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.
