people in an ideal world but we use all sorts of clumsy medical, geographical,political and scientific labels and many of those develop positive/negative connotations.
The main disagreement at the moment seems to be about scientific classification of biological sex and what the current consensus is within scientific/medical fields.
There seems to be enough scientific evidence/educated guesswork to point us toward a 'biological sex spectrum' rather than the 'binary xy chromosomes/disorders' labels.
There will be new labels regardless and the connotations will follow.
Been away from this thread for a day or so, just popped back in to see if you have all agreed that I exist yet.
No, apparently not. And I see our resident transphobe "scientist" has made an appearance.
Scientists are supposed to have an open mind, and teachers are supposed to have empathy. I pity the kids you teach.
I know I'm not being especially kind, but this week has been particularly hard. Yesterday my partner was diagnosed with skin cancer and today my Mum had a stroke and I'm 500 miles away.
Oh and I didn't get the job. Apparently I did a flawless interview but came a very close second to a candidate with slightly more relevant experience in that sector. Hey ho.