Split Gendered spaces, split from Drag Shows

[Jarhyn]

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.

Not true. You just admitted some percentage of humans have a "genital" abnormality. That in fact directly contradicts your later use of "only".

Even the idea that these are "disorders" reeks of essentialism.

 

[Emily Lake]

Thought here--what happens with the pelvic girdles of the guevedoces? Google is not giving me anything.

They're 5-ARD males. They develop male typical genitals and male typical skeletal and musculature at puberty. They are male, and are generally fertile at that.

IIRC, Caster Semenya is a 5-ARD male.

 

[Emily Lake]

Not entirely accurate. If one skeleton had a pelvic girdle that indicated a term or near term pregnancy, it would be possible to determine that the skeleton belonged to a female individual.

If one of the skeletons was female and had undergone puberty, it would be possible to tell it was a female skeleton.

 

[Jarhyn]

Thought here--what happens with the pelvic girdles of the guevedoces? Google is not giving me anything.

They're 5-ARD males. They develop male typical genitals and male typical skeletal and musculature at puberty. They are male, and are generally fertile at that.

IIRC, Caster Semenya is a 5-ARD male.

Some of them do, Some of them don't, Because sometimes that doesn't actually happen.

You keep making statements about what must happen because of what people are, rather than admitting that that's just your imagination, and sometimes it doesn't work out like that.

 

[Emily Lake]

No, it would be possible to determine that the the skeleton belonged to an individual whose body contained a fetus-sized mass in a similar position to a fetus.

Abdominal tumors do not change the shape or position of a male pelvis.

 

[Jarhyn]

Not entirely accurate. If one skeleton had a pelvic girdle that indicated a term or near term pregnancy, it would be possible to determine that the skeleton belonged to a female individual.

If one of the skeletons was female and had undergone puberty, it would be possible to tell it was a female skeleton.

You literally just admitted that for some small percentage of people, that's absolutely untrue. The quote of you contradicting this is at the top response on the page.

 

[Emily Lake]

Read my post. Then say the words "fetus sized mass". And then say the word "tumor".

As is said, conformity changes to the pelvic girdle as a direct result of pregnancy are not necessarily distinguishable from conformity changes to the pelvic girdle as a result of a massive sarcoma.

I am going to call baloney here.

If you disagree, please feel free to provide your medical reference for males whose pelvis has changed shape and position as a result of an abdominal tumor.

 

[Jarhyn]

No, it would be possible to determine that the the skeleton belonged to an individual whose body contained a fetus-sized mass in a similar position to a fetus.

Abdominal tumors do not change the shape or position of a male pelvis.

They do when those conformity changes are purely a result of the weight of a pregnancy on the pelvis, as the ones Toni suggested would be, as they were in relation specifically to pelvic conformity changes from the pregnancy itself.

 

[Emily Lake]

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".

As I said, reed moar bettar.

Let me remind you of the definition I am using: Males are those members of a species who are of the reproductive phenotype evolved to produce and deliver small gametes. Females are those members of a species who are of the reproductive phenotype evolved to produce and deliver large gametes.

This definition does not imply that any given individual within the species actually produces those gametes, only that they are of that reproductive phenotype. It doesn't even imply that every member of a sex has every single component of a given phenotype. What it implies is that there is not a third phenotype, nor is there a third gamete. There is not an in-between phenotype, because there is not an in-between gamete. The definition doesn't demand strict conformity, and it doesn't rule out developmental disorders, deformities, anomalies, or mutations. The definition doesn't imply that it is always easy to tell.

Your oversimplification of this to "makes eggs" is a false characterization of my position and the definition I've provided. That invalidates any argument that you make from your false premise.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

You know what the problem with your approach is? It makes an artificial (and frankly absurd) grouping which boils down to "fertile adult males" and "everybody else". By doing so, you are reinforcing, and indeed reifying the patriarchal bias in society. You relegate everyone to "other" status, and you don't think beyond that.

 

[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.

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

No, it is not. This is JARHYN's PET DEFINITION MADE UP BY JARHYN TO SUPPORT JARHYN'S PERSONAL BELIEF SYSTEM.

You don't get to humpty-dumpty your own meaning of things and then insist that everyone else accept your made-up belief system as if it were fact. Or even reasonable.

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.

Lol, okay. Thank you Mr. Patriarchy, for granting me rights based on "egg". FFS, talk about dehumanizing someone.

 

[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?

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.

How fucking hard is it to provide your own fucking links when you introduce something that you're using as evidence of your position? You do a lot of demanding that other people support their position, but you expect other people to do your work for you.

Also worth noting that the only reason the did the enamel peptide test in the first place was because the skeletons were so poorly preserved that the pelvises couldn't be examined to determine sex.

 

[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?

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.

I'm going to assume that you're aware that it's not solely hormone exposure involved in evolutionary behavioral differences. There's also an aspect of learned behavior, and there's the matter of physicality.

Removal of testosterone production from a male doesn't actually reduce their tendency toward aggression. Testosterone is a steroid, and to that extent it increases aggression. But that aggression via learned behavior is still there. And the physicality is still there to support actions by force.

There have been several studies that show that even post surgery, MtF transsexuals retain a male pattern of criminality and violence.

Also, for like the hundredth time, please STOP telling me what I want and what I believe. I don't want to ban "penises" and I don't want to ban "sperm" from female-only spaces. I want to ban MALES from those spaces.

I do not accept your definition of male as "someone who actively produces sperm". That is not the definition I use, and so far as I know it's not a definition that anybody other than you is using.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

You're just plain fucking wrong.

I can do nothing but laugh. You've just magically defined prebuscent males as not having a sex at all, as being neither male nor female. And you've magically defined sterile males as being sexless. And menopausal women too.

Yay you, I guess.

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

I don't care about your gendery claptrap. But please - tell me what is being measured on your x-axis in order to produce a bimodal distribution?

Self-subscribed is a synonym for "because I wish it to be so". And I neither care about nor accept your wishes.

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.

What the hell? This has no basis in this discussion at all.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Not true. You just admitted some percentage of humans have a "genital" abnormality. That in fact directly contradicts your later use of "only".

What the hell are you on about?

Even the idea that these are "disorders" reeks of essentialism.

Oh FFS, they are literally DISORDERS of sexual development. I didn't give them that name.

 

[Emily Lake]

Not entirely accurate. If one skeleton had a pelvic girdle that indicated a term or near term pregnancy, it would be possible to determine that the skeleton belonged to a female individual.

If one of the skeletons was female and had undergone puberty, it would be possible to tell it was a female skeleton.

You literally just admitted that for some small percentage of people, that's absolutely untrue. The quote of you contradicting this is at the top response on the page.

REED MOAR BETTAER

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]

No, it would be possible to determine that the the skeleton belonged to an individual whose body contained a fetus-sized mass in a similar position to a fetus.

Abdominal tumors do not change the shape or position of a male pelvis.

They do when those conformity changes are purely a result of the weight of a pregnancy on the pelvis, as the ones Toni suggested would be, as they were in relation specifically to pelvic conformity changes from the pregnancy itself.

Abdominal cancers are not pregnancies.

Again, if you wish to prove me wrong, simply provide your medical evidence of a male with an abdominal tumor which resulted in a change to their pelvis that made it indistinguishable from the typical shape of a female pelvis. That's all I'm asking for. Go on, supply your evidence.

 

[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.

How fucking hard is it to provide your own fucking links when you introduce something that you're using as evidence of your position? You do a lot of demanding that other people support their position, but you expect other people to do your work for you.

Also worth noting that the only reason the did the enamel peptide test in the first place was because the skeletons were so poorly preserved that the pelvises couldn't be examined to determine sex.

Except of course that as you point out, pelvises are not sex. You even point directly to the population for which it does not in a prior post.

And then you conveniently get amnesia about them

Again, you are the one asking for rights based on "egg".

It is not my fault that the rights that naturally flow from "egg" are exclusively "freedom from risk of sperms".

I'm going to assume that you're aware that it's not solely hormone exposure involved in evolutionary behavioral differences. There's also an aspect of learned behavior, and there's the matter of physicality.

Correct, the fine brain structure also plays a role. As to physicality, incorrect. Physicality is a function of hormone differentiated development through the period of puberty.

Removal of testosterone production from a male doesn't actually reduce their tendency toward aggression

Untrue, according to every farmer who has ever decided to castrate their steers.

There have been several studies that show that even post surgery, MtF transsexuals retain a male pattern of criminality and violence.

We saw that "evidence" up thread. The "evidence" we saw upthread indicated that this is NOT the case, as trans criminals are an order of magnitude less likely than being a MtF trans person.

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.

Not true. You just admitted some percentage of humans have a "genital" abnormality. That in fact directly contradicts your later use of "only".

What the hell are you on about?

Even the idea that these are "disorders" reeks of essentialism.

Oh FFS, they are literally DISORDERS of sexual development. I didn't give them that name.

This is explicitly you making an argumentum ad dictum.

Considering it that way does not make such considerations of "disorderedness" real any more than considering autism a learning "disability" disables an autistic person's ability to learn, necessarily.

All it does is establish that these phenotypes are uncommon. Reality is WYSIWYG. There is no "right" or "wrong", to include being reproductive or not.

REED MOAR BETTAER

0.02% of humans have a DSD that results in... genital ambiguity..

I did read it. You made no argument that ONLY (exclusively, 100%) people with incomplete puberty would be ambiguous, because you admitted right here that there is a residue group.

 

[Jarhyn]

No, it would be possible to determine that the the skeleton belonged to an individual whose body contained a fetus-sized mass in a similar position to a fetus.

Abdominal tumors do not change the shape or position of a male pelvis.

They do when those conformity changes are purely a result of the weight of a pregnancy on the pelvis, as the ones Toni suggested would be, as they were in relation specifically to pelvic conformity changes from the pregnancy itself.

Abdominal cancers are not pregnancies.

Again, if you wish to prove me wrong, simply provide your medical evidence of a male with an abdominal tumor which resulted in a change to their pelvis that made it indistinguishable from the typical shape of a female pelvis. That's all I'm asking for. Go on, supply your evidence.

You're reversing the burden of proof. You are the person claiming something is or possible (a sarcoma in the abdomen that results in the same weight distribution as Toni discussed producing mechanical and physical strains similar to pregnancy). Plenty of people have sarcomas. Sometimes those sarcomas are going to be abdominal.

Sometimes they will be in a place as to create similar changes in similar places as those caused by a pregnancy.

If such a sarcoma happens in a proto-uterine structure in some person who is male (produces sperm) or could very well turn out such a way.

Of course, you are the person who denies ovarian tissue and testicular tissue can occur in the same human being.

 

[Toni]

During pregnancy, a woman’s body produces a hormone called Relaxin which acts on the ligaments of the body, particularly the ones in the pelvic girdle, allowing it to expand to better accommodate the child during birth.

This does not happen in males, even those who have abdominal tumors.

Anthropologists can ascertain which skeletal remains belonged to a female and which belonged to a male based in the size and shape of pelvic girdle but also the size and length of bones and the placement t of attachment sites. They can differentiate between a female who has had a pregnancy beyond the first couple of months based upon the size and shape of her pelvic girdle which will differ from a female who has never been pregnant. There are differences between make and female bones, teeth, etc

None of this tells us how the individual lived or saw themselves.