Split Gendered spaces, split from Drag Shows

[Emily Lake]

You know why they get called female?

Because THEY ARE OF THE PHENOTYPE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PRODUCTION OF THE LARGER GAMETE.

Which is very useful indeed if we are studying the way in which they reproduce; While simultaneously being utterly irrelevant to the question of which bathrooms people should use.

My premise that that bathrooms have historically been separated by sex, and that I support the continued separation of sex.

As opposed to the cohort of people who have taken the position that bathrooms should continue to be separated... but now it should be on the basis of a completely subjective internal feeling about oneself.

 

[Emily Lake]

Not exactly. She posed eggs.

No I did not. Reeed Moar Bettar.

 

[Jarhyn]

Not exactly. She posed eggs.

No I did not. Reeed Moar Bettar.

Yes, you did. You said "phenotype associated with eggs". That's "makes eggs". It implies nothing else beyond that which is real because any measure of central tendency that you can point to to create your map of what any further such aspects of "phenotype" are purely imaginary statistical constructs and fundamentally are essentialist.

As discussed, biology is WYSIWYG.

You propose to separate bathrooms by "sex" when the fundamental problem is that even "sex" fails to separate by sex. There are people who are simultaneously both sexes.

Instead, the correct answer is not to separate by sex, but to separate explicitly on whether the person produces sperm.

This will get you most of what you want but it will not get you the right to eject people you don't like from the bathroom because they have a penis. At best it will get you the right to eject them if they have BALLS.

Granted the only way you would know either of these things is if you forced them to drop trow to you like a fucking psychopath in the middle east doing "genital inspections".

 

[Emily Lake]

At best it says "female because egg". It doesn't even necessarily imply "not male".

Absurd. IF egg THEN female. Get your basic logics right.

 

[Emily Lake]

It really is a religion;

An anthropology professor at the University of Pittsburgh denied the difference between male and female skeletons to derisive laughter from students during a speaking engagement from college swimming champion Riley Gaines.

Daily Mail

Gabby Yearwood is a professor whose research focuses on 'the social constructions of race and racism, masculinity, gender, sex, Black Feminist and Black Queer theory, anthropology of sport and Black Diaspora' according to his bio.

Jeezus, what a pile of claptrap that lot is.

From that very same article:

According to the Smithsonian: 'Males tend to have larger, more robust bones and joint surfaces, and more bone development at muscle attachment sites. However, the pelvis is the best sex-related skeletal indicator, because of distinct features adapted for childbearing.

'The skull also has features that can indicate sex, though slightly less reliably.'

They note that sex-related differences are not obvious in the bones of pre-pubescent children.

However, Discover Magazine notes that skeletal studies regarding sex can lead to 'profound mistakes' and can ignore the existence of intersex people, who are born with a mix of X and Y chromosomes.

Males tend to have certain features (not always have and not only males can have them), skull features can indicate sex though less reliably, and sex-related differences are not obvious on the skeletons of persons who have not undergone puberty. Also, there's the matter of intersex people.

So the correct answer to the question 'If you were to dig up a human — two humans — a hundred years from now, both a man and a woman, could you tell the difference strictly off of bones?', is "no".

I don't know why members of the audience were laughing but I suspect it had something to do with ignorance and dogma.

The members of the audience were laughing because that professor wasn't even remotely trying to speak to the potential existence of a skeleton from someone with a disorder of sexual development. That at least would make some sense. That speaker was downplaying those sexual differences in our skeletons in order to support the inane notion that when an archeologist digs up a human fossil, they totally can't tell at all what sex they were, but should instead be open to the idea that the skeleton might have had a different gender identity.

They got laughed at because it was an idiotic attempt to wedge an ideology into a lecture on a fairly scientific topic.

 

[Emily Lake]

I don't know why members of the audience were laughing but I suspect it had something to do with ignorance and dogma.

They're students, and he's a Black professor. It doesn't take much.

Seriously? A professor spreads misinformation to their students about skeletal difference between males and females of the human species... and you jump right over that as a reasonable basis for mockery and instead just assume racism?

Nah, bud. It's because he said a dumb thing and stuck to it.

 

[Emily Lake]

Well, if she's going to ask a scientist questions and mock them for their responses, she'd better learn to say what she means rather than "implying" it. And the answer only changes so much, in any case, as the sexing of a skeleton always requires guesswork. If you had a perfect specimen, you would certainly be able to state chromosomal sex with certainty as you would be able to sequence their genome, placing the individual within the six or eight (not two) commonly encountered patterns. You would also be able to make a guess of fairly high but not certain probability about hormonal and anatomical sex, and that probability would not be the same for all individuals or specimens. But that would not tell you whether someone socially identified as "a man", or "a woman", or some other term, nor whether they did so throughout their entire life. That's a question of cultural categorization, psychological conviction, and social interaction, so a skeleton alone cannot answer it for you.

HEre's the hard cold truth: 1000 years from now, nobody is going to give a flying fuck what subjective gender soul a person believed they had. No more so than we currently give a flying fuck about whether the ancient greek skeleton we dig up today actually really truly believe that Zeus was really, really real.

Nobody in anthropology is making assumptions about any skeleton's gendery soul. They're making observations about the skeleton's sex.

 

[Emily Lake]

So, apparently there are chemical methods involving tracking proteins that end up in the teeth.

I would say if the teeth contain some forensic evidence of systemic egg or sperm production you could at least get male/female. That's as far as it goes.

I know this because I was looking up the subject and apparently both of the two famous lovers buried together were male, or at least they were not female.

While the bones' rough shapes don't mean a thing, while DNA from the bones won't mean a thing necessarily, "chemicals only present due to egg production" or "chemicals only present during sperm production" being located inside the bones indicates a positive ID capability.

Link?

 

[Jarhyn]

At best it says "female because egg". It doesn't even necessarily imply "not male".

Absurd. IF egg THEN female. Get your basic logics right.

Except it isn't a binary. It's a four state class group with two boolean members comprising the states.

Further, the aspect of "female" speaks precisely as I said, to "egg"; you're trying to ridicule me for saying what you said, as if that's at all reasonable.

The point here is that you only have rights on account of "egg" against the inclusion of someone who has a readily produced chemical that interacts exactly and meaningfully with said eggs.

It only gets you the exclusion of sperms, not penises.

 

[Emily Lake]

I would say if the teeth contain some forensic evidence of systemic egg or sperm production you could at least get male/female. That's as far as it goes.

In other words, hormonal sex as I describe in the post above. There are a few clever ways of trying to guess at this, actually. For instance, if someone has given birth, they must have been hormonally female at birth as far as we know, and experience of pregnancy and birth often leaves quite a few clues on the skeleton. You may laugh - students often do - but this is often a means by which remains are sexed if no cranium is extant and pubic anatomy is otherwise indeterminate.

What is this new and shiny redefinition to support a belief system? "Hormonal sex"?

Seriously, are you trying to say that if a male takes testosterone suppressants and exogenous estrogen, they're also "hormonally female"? What the fuck is that even supposed to imply and why would it EVER matter?

 

[Jarhyn]

So, apparently there are chemical methods involving tracking proteins that end up in the teeth.

I would say if the teeth contain some forensic evidence of systemic egg or sperm production you could at least get male/female. That's as far as it goes.

I know this because I was looking up the subject and apparently both of the two famous lovers buried together were male, or at least they were not female.

While the bones' rough shapes don't mean a thing, while DNA from the bones won't mean a thing necessarily, "chemicals only present due to egg production" or "chemicals only present during sperm production" being located inside the bones indicates a positive ID capability.

Link?

Google "two lover skeleton grave gender teeth".

How fucking hard is it to validate an easy to find claim? The first article on Google from that search.

 

[Emily Lake]

If in fact the reason Professor Yearwood answered as he did was because he sincerely took the "a man and a woman" bit to mean that Gaines was asking him whether an archaeologist digging up two human skeletons could tell which person had identified as a man and which had identified as a woman, or was asking him whether the archaeologist could tell whether the humans would have been categorized by some unknown remote illiterate culture as man or woman, then Yearwood is an even more complete idiot than the transcript suggests he is. Gaines was plainly not asking him a question about gender identity or cultural gender.

Then she's illiterate on gender studies, as are you.

Nonetheless, there is no other kind of gender than that which is circumscribed by cultural assumptions and values. Gender is a social construction by nature.

FFS, "gender" as you refer to it has only been a concept for about 50 years. And the vast majority of humans on the planet are not referring to sacred gendery souls when they use the terms "man" and "woman", they're referring to the common terminology that we use to distinguish a human male from a human female.

Kind of the EXACT SAME WAY we use the terms "mare" and "stallion" to distinguish an equine female from an equine male.

 

[Jarhyn]

I would say if the teeth contain some forensic evidence of systemic egg or sperm production you could at least get male/female. That's as far as it goes.

In other words, hormonal sex as I describe in the post above. There are a few clever ways of trying to guess at this, actually. For instance, if someone has given birth, they must have been hormonally female at birth as far as we know, and experience of pregnancy and birth often leaves quite a few clues on the skeleton. You may laugh - students often do - but this is often a means by which remains are sexed if no cranium is extant and pubic anatomy is otherwise indeterminate.

What is this new and shiny redefinition to support a belief system? "Hormonal sex"?

Seriously, are you trying to say that if a male takes testosterone suppressants and exogenous estrogen, they're also "hormonally female"? What the fuck is that even supposed to imply and why would it EVER matter?

We have all explained several times the impact of hormones and the fine structures of the brain on behavior. These are in fact the only aspects of morphological differentiation that do, when considering the things "around" sex.

So IF you want to exclude "men" from women's bathrooms because "men behave badly towards women", this might hint at the reason why.

Thus, people who don't produce sperms and do have all the physiological pressures on their behavior of "Emily Lake" may still have penises.

So unless Emily Lake thinks that if someone waved some magic wand and she woke up with a penis tomorrow, and thinks that this would magically mean she would want to start using it to rape women in bathrooms, we can fairly well discern that her complaints can be addressed through hormone modifications and the re.oval of the ability to ejaculate sperms rather than through blanket banning everyone who was born with a penis.

Either way, Emily is wrong to believe this because penises don't "think" for people, their brains do their thinking and that thinking is impacted by hormonal action and the exact fine structure of the brain.

 

[Emily Lake]

So the vast majority of transgender people who do not fall under these very rare physical conditions have ZERO reason to even talk about those conditions when talking about the gender spectrum. Their original bodies are smack in the middle of one of the bimodal humps.

They're not bimodal humps. Sex isn't bimodal in humans, it's binary. Just as it is in all mammals.
If you're in doubt, then ask yourself a simple question: what is being MEASURED on the x-axis which results in a bimodal distribution? And then ask the follow-up question: What underlying assumption have you made which placed to distinct populations into a single category when you measured them?

For consideration... height is a sexually dimorphic trait in humans... but it is not actually sex itself. Height is measurable, it can be plotted on an x-axis. If you plot all adult humans and their heights, you'll get a bimodal distribution. You get this distribution, because there is an unaccounted for variable in your data set: sex. If you separate your population on the basis of sex, you no longer get a bimodal distribution. Instead you get two more or less gaussian distributions. In all except an extremely few cases, a bimodal distribution is an indicator that you have two distinct populations in your data set, not one.

It is a leaching that is similar to stolen valor for a fully male or female by birth transgender person to try to insinuate they are anything like an intersex person.

This is entirely true.

 

[Emily Lake]

So the vast majority of transgender people who do not fall under these very rare physical conditions have ZERO reason to even talk about those conditions when talking about the gender spectrum. Their original bodies are smack in the middle of one of the bimodal humps.

It is a leaching that is similar to stolen valor for a fully male or female by birth transgender person to try to insinuate they are anything like an intersex person.

This would be merely incorrect if it were an uninformed opinion. But as we have been discussing the science of sex and gender expression throughout this thread, it's hard to make the case that a post like this one is anything other than a lie.

How do you get to that conclusion?

The overwhelming majority of people who identify as transgender absolutely do NOT have a DSD condition. It's a peeve of mine that so many transgender activists use DSDs as some sort of magical gotcha in order to support their belief that gendery souls are more important than the material reality of sex. They basically say "Well, it's really hard for some very few people to be EASILY classified as male or female... therefore gendery souls should be used to separate sports and prisons and locker rooms!"

It's kind of like arguing that because Tigons and Ligers exist, then the differences between a tiger and a lion are totally imaginary... and therefore wolves are lions too.

 

[Jarhyn]

They're not bimodal humps. Sex isn't bimodal in humans, it's binary.

No, it isnt. It's a 4-state system:

People who produce sperms are males.

People who produce eggs are females.

People who produce both are both male and female.

People who produce neither are neither.

That is four states, so in fact TWO binaries.

As to man/woman, that's absolutely bimodal, and thus imaginary, unless accepted as "self-subscribed".

You have no right to special recognition or "valor" for being either a female or a woman.

None.

You can be proud all you want, but that pride does not make you special either. It is your pride, not an obligation for others to respect you or be deferential.

There is nothing of prestige to steal there and the fact that you think there is, would you a supremacist.

 

[Emily Lake]

Certainly. Two classes of males who can't be distinguished from females based on pelvis shape have been brought up: children and those with intersex conditions. Gaines specified in her question that she was talking about adults; intersex people are less than 2% of the population.

FYI...the less than 2% of adults who have a DSD, but less than 0.02% of humans have a DSD that results in any sort of genital ambiguity. The only DSDs that would result in a pelvis being misleading are those that prevent pubertal development.

 

[Emily Lake]

Those are the two things that matter and because it is "people with eggs" asking for a safe harbor, the only ethical demand of safe harbors that the production of a chemical structure -- the egg -- yields is against chemicals that react in non-agnostoc ways to eggs.

I really, really, really wish that you would stop dictating what it is that women (by which I mean female humans) are worried about. Divorce yourself of some patriarchy for a day or two.

 

[Emily Lake]

If by "private Humpty Dumpty language" you mean the correct use of terms, a college is exactly where you should expect to find your "Humpty Dumpty language" spoken. And as I have noted, his statement was correct however you interpret her question, even though I am equally certain that no anthropologist is going to make the mistake of assuming that "a man" and "biologically male" are synonyms. "A man" is fundamentally a social term, not a biological descriptor.

Only within about the last 50 years, and only commonly so for about the last 20... and even then, that's limited to a handful of countries, and within those countries only those few ivory tower academics who have lost touch with common usage of the terms.

Because for the vast majority of humans on the planet - even in the current era - man is synonymous with human male, and woman is synonymous with human female.

 

[Emily Lake]

And as you can't always determine biological sex from skeletal remains either, his answer is correct in any case, certainly not laughable.

It's laughable when he's effectively telling a room full of anthropology students that they can't tell the difference between a male and a female skeleton.