Drag Shows

[bilby]

Sex is defined by the type of gamete that an individual's reproductive anatomy is organized around,

OK, that's a good definition. It's falsifiable, so it qualifies as "scientific"; And it fits into your hypothesis "It is a physical impossibility for any single individual human to be both sexes", giving a falsifiable hypothesis. Yay, science!

even if that gamete does not actually get produced.

Ah, but then you fall down. You just added unfalsifiability to your definition, eliminating the scientific status of your claim. Why did you do that?

If not by observing production of "that gamete", how are we to determine which, if any, type of gamete an individual's reproductive anatomy is "organised around"? What does it mean to be "organised around" the production of something, if that something doesn't actually get produced?

What does "organised around" mean here? We need a definition that's falsifiable, if we are to rescue the scientific status of your claim, which at this stage you have exchanged for a mere expression of the opinion of whoever decides what "organised around" should mean.

A person with a female-typical uterus, fallopian tubes, vagina, etc. is considered by evolutionary biologists to be female, even if they don't have ovaries, even if their karyotype ends up being XY.

...and if that person also has a male-typical penis and testes, then they are simultaneously considered by those same evolutionary biologists to be male, assuming that those biologists are being consistent and not unscientific.

Which would be a demonstration that your original claim is false.

When you can only salvage your claim by stepping away from science into vague ad-hoc "definitions" like "organised around", which appear to exist only for the purpose of your being able to include some non-functional reproductive organs while excluding others, that claim can no longer be correctly described as "scientific".

 

[Oleg]

If not by observing production of "that gamete", how are we to determine which, if any, type of gamete an individual's reproductive anatomy is "organised around"?

Um, by a person’s DNA? An animal’s sex is an expression of that DNA. Hello?

Sex-Based Differences in Skeletal Muscle Kinetics and Fiber-Type Composition

Previous studies have identified over 3,000 genes that are differentially expressed in male and female skeletal muscle. Here, we review the sex-based differences in skeletal muscle fiber composition, myosin heavy chain expression, contractile function, ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Previous studies have identified over 3,000 genes that are differentially expressed in male and female skeletal muscle.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

At some point behavior and identity will enter the conversation regarding personal identity. I just know it. Until then... let's continue discussing stuff that isn't the subject and pretend you are scoring points.

 

[Bomb#20]

A TERF is a person who has an unusually strong commitment to promoting and defending the rights of women, while absolutely rejecting any broadening of the definition of "woman" beyond its most limited possible definition. Like all extremists, a TERF wants to fight for "us", and cares nothing if "they" are hurt in the process, while defining "us" as narrowly as they possibly can.

Radical feminists regard men as their enemies; TERFs are keen to ensure that they establish as many enemies as they possibly can with that attitude. Exactly how extreme an individual TERF can be is sometimes surprising; I have encountered people who wouldn't let a three year old boy (the son of another member of their women's group) into their home on the grounds that, as he has a penis, he is a potential rapist. Presumably she was worried that she might forget he was there for a decade or two.

I didn't express an opinion on the value of placing it at any given point, I just pointed out that TERFs by definition have an opinion that lies close to one extreme and far from the other.

The definition you posted is a caricature -- it's just a write-up of anti-TERFs' stereotype of the people they oppose. They have no evidence it's an accurate description of most of the people they call TERFs. For instance, if you have any evidence whatever that the queen TERF J. K. Rowling regards men as her enemies or wants to establish as many enemies as she possibly can, share. Or for another instance, if you have any evidence that most people called TERFs want to exclude transwomen who've had sex reassignment surgery from women's bathrooms, share. In my experience they're fine with that; the "transwomen" so-called TERFs wish to exclude from their bathrooms are those characterized as "transwomen" based only on self-declaration. Or for another instance, Emily would certainly be labeled a TERF by the anti-TERF community, and she has already proven conclusively that she doesn't define "us" as narrowly as she possibly can -- she's happy to call people with female-pattern reproductive anatomy "women" even if they have XY karyotype.

So where do memes like your definition of TERF come from? Yesterday I saw some wise words that explain it...

But most humans are very happy to wholeheartedly embrace complex and detailed stories whose basis is weak evidence at best.

 

[Politesse]

Why is it "gender-critical" people manage to know so little about the biology human bodies despite obsessing over them constantly?

Pick a body part, organ, or function and search for sex differences. There’s a lot. Five million years of sexually dimorphic evolution will do that. And the sex binary is much older than that. Feeling uncomfortable in one’s body doesn’t change that. It’s the gender cultist who are the flat earthers.

Yes, but the basic biological facts of sex differentiation have never greatly changed, and biology does not cater to cultural ideals of "needing" strict and non-everlapping sex characteristics. Not in any species, and certainly not in our own.

 

[Politesse]

Incidentally, if the argument is "we should do things as most mammals do", we should not be wearing clothes at all, let alone building strictly but arbitrarily gender-divided clothing sections at the mall and instigating moral panic if a man wears a dress or women pants at the library. No other mammal would give a flying shit what we want to wear. That's religion, not biology, and only we do the religion thing.

 

[Metaphor]

Incidentally, if the argument is "we should do things as most mammals do",

Who made this moral 'should' argument? Anybody on this thread? There's no 'should' about mammalian sex. It's just a brute fact that mammals have two sexes and an individual mammal cannot change sex.

`

 

[Politesse]

Incidentally, if the argument is "we should do things as most mammals do",

Who made this moral 'should' argument? Anybody on this thread? There's no 'should' about mammalian sex. It's just a brute fact that mammals have two sexes and an individual mammal cannot change sex.

`

Well, yes we can.

Setting aside the fact that one does not need to change their sex in order to be a drag performer, we also have hormone replacement therapy. Why shouldn't humans do human things, if we can? We do, in any case. We do not, in fact, consistently copy other animals in form or behavior. Nor should we. Every species has unique characteristics all their own, and we certainly do.

And it is not a fact that mammals have "two sexes"; intersex characteristics can occur in all mammal species we've studied in this respect.

 

[Metaphor]

Setting aside the fact that one does not need to change their sex in order to be a drag performer, we also have hormone replacement therapy.

Hormone replacement therapy does not change the sex of humans. Surgery excising body parts does not change the sex of humans. Literally no process whatsoever can change the sex of humans, because your sexual development pathway was determined in utero and is a fixed historical event, and my DeLorean's flux capacitor hasn't worked in years.

Why shouldn't humans do human things, if we can?

You'd have to ask somebody who made the argument "humans should only do things other mammals do", which is not an argument anyone on this thread has made.

We do, in any case. We do not, in fact, consistently copy other animals in form or behavior. Nor should we. Every species has unique characteristics all their own, and we certainly do.

And it is not a fact that mammals have "two sexes"; intersex characteristics can occur in all mammal species we've studied in this respect.

It is of course a fact that mammals are either male or female, and there are only two sexes. Differences in sexual development do not create a third sex. There is no third gamete type. You are plain wrong on the biological facts.

 

[Politesse]

Hormone replacement therapy does not change the sex of humans. Surgery excising body parts does not change the sex of humans. Literally no process whatsoever can change the sex of humans, because your sexual development pathway was determined in utero and is a fixed historical event, and my DeLorean's flux capacitor hasn't worked in years.

Only if you completely ignore the actual variation in how sex determination happens in humans. We are not, in fact, all XX or XY, nor does your chromosomal pattern determine your observable sex characteristics as consistently as uneducated people tend to imagine. And as far as we know, all or nearly all the variations that affect human sexual expression also affect at least some other mammals.

And drag shows aren't an expression of biological sex anyway.

 

[Politesse]

Differences in sexual development do not create a third sex. There is no third gamete type.

No, there are at least seven.

You banging the table and insisting that less common "gamete types" shouldn't count for some reason is an expression of your socioreligious background, not a conclusion derived from scientific fact. An actual scientist has no reason to consider some patterns of genetic expression "legitimate" and others not. That's the job of the town bishop, not the alchemist. The material facts of life do not display social bias, or fall neatly into cultural categories for our special comfort.

And you don't need a "third gamete type" to enjoy, or even star in, a drag show.

 

[Metaphor]

Only if you completely ignore the actual variation in how sex determination happens in humans. We are not, in fact, all XX or XY,

I did not claim or imply so.

nor does your chromosomal pattern determine your observable sex characteristics as consistently as uneducated people tend to imagine.

Who brought up chromosomes? It wasn't me. There are XY individuals with various DSDs that give them a phenotypical female appearance. But there are still only two sexes.

And as far as we know, all or nearly all the variations that affect human sexual expression also affect at least some other mammals.

And drag shows aren't an expression of biological sex anyway.

Drag shows are typically men dressed as women--which is what transwomen do as well. However, trans ideology's reach has folded 'drag' under the 'trans umbrella' as well.

 

[Metaphor]

No, there are at least seven.

No. There are two gamete types in mammals. Two, and exactly two.

You banging the table and insisting that less common "gamete types"

There are no 'less common' gamete types in addition to the two gamete types. There are two, and exactly two.

shouldn't count for some reason is an expression of your socioreligious background, not a conclusion derived from scientific fact. An actual scientist has no reason to consider some patterns of genetic expression "legitimate" and others not.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Legitimate patterns of genetic expression???

That's the job of the town bishop, not the alchemist. The material facts of life do not display social bias, or fall neatly into cultural categories for our special comfort.

And you don't need a "third gamete type" to enjoy, or even star in, a drag show.

No, you just need to dress as the opposite sex, of which there are two, and exactly two, in mammals.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

And drag shows aren't an expression of biological sex anyway.

This. Discussion of biological sex is a bit of a red herring, even though we note sex is a spectrum. Really the discussion starting from op to now ought to be in regard to the social construct of gender.

Interestingly, quite a few feminists want to destroy gender stereotypes. There is something about drag queens dressing up, though, that is dependent upon gender norms in culture.

 

[lostone]

I read a lot, too. I'd be very interested in knowing what your academic qualifications are with regards to human reproduction, embryonic development, and genetic expression.

In all that learning do you have examples of any mammal that can change its sex?

Spotted hyena, colubus monkey

 

[Metaphor]

I read a lot, too. I'd be very interested in knowing what your academic qualifications are with regards to human reproduction, embryonic development, and genetic expression.

In all that learning do you have examples of any mammal that can change its sex?

Spotted hyena, colubus monkey

No and no. Neither of those animals change sex.

 

[Emily Lake]

Why is it "gender-critical" people manage to know so little about the biology of human bodies despite obsessing over them constantly? You'd think if you love your biological sex so much, it would inspire curiosity about human sexuality, not blustering ignorance.

For the record, stamping your foot and going "it just is" is not science, no matter what topic you happen to be discussing.

I guarantee I know more about the actual biology of sex than you. I'm using actual information and science as opposed to wishes.

But hey, if you want to bluster about and insult me, why don't you prove me wrong? Go find a human who has impregnated themselves with sperm and ova produced by their own body. Or find me a human who has both a scrotal sac AND fallopian tubes. OR find me a single person anywhere on the planet that produces a sperg. Or a completely new gamete that is neither sperm nor ova. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Meanwhile duckbilled platypuses don't lay eggs because they are mammals. Also quantum physics doesn't exist because it doesn't neatly simplify into our previous understanding of subatomic physics.

You are not supporting your claim, you're merely diverting with unrelated commentary.

You've done nothing at all to support your implied claim that sex in mammals is not binary. All you've done is toss about insinuated insult and mockery.

 

[Emily Lake]

People do not produce exclusively sperms or eggs. Some produce both.

This is false. No humans produce BOTH. At the very most extreme edge of things, you might have a mosaic or chimera who has both testicular and ovarian tissue - but even if you overlook that this is a mixture of two individuals, they cannot simultaneously produce both sperm and ova. The level of testosterone required to produce sperm cells is toxic to ova. The level of estrogen required to maintain viable ova precludes the production of sperm.

You're not correct. Here's a Wiki, documenting the fact that there are true hermaphroditic individuals, at least some of whom are capable of reproducting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_hermaphroditism#:~:text=True hermaphroditism, sometimes referred to,containing both types of tissue.

1) they are not actually biological hermaphrodites, in the way the term is used by actual biologists.
2) they have both types of tissue present, but not both types of tissue functional at the same time
3) causes are predominantly chimerism and mosaicism, with a very few caused by DSDs - chimeras and mosaics contain cellular tissues from multiple sperm or multiple eggs - hence, technically not a single individual germ line
4) most people with ovotesticular disorder are phenotypically female, and only their ovarian tissue is functional
5) spermatogenesis has only been shown in TWO cases, ever
6) not a single on of the 11 documented cases of fertility has ever impregnated themselves

So let me reiterate what I said: No human produces BOTH EGGS AND SPERM.

Some species of animals do not have sex genes and temperature affects sex in some species.

No species of mammal has no sex genes.
No species of mammal has sex determined by temperature.

Humans are not reptiles. Nor are we clownfish. Nor are we algae.

 

[Emily Lake]

there are humans who produce both egg and sperm and at least some individuals have reproduced.

No, no human has ever been observed to produce both egg and sperm.

In those exceedingly rare cases of ovotesticular disorders, an even more exceedingly rate number of cases produce gametes... and of those not a single one ever has produced both egg and sperm.

In those cases of fertility, only one type of tissue is functional. Most often it is ovarian tissue which is functional, and the most common form of ovotesticular disorder is chimerism/mosaicism in which the female has one ovary of undifferentiated ovotesticular tissue, and one ovary containing normal ovarian tissue.

Note that ovotesticular tissue is what gamete producing organs are made of prior to the sexual differentiation that occurs in utero. When hit with testosterone in a male, it develops into testicular tissue. Otherwise it normally develops into ovarian tissue.

Nobody has tissue that can produce both ova and sperm. Nobody has ever been documented with both a functional ovary and a functional tesis.

 

[Emily Lake]

I read a lot, too. I'd be very interested in knowing what your academic qualifications are with regards to human reproduction, embryonic development, and genetic expression.

In all that learning do you have examples of any mammal that can change its sex?

Today on qualifications, we discuss why they matter and their significance, especially in attempts to try and mask that you know you are full of it. In the post above you'll notice a qualification added regarding biology, but only of mammals, and excluding the rest of the animal kingdom. This is done in a desperate attempt to hide the fact they themselves know that there are animals that are indeed capable of doing this, but hope no one will notice the smokescreen and how they are arguing against a concept they know is actually true.

This is beyond absurd. You are essentially claiming that because lizards regrow their tails, humans *might* be able to regrow their severed legs too!

This is an idiotic argument. No, scratch that - it's not even an argument. All you're doing is casting aspersions on real science with a bunch of "intelligent design" like claptrap.

I mean seriously, some living entities split and clone themselves, so anybody arguing that humans do not split and clone themselves is using a smokescreen? Do you even read what you type?