Drag Shows

[bilby]

There are only two sexes among humans - male and female. No human is any other sex, nor is any human both sexes, nor is any human some in-between sex.

The bolded statements are factually wrong.

Such individuals are rare, but they absolutely do exist.

No biological system is as simple as your claim here demands that it must be.

 

[bilby]

I mean, where has common sense gone?

I don't know. But apparently it's left people permanently incapable of spotting the difference between a real problem, and tabloid propaganda nonsense.

When someone invites you to be outraged, common sense dictates that you should decline until you have thoroughly investigated the facts. Yet here we are.

 

[Metaphor]

There are only two sexes among humans - male and female. No human is any other sex, nor is any human both sexes, nor is any human some in-between sex.

The bolded statements are factually wrong.

They are not. Humans are not plants, which can indeed be two sexes.

However, the intersex gambit used by trans ideologists is an irrelevant distraction. Trans ideologists do not claim someone has to be intersex to be trans.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is the absolute biology, the chromosomal array that is associated with male and female and there are many variations on that one standard allotment of an X and a Y or two X's. There are intersex individuals; there are hermaphrodite individuals--rare, but still existing. There are individuals who have never, ever felt comfortable as the sex they were presumed to be at birth but who have always felt as though their true self was always the other sex. I've known such people. It's not fake. It's not for attention. It's not mental illness. It's how they perceive themselves and how they wish others to see them. Don't we all wish to be seen as our true selves?

There are a lot of women that are XY genetically. Swyer syndrome. Seems they have come up with a frequency now: 1 in 80,000. (Really, 1 in 40,000 women.)

 

[bilby]

There is the absolute biology, the chromosomal array that is associated with male and female and there are many variations on that one standard allotment of an X and a Y or two X's. There are intersex individuals; there are hermaphrodite individuals--rare, but still existing. There are individuals who have never, ever felt comfortable as the sex they were presumed to be at birth but who have always felt as though their true self was always the other sex. I've known such people. It's not fake. It's not for attention. It's not mental illness. It's how they perceive themselves and how they wish others to see them. Don't we all wish to be seen as our true selves?

There are a lot of women that are XY genetically. Swyer syndrome. Seems they have come up with a frequency now: 1 in 80,000. (Really, 1 in 40,000 women.)

Yeah, the other giveaway that the simpleton's "two genders, two sexes, no overlap" is wrong is that there are a number of differing definitions, most of which don't apply to every human, and all of which divide those to whom they do apply in different ways.

Are we dividing people into those with a Y chromosome and those without? Those with a penis and those without? Those who produce ova and those who don't? Those with two X chromosomes and those with a different number of X chromosomes? Those with testes and those without? Those with a uterus and those without? Etc., etc., etc.

There's not even a single universal way to divide sexes into two absolute sets with no overlaps or outliers.

Two genders is an approximation. Two sexes is also an approximation, and is a different approximation to the former.

Biology is very messy. Anyone who says it's simple is wrong.

 

[Arctish]

The trans ideologists are not ascendant; they are in power.

Where do you come up with these pieces of bull squat? Is it like a club for stupid stuff you join?

I dunno. The trans-identitying men saying wearing girl clothes makes them girls. Are you saying they’re wrong?

Does whoever does the dishes where girl clothes?

I heard that in Scotland, whoever pours the tea is Mother.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is the absolute biology, the chromosomal array that is associated with male and female and there are many variations on that one standard allotment of an X and a Y or two X's. There are intersex individuals; there are hermaphrodite individuals--rare, but still existing. There are individuals who have never, ever felt comfortable as the sex they were presumed to be at birth but who have always felt as though their true self was always the other sex. I've known such people. It's not fake. It's not for attention. It's not mental illness. It's how they perceive themselves and how they wish others to see them. Don't we all wish to be seen as our true selves?

There are a lot of women that are XY genetically. Swyer syndrome. Seems they have come up with a frequency now: 1 in 80,000. (Really, 1 in 40,000 women.)

Yeah, the other giveaway that the simpleton's "two genders, two sexes, no overlap" is wrong is that there are a number of differing definitions, most of which don't apply to every human, and all of which divide those to whom they do apply in different ways.

Are we dividing people into those with a Y chromosome and those without? Those with a penis and those without? Those who produce ova and those who don't? Those with two X chromosomes and those with a different number of X chromosomes? Those with testes and those without? Those with a uterus and those without? Etc., etc., etc.

There's not even a single universal way to divide sexes into two absolute sets with no overlaps or outliers.

Two genders is an approximation. Two sexes is also an approximation, and is a different approximation to the former.

Biology is very messy. Anyone who says it's simple is wrong.

Biology seems to me to be very analog. At it's basic level genetics is pretty binary--but the systems are so rube goldberg that the outward expression of those base binary controls becomes a range. When everything works right you get "man" and "woman"--but there are all sorts of ways it can go wrong. Swyer syndrome is what happens when you code for a man but the body can't understand the message testosterone sends and builds a woman instead. Change the failure a little bit: the body can't understand the message of the prenatal testosterone but can understand the message of the puberty form and you get a Guevedoce (aka penis-at-12.) Those are just the failures I know off the top of my head, there probably are other ways it can go wrong and I'm sure not all of them are even documented.

There can also be correct genetic coding but something interferes. Consider the thalidomide babies--the chemical messed up the normal blood vessel growth and whatever vessels were supposed to be growing at that time wouldn't develop--and wouldn't develop later, either. Thus whatever they were supposed to feed wouldn't grow, either. (And it's still used for that very side effect--by blocking blood vessel growth in an adult you can reduce unwanted tissue growth. Just don't get pregnant!!!)

 

[bilby]

Biology is more complicated than that, for all values of "that".

 

[Jarhyn]

Why can't women dress simply, modestly, even and be seen as beautiful and feminine?

Why can't men, for that matter?

IDrag is largely about those who feel a need to pursue feeling "beautiful and feminine" as much as those wishing to lampoon over-the-top presentation of femininity with a hyperbolic bait-and-switch. Our culture, for better or worse, has demanded a level of showmanship both today and in the past as a requirement for acknowledgement of beauty and femininity. It has also systematically denied anyone deemed as "men" the right to do so.

For some, drag is the only access they have to be considered in that (spot)light. Folks like Emily and Metaphor have made sure that all other avenues of expression in this way are cut off: even those who merely seek to be seen as beautiful and feminine for a while are attacked viciously and constantly by such folks in public, outed.

Even in this thread every effort is made mock and deny that "men" can be "beautiful and feminine" and to call down misery upon those that dare with mocks and jeers.

 

[Jarhyn]

When everything works right you get "man" and "woman"--but there are all sorts of ways it can go wrong

I would argue that's a "feature" not a bug.

Having variance in perspectives is a socially important aspect, because it allows accessing perspectives which are normally only available across that boundary.

That was the whole point of "Running Up That Hill". Some people already have that, that difference of perspective. That song was about someone wanting to access that difference of perspective so badly they would make "a deal with God" for it.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There are a lot of women that are XY genetically.

Yes, some people could be XY with unexpressed male featues, legally declared female upon birth. There are also XXY "females." It's even more variable than that genetically. Any tissue in the human body could be m% XX and n% XY. So, a person could be 51% XX in their liver cells and 42% XY in their kidney cells. The obvious way that can happen is through chimeras, but it's not the only reason why. Additionally, for any genetic feature we associate with sex, it could be suppressed or expressed. So, there is a rainbow spectra of genotypes and phenotypes.

But let's bring this back to what is ACTUALLY being discussed. At a significant portion, we're talking about the clothing people wear, makeup, hair styles, in addition to the spectra of secondary sexual characteristics. Even further, the attitudes associated with femininity. It's an amalgam of spectra that are cultural and/or biological that are physical and/or mental, and therefore it's about the social construct of gender.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are a lot of women that are XY genetically.

Yes, some people could be XY with unexpressed male featues, legally declared female upon birth. There are also XXY "females." It's even more variable than that genetically. Any tissue in the human body could be m% XX and n% XY. So, a person could be 51% XX in their liver cells and 42% XY in their kidney cells. The obvious way that can happen is through chimeras, but it's not the only reason why. Additionally, for any genetic feature we associate with sex, it could be suppressed or expressed. So, there is a rainbow spectra of genotypes and phenotypes.

While the cells can be mixed doesn't the expressed phenotype depend on hormones, not cells?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There are a lot of women that are XY genetically.

Yes, some people could be XY with unexpressed male featues, legally declared female upon birth. There are also XXY "females." It's even more variable than that genetically. Any tissue in the human body could be m% XX and n% XY. So, a person could be 51% XX in their liver cells and 42% XY in their kidney cells. The obvious way that can happen is through chimeras, but it's not the only reason why. Additionally, for any genetic feature we associate with sex, it could be suppressed or expressed. So, there is a rainbow spectra of genotypes and phenotypes.

While the cells can be mixed doesn't the expressed phenotype depend on hormones, not cells?

Hormones are an example of a category of things that can play a role in suppression or expression. Other things that can do that are sometimes dependent upon other genetic features. (Example: microsatellites). Life is very complex.

 

[Oleg]

Yeah, the other giveaway that the simpleton's "two genders, two sexes, no overlap" is wrong is that there are a number of differing definitions, most of which don't apply to every human, and all of which divide those to whom they do apply in different ways.

That’s like saying humans are not bipedal because some can’t walk.

 

[atrib]

I mean, where has common sense gone?

I don't know. But apparently it's left people permanently incapable of spotting the difference between a real problem, and tabloid propaganda nonsense.

When someone invites you to be outraged, common sense dictates that you should decline until you have thoroughly investigated the facts. Yet here we are.

I think some people are only comfortable when they can explicitly label everything in their reality and stick them in well ordered boxes, at least in their own heads. As to whether everything in reality can actually be made to fit into such boxes or not is irrelevant, as Emily's posts clearly demonstrate- in their minds they fit, and must always fit, and therefore, anyone who experiences the world differently must be wrong.

The outrage is just the cream on top, a bonus.

 

[atrib]

Yeah, the other giveaway that the simpleton's "two genders, two sexes, no overlap" is wrong is that there are a number of differing definitions, most of which don't apply to every human, and all of which divide those to whom they do apply in different ways.

That’s like saying humans are not bipedal because some can’t walk.

The humans who can't walk on two legs are clearly not bipedal. To insist that the humans who don't have legs, or are unable to use them to walk are NOT human is a ridiculous position. And that is the fucking point.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah, the other giveaway that the simpleton's "two genders, two sexes, no overlap" is wrong is that there are a number of differing definitions, most of which don't apply to every human, and all of which divide those to whom they do apply in different ways.

That’s like saying humans are not bipedal because some can’t walk.

The humans who can't walk on two legs are clearly not bipedal. To insist that the humans who don't have legs, or are unable to use them to walk are NOT human is a ridiculous position. And that is the fucking point.

This. It's about the exceptions, not about the regular cases. Conservatives don't like exceptions, they want everything to fit their view of how the world should be.

 

[lostone]

and the right has latched on to it for their own reason.

The "right" didn't care before this push to normalize the sexualization of children.

Child beauty pageants, for example

 

[Jarhyn]

Yeah, the other giveaway that the simpleton's "two genders, two sexes, no overlap" is wrong is that there are a number of differing definitions, most of which don't apply to every human, and all of which divide those to whom they do apply in different ways.

That’s like saying humans are not bipedal because some can’t walk.

It is not correct to say humans are  universally bipedal.

Some humans are bipedal. To say "humans are bipedal" without accepting that implicit "some" is making a false statement.

The existence of a majority or even supermajority among a population does not cause the minority, or other modes, to cease to exist!

As a result, "two sexes, no gender, no overlap" is a pointedly incorrect position to take.

Trans people are not most people.

Drag queens are not most people.

Spoiler: The deeper explanation, a tangent for the capable.

Humans are not "man
 XOR
woman".

Humans "differ individually between models of masculinity, femininity, and atypicality, on a range of biological structures". When that is simplified to "man or woman" without the "XOR" it is a discussion of some field of those factors.

People either exclusively do, or exclusively do not get exposed to testosterone over the previous six months of some notable level. We can quantify normal ranges and averages, but nobody is exactly the average unless they manage towards a whole population mode, and this is just one factor!

There is also estrogen, which varies the same way. Already the two primary signals that trigger SOME major differentiations are on an identifiable spectrum

There are other signals and receptors for gender, many of which are cultural.

People do not produce exclusively sperms or eggs. Some produce both. Some produce neither. Only "most" one XOR the other.

People do not have one exclusive brain structure or another one. It is not a dichotomy. It is an option between many, for many structures, both in the brain and in the body.

The problem with this is that we evolved as people who have to be wrong before we become right, who are born in ignorance of all this, and who often lack of outright ability to process something as complicated as gender. Without education, hard work to discover things worth educating about, and people capable of actually doing that work, we end up with people who actually believe sex is an XOR.

 

[Toni]

Yeah, the other giveaway that the simpleton's "two genders, two sexes, no overlap" is wrong is that there are a number of differing definitions, most of which don't apply to every human, and all of which divide those to whom they do apply in different ways.

That’s like saying humans are not bipedal because some can’t walk.

It is not correct to say humans are  universally bipedal.

Some humans are bipedal. To say "humans are bipedal" without accepting that implicit "some" is making a false statement.

The existence of a majority or even supermajority among a population does not cause the minority, or other modes, to cease to exist!

As a result, "two sexes, no gender, no overlap" is a pointedly incorrect position to take.

Trans people are not most people.

Drag queens are not most people.

Spoiler: The deeper explanation, a tangent for the capable.

Humans are not "man
 XOR
woman".

Humans "differ individually between models of masculinity, femininity, and atypicality, on a range of biological structures". When that is simplified to "man or woman" without the "XOR" it is a discussion of some field of those factors.

People either exclusively do, or exclusively do not get exposed to testosterone over the previous six months of some notable level. We can quantify normal ranges and averages, but nobody is exactly the average unless they manage towards a whole population mode, and this is just one factor!

There is also estrogen, which varies the same way. Already the two primary signals that trigger SOME major differentiations are on an identifiable spectrum

There are other signals and receptors for gender, many of which are cultural.

People do not produce exclusively sperms or eggs. Some produce both. Some produce neither. Only "most" one XOR the other.

People do not have one exclusive brain structure or another one. It is not a dichotomy. It is an option between many, for many structures, both in the brain and in the body.

The problem with this is that we evolved as people who have to be wrong before we become right, who are born in ignorance of all this, and who often lack of outright ability to process something as complicated as gender. Without education, hard work to discover things worth educating about, and people capable of actually doing that work, we end up with people who actually believe sex is an XOR.

Humans are bipedal as a species. Individuals may not have the use of two legs or may use other modes of locomotion but as a species, humans are bipedal. Within any species, there are variants, variations, anomalies, exceptions, individuals with enhanced or impaired abilities, etc. All of us are exceptions to the general mode. Humans have 2 kidneys. I happen to have a third kidney but that does not make me less a human being. My anomaly is only apparent under scans or during certain surgeries. Some people are born with extra digits or nipples, cleft palates, extraordinarily sensitive hearing, all sorts of neurological variations, some deleterious, some enhancements, and so on. Humans as a species which is dioecious. Humans, as with every other species, are comprised of individuals which have variations on what is common for the species.