"Children cannot consent to puberty blockers" and being in the wrong body

[Emily Lake]

Puberty blockers can be undone.

Depends entirely on how long they're used. If they're used for only a few months, sure. If they're used for a whole year, no they absofuckinglutely cannot be undone. They halt the pituitary process, but they do NOT affect the adrenal process at all. Puberty is a two-part system, and it's time-bound.

If a male takes puberty blockers during the window in which the pituitary would trigger lengthening of the penis and descent of the scrotum away from the body, they'll be stuck with child-sized genitals even if they stop taking them later. If a female takes blockers during the period of time when her breasts would develop, her milk glands won't mature when she stops. She'll get increased fat deposits in the breast area when estrogen starts flowing again, but she may never be able to effectively breast feed. And in both cases, there's a risk that they'll be left sterile.

To say nothing of the impact on bone density and emotional maturation.

 

[Emily Lake]

Full stop, there is no such thing as "biological female" in the way you are trying to evoke.

Sure there is. Biological females are the ones who gestate babies. Not a single human male has ever gestated a baby in their bladder and delivered them out of their penis.

 

[Emily Lake]

You don't prefer "regular* females"; You prefer partners to whom you are attracted.

This means that sexual orientation is a figment of everyone's imagination... and if a straight dude doesn't want to get it on with another guy, he's just a bigot, yeah?

 

[Emily Lake]

I was trying to give an example where the term "biological female" could come in handy. @Jarhyn is saying "there is no such thing as "biological female" in the way you are trying to evoke". Maybe there is a term that describes what I'm talking about... or some phrase.

Yes, well... Jarhyn also says he's a wizard and does magic, and makes a lot of other highly questionable faith-based assertions.

 

[Emily Lake]

The opposite of trans- is cis-, so if you are talking about only those women who are not transwomen, then you are talking about ciswomen.

Transwoman aren't women at all - they're men. They're men who think of themselves as being more like females than like males, and perhaps they prefer stereotyped female attire, and perhaps they have issues with their male bodies... but they're still not actually women. There isn't a subset of females that is comprised of males.

 

[Emily Lake]

There are plenty of recorded instances of people with both sets of sexual organs.

There are extremely few cases of people with both sets of sexual organs... and even in those extraordinarily rare chases of chimerism or mosaicism that gave rise to it... none of them were BOTH SEXES.

 

[excreationist]

Potential autofertility in true hermaphrodites - PubMed

This article examines the studies on the pregnancies of true hermaphrodites and self-fertilization in hermaphrodite mammals that have been published in the last 40 years. The number of hermaphrodite pregnants reported in the literature since 1975 was 14, the number of pregnancies was 26 and the...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Furthermore, the ovarian tissues of true hermaphrodites were mainly functional and ovulatory. The testicular tissues were mainly immature. However, spermatogenesis was determined in some cases. In fact, both ovulation and spermatogenesis were detected in some cases. All of these findings show that true hermaphrodites with ovarian and testicular tissues are potentially autofertile.

So they could have both... ?

In humans, no. Did you notice that the reference you provided is talking about rabbits?

Sorry I didn't realise that!

 

[Emily Lake]

Never is a long time. I am not aware of any cases (largely because I just don't care that much), but I would hesitate to say "never", simply because I have studied biology.

Do you think it's possible for a fetus to develop and be delivered alive without a brain, or lungs, or a heart? Failure of the mullerian/wolffian trigger to occur causes the fetus to become nonviable and spontaneously terminate. It's a necessary component in anisogamous species.

 

[Emily Lake]

Potential autofertility in true hermaphrodites - PubMed

This article examines the studies on the pregnancies of true hermaphrodites and self-fertilization in hermaphrodite mammals that have been published in the last 40 years. The number of hermaphrodite pregnants reported in the literature since 1975 was 14, the number of pregnancies was 26 and the...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Furthermore, the ovarian tissues of true hermaphrodites were mainly functional and ovulatory. The testicular tissues were mainly immature. However, spermatogenesis was determined in some cases. In fact, both ovulation and spermatogenesis were detected in some cases. All of these findings show that true hermaphrodites with ovarian and testicular tissues are potentially autofertile.

So they could have both... ?

In humans, no. Did you notice that the reference you provided is talking about rabbits?

Sorry I didn't realise that!

It's worth being careful on this topic. There's a lot of misinformation out there. Some is unintentional because not everyone looks past the headline, but a lot of it is intentionally spread by activists with a political agenda.

Keep an eye out... you'll find people arguing that humans can literally change sex, and they'll link you to academic work with a headline that seems to support that claim... but they won't bother to tell you that the paper is talking about clownfish. Yeah, turns out that humans aren't clownfish, and to date we know of not a single mammal or avian that is a sequential hermaphrodite.

Be open to discussion, but not so open that your brain falls out. Try to use some judgement on what is science, what is observable fact, and what is belief.

 

[Politesse]

I guess the bit about being binary is incorrect

Sex is binary in all anisogamous species. That includes all mammals, all birds, and the overwhelming majority of vertebrates.

Sex is defined based on the type or reproductive system that an individual develops. This stems from the fact that within species that reproduce sexually, there are only two types of gametes. Large sessile gametes are eggs, small motile gametes are sperm. Sexual reproduction occurs when two differently sized gametes merge and exchange DNA to create offspring.

Anisogamy developed a few hundred million years ago in our evolutionary lineage. Part of that evolutionary process also led to individuals within each species evolving reproductive systems that support the production of those two types of gametes. Across all species - including a lot of plants, we can observe two types of reproductive systems, although the formation of those systems differs from one species to another. The commonality is in the function of those systems. Within any given species, the set of individuals who have the system that has evolved to support the production and delivery of small motile gametes are called males. Those who have the system that evolved to support the production of large sessile gametes are called females. Note that the definition is dependent on the type of system that the individual develops, and which function that system evolved in concert with. It does not require that the individuals actually produce any gametes at all, nor does it require that the entire system is present and functional. Thus a prepubertal female is still female, even though she doesn't yet release mature eggs. And a male who has lost his testes through accident, illness, or intent is still a male even though he can no longer produce sperm.

For sex to be something other than binary, there would need to be an evolved reproductive system that supports the production of a different type of gamete. To date, there is no other type of gamete among humans - only sperm and eggs. Thus, sex in humans is strictly binary.

Why is that a condition that would need to be met? Who says? You?

Evolution says so.

It's easy to set a "condition" that you think matches the evidence you already have, but that is not making a truly falsifiable hypothesis. It isn't science.

As opposed to the stoned sci-fi approach that is being preached in here?

So what, Evolution speaks to you and says "for there to be intersex individuals, there would need to be an evolved reproductive system that supports the production of a different type of gamete"? Your ad hoc condition is completely bizarre, and obviously invented to force the data to support your ideologies, so I don't care if Chuck Darwin's ghost visited you in your dreams to give that definition to you, it still wouldn't make sense. If there were in fact such a system, as indeed there is for some other organisms, we would just consider individuals to belong to a third sex, not to be in an intersex condition.

I note that that the guy who actually discovered chromosomal sex in the first place was also the first to note that it didn't present in a strictly binary fashion. Actual scientisrs learn from their data and use it to prove or disprove hypotheses, they don't play rgetoricsl games to make it seem like the data supports things that it does not.

 

[Politesse]

I was trying to give an example where the term "biological female" could come in handy. @Jarhyn is saying "there is no such thing as "biological female" in the way you are trying to evoke". Maybe there is a term that describes what I'm talking about... or some phrase.

Yes, well... Jarhyn also says he's a wizard and does magic, and makes a lot of other highly questionable faith-based assertions.

This coming from someone who thinks Evolution can "say" things to her, and absolutely agrees with her on everything!

 

[bilby]

You don't prefer "regular* females"; You prefer partners to whom you are attracted.

This means that sexual orientation is a figment of everyone's imagination... and if a straight dude doesn't want to get it on with another guy, he's just a bigot, yeah?

No. Nothing in what I said could be interpreted to mean that, even after you snipped the rest. Unless you are looking for a fight, in which case anything can be misinterpreted to make it seem absurd, particularly if you shear off any explanatory context.

 

[bilby]

There are plenty of recorded instances of people with both sets of sexual organs.

There are extremely few cases of people with both sets of sexual organs... and even in those extraordinarily rare chases of chimerism or mosaicism that gave rise to it... none of them were BOTH SEXES.

Well, yes, they observably were. You mean to say that you prefer to define them as not being, which implies that your definitions have bupkis to do with observed realities, and are entirely built in defence of your beliefs.

 

[bilby]

Never is a long time. I am not aware of any cases (largely because I just don't care that much), but I would hesitate to say "never", simply because I have studied biology.

Do you think it's possible for a fetus to develop and be delivered alive without a brain, or lungs, or a heart?

No. Do you think that question is relevant to the topic? Brains, lungs, and hearts are all necessary for survival; Genitals are not.

A more apt comparison would be to other structures whose absence is not immediately fatal. Do you think it's possible for a fetus to develop and be delivered alive without a leg, arm, foot, or hand?

Failure of the mullerian/wolffian trigger to occur causes the fetus to become nonviable and spontaneously terminate.

Usually.

It's a necessary component in anisogamous species.

Says you. Why should I accept your claim?

 

[bilby]

It's worth being careful on this topic. There's a lot of misinformation out there.

QFT.

 

[Jarhyn]

Enter "confidently incorrect".

 

[Emily Lake]

You don't prefer "regular* females"; You prefer partners to whom you are attracted.

This means that sexual orientation is a figment of everyone's imagination... and if a straight dude doesn't want to get it on with another guy, he's just a bigot, yeah?

No. Nothing in what I said could be interpreted to mean that, even after you snipped the rest. Unless you are looking for a fight, in which case anything can be misinterpreted to make it seem absurd, particularly if you shear off any explanatory context.

It follows directly. Would you tell a gay male that they don't prefer "regular males" if they say that they're not attracted to transgender identified females, because they are females and they're same-sex attracted? By adopting this pretense that sexual attraction is not tied to actual for-realsies sex, you end up making orientation just a "preference".

And that's the generous take on it... as opposed to the view expressed by some forum members in the past that sexual orientation is a "genital fetish".

 

[Emily Lake]

There are plenty of recorded instances of people with both sets of sexual organs.

There are extremely few cases of people with both sets of sexual organs... and even in those extraordinarily rare chases of chimerism or mosaicism that gave rise to it... none of them were BOTH SEXES.

Well, yes, they observably were. You mean to say that you prefer to define them as not being, which implies that your definitions have bupkis to do with observed realities, and are entirely built in defence of your beliefs.

No, they're not both sexes. They don't have two complete reproductive systems - they have at the absolute outside scenario a mix of parts. The only possible scenario in which a person could have two entire reproductive systems if is they're conjoined twins. Many of the components of our reproductive systems start out undifferentiated, and the diverge around the 6th week of gestation. You don't find a person who has both a penis and a clitoris, because they are divergent developments of the same tissue. Likewise, you don't find people who have both scrotum and labia, because they are divergent developments of the same tissue.

What is very, very rarely found are people who have one undifferentiated gonad and one that has differentiated into either an ovary or a testis. And very very rarely, you'll find incompletely dissolved vestigial uterine or fallopian structures that didn't go away completely when the wolffian path was followed.

But all of this is actually moot... DSDs are not synonymous with gender identity, and using the very rare deleterious anomalies that these people face as fodder in an ideological war that proposes to redefine the fundamental means of continuation of our species as being "a spectrum" is fallacious and just plain mean. Don't use other people's medical conditions as a pawn for your beliefs.

 

[Emily Lake]

Never is a long time. I am not aware of any cases (largely because I just don't care that much), but I would hesitate to say "never", simply because I have studied biology.

Do you think it's possible for a fetus to develop and be delivered alive without a brain, or lungs, or a heart?

No. Do you think that question is relevant to the topic? Brains, lungs, and hearts are all necessary for survival; Genitals are not.

A more apt comparison would be to other structures whose absence is not immediately fatal. Do you think it's possible for a fetus to develop and be delivered alive without a leg, arm, foot, or hand?

Failure of the mullerian/wolffian trigger to occur causes the fetus to become nonviable and spontaneously terminate.

Usually.

It's a necessary component in anisogamous species.

Says you. Why should I accept your claim?

Go look it up. All you have to do is find a single human ever recorded to have been born without any reproductive system at all. Just one. Go for it.

But while you're at it, perhaps you'll consider that you're rejecting the information I've provided because you're deeply wedded to a belief system which is threatened by evolutionary biology and fetal development.

 

[Politesse]

It follows directly. Would you tell a gay male that they don't prefer "regular males" if they say that they're not attracted to transgender identified females, because they are females and they're same-sex attracted? By adopting this pretense that sexual attraction is not tied to actual for-realsies sex, you end up making orientation just a "preference".

Sexual preference is, in fact, a preference. Which people are absolutely allowed to have. Why should you be permitted to tell anyone who they may or may not prefer? The world would be such a nicer place if "liberals" like you would just get the ever loving fuck out of our underpants, out of our bedrooms, definitely out of our doctor visits, and ideally, out of our lives, at least with your Victorian, pre-science, pseudoscience bullshit. You don't get to tell other people who they are, who they want to be, or who want they want to be with. No one elected you. No one asked for your input. We certainly don't work for you. So what gives? Just grow up, and fucking live with the fact that not everyone is like you and there is no goddamned reason why they should have to be. If you don't want other people to tell you who and what you are, and I know that you do not, consider leading by example for a change.

And if you're going to pretend to know something about biology, learn to read a book every now and then instead of the internet.