I watched a whole documentary about it and how tragic it was that the doctors used to remove a baby’s penis when they were born with both genitals. That documentary was a lie? Damn.
So to be clear. The chromosomes mean nothing. If they don't match in the typical manner, then the genitals are the deciding factor. Correct? A good question. It's not a study that has been really done. Most transgenders are never genetically tested. And every study I have ever seen has damn small sample sizes. However, I don't hold that there is any one cause for transgenderism. Two individuals might have AIS (XY chromosomes, but born with a vagina), and one would claim being a woman and the other a man. Then there is the chimera possibility. Even fewer people get genetic testing from multiple locations of the body. Hell even just a certain combination of genes misfiring could lead to the condition.
I'd have to see that to know what you saw. Was that recently, or just one you remember from a while back? Do you at least remember a title?
I mean that’s my thing. I think that there is probably a medical explanation for people who are transgender but I just don’t think the number of people with that medical condition is as high as what we see today. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t be friends with a transgender person or that I don’t respect the right of a person to be whoever they want to be. I just feel like it’s become trendy and that the internet algorithms create an echo chamber that supports that idea. I just think it’s questionable that when a pubescent kid is feeling awkward about themselves an unconfident that this idea that they are expressing the wrong gender is the reason why. I think kids who are lacking real life role models are being sucked into this echo chamber.
Well, to be clear I myself believe that gender is determined by the biological ability to reproduce. Men have sperm and they fertilize an egg and a female has ovaries and is the one who gestates and gives birth. Call me old fashioned but that's what I learned in biology class. As for the rest of what you're saying basically all bets are off, anything can pretty much be anything. Is that a good way to put it?
He CHERRY PICKED a couple of sentences OUT of context. Had you read the entire linked article in question you would have realized that immediately. It was a very fair and balanced examination of the existing data that we have and the need for there to be more in depth scientific studies to establish the facts one way or the other. The fact that the author ACKNOWLEDGED the absence of those studies demonstrates the fairness of the content. It was DISINGENUOUS to cherry pick a sentence out of context and PRETEND that negates the ENTIRE article. I am surprised that YOU failed to appreciate that is what he was doing but I chalk that up to you NOT having read the article yourself. And FTR I do not waste my time going down the rabbit holes of disingenuous attempts to deny the scientific data with nothing more than baseless personal opinions.
It doesn't matter how MANY genetic profile variants there are when the mere FACT that they EXIST establishes that being Trans has a GENETIC basis. There is NOTHING that requires that there MUST be a SINGLE genetic profile. That is a strawman deflection that misses the entire point.
At one point we didn't think miscarriages were all that common. Now medical science has evidence that they happen way more than we thought, just at early stages before the woman knows she's pregnant or as the cause for "false alarms". There is a lot out there that we as a race and a country have blinded ourselves to and stuck with the "common knowledge" of the time. I'm not going to say that it doesn't happen, nor that younger people won't mistake a different condition for transgenderism. We can see where that kind of thing happened with ADD and Asperger's/Autism. But in the same vein we also have learned that they happen a lot more frequently than we initially had thought. And when we have kids too young to really be influenced by the net in such a manner making such claims even against their parents protests, then odds are that they are being honest about it. Now again, it is easily mistaken and like most of the transgender community advocates, children should not be started on hormones or surgery until adult hood. But presenting is never a problem and it is something that they can easily recover from should it turn out to be something else.
At the moment we are just on sex, and determining that before we go into whether or not gender is the same thing or not. But rolling with that, are you claiming that the lack of a biological ability to reproduce means the individual is neither man nor woman? A person with AIS typically neither has eggs or overies, nor testicales nor produces sperm. So what are they and how is that determined? This is usually because the gonads do not form into either testicles or overies. Additionally there are individuals who actually have one overy and one testicle (rarely both functional, and not uncommon for both to not be functional). Are they a man or a woman and what is the determining factor for that. You are the one who is making that claim that sex is determined by a set criteria. You even moved the goalposts from genitals to ability to reproduce. And while I acknowledge that it will hold up a majority of the time, I am trying to figure out how you determine the rest of the time.
I am not making a claim as to whether he cherry picked or not. But that is the same think he is claiming that you did. If he cherry picked and used the lines out of context then the counter isn't "nuh uh!". The counter is to copy and paste the appropriate lines in their full context to show where he is doing that. At this point I am not arguing what the article itself says, because no I have not read it. But that has nothing to do with you claiming he is only throwing out opinion when he is using source material. He ran a legitimate counter to your argument and it is now on you to show how he improperly used that source material, not just claim he did. The way you wrote that line, you left the implication that there was a set determine DNA profile that is the sole cause of transgenderism. Now maybe that is just poor wording on your part, and you didn't mean to make that implication. And keep in mind here that I am not denying that transgenderism itself doesn't exist. I am pointing out that it is not been proven to exist with DNA. Yes there are around 30 gene variants that might be a source of transgenderism, but that has not reach the stage of final conclusion yet. You are the one who claimed that science has found transgender DNA. Yet you ignored the request for the evidence to support your assertion.
I don't have to have read the article to point out that you never proved he quoted out of context. You just claimed he did. If you think he quoted out of context then provide what he quoted along with the surrounding context to show that it didn't say what he claimed it did. I also noticed that you have failed once again to support your claim that scientists have found transgender DNA, the implication being that it is the DNA that causes a person to be transgender. As you say, facts matter, yet you can't seem to show that fact.
We can presume it (that gender identity applies only to humans) based on a few facts. If a species has self awareness, it is logical to presume they will develop a sophisticated language. If they had self awareness and thus language, we could communicate with them and then 'know that'. Therefore, because the animals do not have a sophisticated language where it is clear self awareness is not prevalent, we can safely presume that gender identity applies to species with self awareness, egos, etc., and the only species that has that are humans. See, 'gender identity' is a by product of ego/self awareness, which animals do not possess.
Yes, some animals can move the needle, slightly, on 'self awareness'. But they are not self aware anywhere near the same order of magnitude that humans are. Your 'link' doesn't really refute my point. What your comment does prove is your limited understanding of the concept of 'ignorance', plus your smug, cavalier and sloppy use of adjectives, such as 'appalling'.
Yes, science confirms the presence of anomalies in nature. But to assert that having a penis can equal being a woman depends entirely on opinion. I say it doesn't. You got a penis, you are a male. now then, you might be feminine, you might wear dress, lipstick, but a female you are not. Science cannot address labels because labels are psychological. End of argument. Now then, if you ask me nicely to use feminine pronouns when referring to you, I will, and I will because I do not want to fight. But, that being said, you can't change how I think. You might, if you can provide a convincing argument, but you haven't, thus far.
The balance of his article did not refute the quotes I quoted. On that basis, your assertion 'out of context' (and your other complaints arising therefrom) is a moot point. Feel free to quote the article further which refutes the quotes quoted. I mean, why would the author make such a statement, and make it twice, only to refute himself, later? That doesn't make sense. Gender identity is the province of the ego, and only humans have them. It's psychological, noting that the author is a Phd candidate, in psychology.
I am not convinced that we are it. Given the high levels of intelligence of both octopi and dolphins, I will not be surprised that we at some point discover that they do indeed have a sophisticated language that we are not recognizing because of rigid paradigm thinking on our part. That being said, I do agree with most other species that we have noted homosexual activity in, the odds of such a level of intelligence for the purposes of having gender identity will be low.
Not going down your puerile rabbit holes either given that YOU have now TWICE admitted to NOT reading the article in question. Have a nice day!
Puerile grasp of the concept noted and ignored for obvious reasons. An open mind welcomes new knowledge whereas a closed mind is scared of them. Have a nice day!
You really don't have a clue of what I am saying do you? If I wanted to counter something you quoted from the article as being "out of context" or "improperly quoted" I would have had to read the article to be able to know that those things occurred. But I don't have to have read the article to see that you have not shown evidence that someone else quoted "out of context". If you had provided that evidence that they did, it would be in one of your posts. What is childish and silly is you not wanting to provide the context that surrounds the quotes given by @Patricio Da Silva to show that he is using those lines out of context. Keep in mind that I am not saying he did or did not use them out of context. What I am saying is that you have not proven your assertion that he provided quotes out of context, just like you have not proven your assertion that science has found transgender DNA. Or is that same article supposedly the one you provided to prove the latter?
Then those who support transgenderism believes transgenders were not born male or female but were born with rare defects.
Ad homs and vacuous declarations are not a counter argument. In fact, they are a non argument. Ditto, above.
Since you PERSIST in REFUSING to acquaint yourself with the FACTS provided in my links there is NOTHING to be gained by wasting my time satisfying the "childish and silly" demands that I comply with something that would resolve itself if you actually did read the article in question. Have a nice day!
