Split Gendered spaces, split from Drag Shows

[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.

Except of course that as you point out, pelvises are not sex.

Please, please, please read this link:

Defining vs Determining Sex — Paradox Institute

Many often conflate two concepts in biology: how sex is defined versus how sex is determined. Here’s why the difference is important.

www.theparadoxinstitute.com

You repeatedly conflate determining sex with defining sex. Please learn the difference so that you can stop doing this.

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".

Please stop making up these things. I'm not asking for rights based on "egg". And I'm definitely not asking for "freedom from risk of sperm" Your inane mischaracterization is not my view, so stop telling me that it is.

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.

Castrated steers, while less aggressive than bulls, are still more aggressive than bulls.

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.

Do NOT edit my posts to make them say something different. It is dishonest.

 

[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.

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).

I have done no such thing. This was your claim. It's right there, in your own words, in your quote. I didn't even have to edit any of the words. It's your claim - you back it up.

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.

You're the one positing that this is possible, It's your claim. You support it. I am currently inclined to dismiss it out of hand as being nothing more than imagination.

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

False. Please stop misrepresenting what I have said.

 

[Jarhyn]

Please stop making up these things. I'm not asking for rights based on "egg". And I'm definitely not asking for "freedom from risk of sperm" Your inane mischaracterization is not my view, so stop telling me that it is.

You are asking for rights based on "female", so you are asking for rights based on "egg".

That's how it is. That's what the word means: "tissue produces eggs"

Eggs only imply a right to freedom from a risk of sperms getting on those eggs in an unwanted way.

That is all being female gets you.

If you are asking for something on the basis of "because you are female" and that thing is not explicitly "freedom from sperms", you are asking for something you have not justified your demand for as of yet.

If you want freedom from people "raised socially as men", that does not create a barrier against people born with penises.

If you want freedom from people "affected by testosterone", that does not create a barrier against people born with penises.

If you want freedom from people whose brains "operate as a man's does" that does not create a barrier against people with penises.

If you want freedom from people "influenced by testosterone", that does not create a barrier against people with penises.

You are attempting to defend a social policy which denies humans the power to decide which side of any of these barriers they will grow up on, I can only imagine because none of these things are actually what you want were you to "say the quiet part".

I expect you want a special place of honor. That's what I expect you want: some small manner of worship and deference from everyone because you are female, because you are a mother. You have no desert of it if so.

The moment you admit "Emily Lake will at some point have to accept that there are people born and raised, having never experienced either being raised as a 'man', the ability to produce sperm, nor long term exposure to testosterone, and yet who have penises, who have every bit as much right as she does to piss in the same room she usually pisses in, though not in the same place of that room at the same time," all this debate ends.

 

[Emily Lake]

Please stop making up these things. I'm not asking for rights based on "egg". And I'm definitely not asking for "freedom from risk of sperm" Your inane mischaracterization is not my view, so stop telling me that it is.

You are asking for rights based on "female", so you are asking for rights based on "egg".

Congratulations, you have decided that female children don't qualify for rights as females at all. You've also decided that menopausal and infertile women don't get rights. Very progressive of you.

That's how it is. That's what the word means: "tissue produces eggs"

Eggs only imply a right to freedom from a risk of sperms getting on those eggs in an unwanted way.

So let me get this straight... You're okay with rape as long as one of the parties involved is sterile?

That is all being female gets you.

If you are asking for something on the basis of "because you are female" and that thing is not explicitly "freedom from sperms", you are asking for something you have not justified your demand for as of yet.

If you want freedom from people "raised socially as men", that does not create a barrier against people born with penises.

If you want freedom from people "affected by testosterone", that does not create a barrier against people born with penises.

If you want freedom from people whose brains "operate as a man's does" that does not create a barrier against people with penises.

If you want freedom from people "influenced by testosterone", that does not create a barrier against people with penises.

You are attempting to defend a social policy which denies humans the power to decide which side of any of these barriers they will grow up on, I can only imagine because none of these things are actually what you want were you to "say the quiet part".

I expect you want a special place of honor. That's what I expect you want: some small manner of worship and deference from everyone because you are female, because you are a mother. You have no desert of it if so.

Stop telling me what I want. You are consistently wrong. And for like the fifth fucking time, I don't have kids.

The moment you admit "Emily Lake will at some point have to accept that there are people born and raised, having never experienced either being raised as a 'man', the ability to produce sperm, nor long term exposure to testosterone, and yet who have penises, who have every bit as much right as she does to piss in the same room she usually pisses in, though not in the same place of that room at the same time."

Tell you what. If I run across those two people on the planet, they can use the female toilet.

Now that I've got that minute possibility done, will you PLEASE stop telling me what I think? You keep getting it horribly and insultingly wrong.

 

[Jarhyn]

Congratulations, you have decided that female children don't qualify for rights as females at all. You've also decided that menopausal and infertile women don't get rights. Very progressive of you

Correct, female children have no special rights as children for being female, just as male children have no special rights for being male.

All humans have the same set of rights.

One of those rights that all humans have is the right to not be forced to become pregnant. It's a trivially easy right to offer some and it's a harder right to offer others, but everyone does in fact deserve that right.

If you wish to found some right specifically on a barrier that people cannot choose which side they are on, you will have to name the exact biological nature of the barrier (and WYSIWYG!), And show by principle why it is valid to your concern.

 

[ZiprHead]

Is Social Gender Transition Associated with Mental Health Status in Children and Adolescents with Gender Dysphoria? - Archives of Sexual Behavior

Social gender transition is an increasingly accepted intervention for gender variant children and adolescents. To date, there is scant literature comparing the mental health of children and adolescents diagnosed with gender dysphoria who have socially transitioned versus those who are still...

link.springer.com

Social gender transition is an increasingly accepted intervention for gender variant children and adolescents. To date, there is scant literature comparing the mental health of children and adolescents diagnosed with gender dysphoria who have socially transitioned versus those who are still living in their birth-assigned gender. We examined the mental health of children and adolescents referred to the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS), a specialist clinic in London, UK, who had socially transitioned (i.e., were living in their affirmed gender and/or had changed their name) versus those who had not socially transitioned. Referrals to the GIDS were aged 4–17 years. We assessed mental health correlates of living in one’s affirmed gender among 288 children and adolescents (208 birth-assigned female; 210 socially transitioned) and of name change in 357 children and adolescents (253 birth-assigned female; 214 name change). The presence or absence of mood and anxiety difficulties and past suicide attempts were clinician rated. Living in role and name change were more prevalent in birth-assigned females versus birth-assigned males. Overall, there were no significant effects of social transition or name change on mental health status. These findings identify the need for more research to understand how social transition influences mental health, including longitudinal studies that allow for more confident inferences to be made regarding the relationship between social transition and mental health in young people with gender dysphoria.

 

[Emily Lake]

Congratulations, you have decided that female children don't qualify for rights as females at all. You've also decided that menopausal and infertile women don't get rights. Very progressive of you

Correct, female children have no special rights as children for being female, just as male children have no special rights for being male.

All humans have the same set of rights.

One of those rights that all humans have is the right to not be forced to become pregnant. It's a trivially easy right to offer some and it's a harder right to offer others, but everyone does in fact deserve that right.

If you wish to found some right specifically on a barrier that people cannot choose which side they are on, you will have to name the exact biological nature of the barrier (and WYSIWYG!), And show by principle why it is valid to your concern.

I dunno. I'd say that humans have the right to NOT GET RAPED, regardless of whether pregnancy is a possibility. Call me crazy.

 

[Emily Lake]

Is Social Gender Transition Associated with Mental Health Status in Children and Adolescents with Gender Dysphoria? - Archives of Sexual Behavior

Social gender transition is an increasingly accepted intervention for gender variant children and adolescents. To date, there is scant literature comparing the mental health of children and adolescents diagnosed with gender dysphoria who have socially transitioned versus those who are still...

link.springer.com

Social gender transition is an increasingly accepted intervention for gender variant children and adolescents. To date, there is scant literature comparing the mental health of children and adolescents diagnosed with gender dysphoria who have socially transitioned versus those who are still living in their birth-assigned gender. We examined the mental health of children and adolescents referred to the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS), a specialist clinic in London, UK, who had socially transitioned (i.e., were living in their affirmed gender and/or had changed their name) versus those who had not socially transitioned. Referrals to the GIDS were aged 4–17 years. We assessed mental health correlates of living in one’s affirmed gender among 288 children and adolescents (208 birth-assigned female; 210 socially transitioned) and of name change in 357 children and adolescents (253 birth-assigned female; 214 name change). The presence or absence of mood and anxiety difficulties and past suicide attempts were clinician rated. Living in role and name change were more prevalent in birth-assigned females versus birth-assigned males. Overall, there were no significant effects of social transition or name change on mental health status. These findings identify the need for more research to understand how social transition influences mental health, including longitudinal studies that allow for more confident inferences to be made regarding the relationship between social transition and mental health in young people with gender dysphoria.

I'm not surprised.

For a substantial portion of the children recently referred for gender services, they had pre-existing mental health conditions. Their mental health struggles predated their newly found gender identities, enough so that a reasonable person would question whether or not they are actually transgender in the first place, or whether that was a coping mechanism employed to deal with underlying trauma and emotional distress.

The fact that there is no reduction in mental health distress when they socially transition seems reasonable, when one considers that they mental health distress wasn't caused by dysphoria in the first place.

It's like when I get a migraine. I can take as much acetaminophen/paracetamol or ibuprofen as I want and it's not going to help. Because the actual problem isn't inflammation of any sort at all. It's a neurological problem. The pain isn't in my head the same way that a headache is, the pain is an effect of false signals in my brain.

Treating the perceived symptom rarely fixes the problem, especially when the perception is off.

 

[Politesse]

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

Your post is mostly
correct, but while the relaxin produced by the ovaries is physiologically unique, it is not true that men do not produce it. It just has a very different effect on the male body than it does in women, acting for those with functioning testes as both a key driver of prostate development early on and, later, a motivating agent for sperm moticity and therefore increasing the likelihood of implantation during reproduction.

A good example of the way sex binary thinking leads to inappropriate somatic essentialism. I remember being told as a child that women had an extra pair of ribs relative to men, a very similar anatomical myth which is commonly spread about in the US for religious reasons. As I recall I spent an evening with a girl down the street, a fellow science geek, confusedly trying to count our ribs through our skin, for I trusted my grandfather implicitly but unable to square his claim with my own empirical observations. I wonder what my mom thought when she found the tally sheet lying around later!

The effects of testosterone on the physical body are many, sometimes subtle and sometimes profound, this is certainly true. But those with a y chromosome do not truly have a different anatomy than those who do not. There is always an analogic structure for every anatomical element, even if its gross structure varies by class, or it is performing a quite different function in the body.

 

[Toni]

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

Your post is mostly
correct, but while the relaxin produced by the ovaries is physiologically unique, it is not true that men do not produce it. It just has a very different effect on the male body than it does in women, acting for those with functioning testes as both a key driver of prostate development early on and, later, a motivating agent for sperm moticity and therefore increasing the likelihood of implantation during reproduction.

A good example of the way sex binary thinking leads to inappropriate somatic essentialism. I remember being told as a child that women had an extra pair of ribs relative to men, a very similar anatomical myth which is commonly spread about in the US for religious reasons. As I recall I spent an evening with a girl down the street, a fellow science geek, confusedly trying to count our ribs through our skin, for I trusted my grandfather implicitly but unable to square his claim with my own empirical observations. I wonder what my mom thought when she found the tally sheet lying around later!

The effects of testosterone on the physical body are many, sometimes subtle and sometimes profound, this is certainly true. But those with a y chromosome do not truly have a different anatomy than those who do not. There is always an analogic structure for every anatomical element, even if its gross structure varies by class, or it is performing a quite different function in the body.

I was only referring to Relaxin as it affects the skeletal system during pregnancy. It is possible to determine if the skeletal remains of a female has carried a pregnancy to term or close to term. These effects will not be present on a male skeleton.

Yes, there are analogous structures present in male and female bodies. While the full compliment of chromosomes is present at conception, there is no differentiation of gonads until about the 6th week of development.

I remember being shocked when my boyfriend/now husband actually believed that men had a different number of ribs than women--he was sure men were missing a rib. And he was raised in an atheist home.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

Your post is mostly
correct, but while the relaxin produced by the ovaries is physiologically unique, it is not true that men do not produce it. It just has a very different effect on the male body than it does in women, acting for those with functioning testes as both a key driver of prostate development early on and, later, a motivating agent for sperm moticity and therefore increasing the likelihood of implantation during reproduction.

A good example of the way sex binary thinking leads to inappropriate somatic essentialism. I remember being told as a child that women had an extra pair of ribs relative to men, a very similar anatomical myth which is commonly spread about in the US for religious reasons. As I recall I spent an evening with a girl down the street, a fellow science geek, confusedly trying to count our ribs through our skin, for I trusted my grandfather implicitly but unable to square his claim with my own empirical observations. I wonder what my mom thought when she found the tally sheet lying around later!

The effects of testosterone on the physical body are many, sometimes subtle and sometimes profound, this is certainly true. But those with a y chromosome do not truly have a different anatomy than those who do not. There is always an analogic structure for every anatomical element, even if its gross structure varies by class, or it is performing a quite different function in the body.

What part of your post here in any way suggests that an abdominal tumor in a male is going to cause their pelvis to change in the exact same way that relaxin during pregnancy does in women?

I'm inclined to say that Toni's post isn't "mostly" correct; in this context it's ENTIRELY correct.

 

[Toni]

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

Your post is mostly
correct, but while the relaxin produced by the ovaries is physiologically unique, it is not true that men do not produce it. It just has a very different effect on the male body than it does in women, acting for those with functioning testes as both a key driver of prostate development early on and, later, a motivating agent for sperm moticity and therefore increasing the likelihood of implantation during reproduction.

A good example of the way sex binary thinking leads to inappropriate somatic essentialism. I remember being told as a child that women had an extra pair of ribs relative to men, a very similar anatomical myth which is commonly spread about in the US for religious reasons. As I recall I spent an evening with a girl down the street, a fellow science geek, confusedly trying to count our ribs through our skin, for I trusted my grandfather implicitly but unable to square his claim with my own empirical observations. I wonder what my mom thought when she found the tally sheet lying around later!

The effects of testosterone on the physical body are many, sometimes subtle and sometimes profound, this is certainly true. But those with a y chromosome do not truly have a different anatomy than those who do not. There is always an analogic structure for every anatomical element, even if its gross structure varies by class, or it is performing a quite different function in the body.

What part of your post here in any way suggests that an abdominal tumor in a male is going to cause their pelvis to change in the exact same way that relaxin during pregnancy does in women?

I'm inclined to say that Toni's post isn't "mostly" correct; in this context it's ENTIRELY correct.

I just didn't include the ways that Relaxin affects men's bodies because it wasn't pertinent to my point: an anthropologist or a doctor can tell the difference between the skeletal remains of a female corpse who had carried a pregnancy to near term or given birth from the skeletal remains of a female corpse who had not carried a pregnancy to near term/given birth because Relaxin changes the pelvic girdle in anticipation of passing a human fetus. Otherwise, there just ain't room.

 

[Jarhyn]

I dunno. I'd say that humans have the right to NOT GET RAPED, regardless of whether pregnancy is a possibility. Call me crazy.

This is fundamentally an accusation that people with penises are automatically rapists, and the only people who can be rapists. You have a responsibility to filter out your prejudices.

My discussion, which you seemed to ignore, focused specifically on the fact that none of the barriers you propose actually isolate rapists, they isolate penis.

For example, none of them speak in any way to this girl: https://apnews.com/article/supreme-...est-virginia-64d2fd48678afb1a62e5eb84d7762c31

She has not been raised socially as a boy.

She has never experienced testosterone at higher-than-average-female-levels.

She will not produce sperms.

None of the barriers you might propose against her stand, and so continuing on "RAPIST" rhetoric has no basis.

She is already on your side of all the barriers you proposed.

There's no rapist there, under any of the factors you believe contribute to rape. You have no ethical grounds to exclude her.

And unless you feel comfortable walking into the other room at a sporting event to pee, I don't think it's reasonable to expect that of her either, especially based on the fact that she is not going to grow up with any visible signs beyond her genitals that she is any different from her female peers.

She has a penis, and she does not produce eggs. Those are not sufficient grounds to expel her from a space for the sake of excluding "rapists".

It's interesting though that you imply that allowing trans women to pee in the bathroom of their choice contributes to rape, though, when the evidence Loren has presented indicates this is not the case.

 

[Emily Lake]

I dunno. I'd say that humans have the right to NOT GET RAPED, regardless of whether pregnancy is a possibility. Call me crazy.

This is fundamentally an accusation that people with penises are automatically rapists, and the only people who can be rapists. You have a responsibility to filter out your prejudices.

My discussion, which you seemed to ignore, focused specifically on the fact that none of the barriers you propose actually isolate rapists, they isolate penis.

Well, it turns out that if you exclude males... you also exclude 99% of the rapists too!

You keep framing this as if there's some kind of parity, as if the rate of sexual assaults and rapes perpetrated by females is comparable to those perpetrated by males.

Which is, of course, irrelevant to your complete mischaracterization that the only reason females don't want males in their single-sex intimate spaces is because they might get pregnant.

So... What point do you think you're making here?

For example, none of them speak in any way to this girl: https://apnews.com/article/supreme-...est-virginia-64d2fd48678afb1a62e5eb84d7762c31

She has not been raised socially as a boy.

She has never experienced testosterone at higher-than-average-female-levels.

She will not produce sperms.

None of the barriers you might propose against her stand, and so continuing on "RAPIST" rhetoric has no basis.

She is already on your side of all the barriers you proposed.

Um... no. She's on the side of the barriers YOU keep trying to FORCE into being.

My barrier is based on sex. Not how a person was raised socially, not testosterone levels, not fertility of gametes. It's based on SEX. And that individual is MALE.

I will also note that you seem to be making some assumptions. I don't see anything in that article to indicate that 12-year old Pepper-Jackson has been raised as a girl throughout their entire childhood, nor to indicate that they do not have a higher level of testosterone than females in the same age group, nor to indicate that they will not ever be able to produce sperm. That appears to be something you've imagined.

If you have supporting evidence of your claims, please feel free to provide them.

There's no rapist there, under any of the factors you believe contribute to rape. You have no ethical grounds to exclude her.

Pepper-Jackson is male. That's my grounds for excluding a male from competing against females in a female league of sport.

I see no ethical grounds to allow males to colonize female sport, when they have ample access to both male sport and open sport already.

And unless you feel comfortable walking into the other room at a sporting event to pee, I don't think it's reasonable to expect that of her either, especially based on the fact that she is not going to grow up with any visible signs beyond her genitals that she is any different from her female peers.

She has a penis, and she does not produce eggs. Those are not sufficient grounds to expel her from a space for the sake of excluding "rapists".

It's interesting though that you imply that allowing trans women to pee in the bathroom of their choice contributes to rape, though, when the evidence Loren has presented indicates this is not the case.

<Edited>

My position is based on sex. The fact that one sex dominates the rates of sexual assault and rape is an element of my position, but it is not the only element. On the other hand, YOU are the one who keeps trying to force other people to reframe their entire position to fit your personal fixation on sperm and the possibility of pregnancy. The only reason I mentioned rape is because you keep attempting to disingenuously stuff words into my mouth, and you keep mischaracterizing my view as "women are worried about getting pregnant" with a lot of extra words for no good reason.

 

[Jarhyn]

Well, it turns out that if you exclude males... you also exclude 99% of the rapists too!

And if you exclude blacks at ATMs, you exclude the majority of people who commit violent crime.

You keep framing this as if there's some kind of parity, as if the rate of sexual assaults and rapes perpetrated by females is comparable to those perpetrated by males.

No, I don't frame it as a parity. I frame it as a system of behavior with physiological drivers (testosterone) which can be and are removed by the people who you toss unearned suspicion at.

Pepper-Jackson is male. That's my grounds for excluding a male from competing against females in a female league of sport.

And it is insufficient grounds to exclude her.

She has no benefit from competing as such. In fact, she's the worst athlete on the team.

Your essentialism is rank on this subject.

None of the drivers you referenced are present, yet you still vote to exclude her. It is clear you do it on ideological grounds rather than anything with a psychological or biological basis, and your ideology, the thoughts in your head, your imagination, is not sufficient to overcome that lack of basis.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

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

Funny story about that...

When somebody disputes the ignorant dogmatic opinion that men and women have observable skeletal differences, he gets laughed at. When somebody disputes the non-ignorant non-dogmatic opinion that transwomen are women,

Moment Riley Gaines is abused by trans activists viewed 450,000 times

Riley Gaines claims she was physically assaulted as protesters shut down her talk at San Francisco State University on Thursday.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You clearly don't know how to tell the difference between statistical categories which are imaginary (like data types) and things which are fundamental (like instruction types).

Data types are not statistical categories. Seriously, do you think there's some probabilistic uncertainty between integers and strings? Furthermore, this is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

I think he's thinking more along the lines of enums. Completely artificial.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

X axis is 100% female to 100% male. The intersexed make it not binary.

 

[Jarhyn]

You clearly don't know how to tell the difference between statistical categories which are imaginary (like data types) and things which are fundamental (like instruction types).

Data types are not statistical categories. Seriously, do you think there's some probabilistic uncertainty between integers and strings? Furthermore, this is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

I think he's thinking more along the lines of enums. Completely artificial.

I don't think she realizes that in the end, they aren't integers or floating points or pointers or booleans. They are BITS.

The compiler plays a game and artificially prevents you from treating a float pointer as an int pointer, but the architecture doesn't give a shit. It's just bits.

What determines whether it is an integer or a floating point number in an architecture is how the USER treats it.

The computer, the metaphor for reality in this case, is completely agnostic to that.

I can read a byte of something the user created with a string function as a short. Or even the full 4 bytes as a 16 bit signed integer

Gender operates similarly. It isn't really about the basic structure of the thing itself, but rather about how the viewer decides to apply what they see.

In reality, the idea that some piece of data IS an integer is entirely imaginary. It's not an integer. It's bits. When you operate on bits with integer operations, the operations result in a particular outcome. When you choose to operate on those SAME bits with floating point operations... Different outcomes occur.

As a software engineer I have to figure out how people are using a piece of anonymous data sometimes. It is not to say that it is not still just bits, but rather statistically "in 59% of uses, it is used as an unsigned integer, but in 40% it's used as a bool."

I can make gambles then in how I will see it used, but that doesn't free me from the reality that somewhere else, they may be using it as a signed integer or even as a fixed point fractional value.

It is only exactly what it is: bits.

Similarly, people are not really "men" and "women". They are each a unique pile of chemicals at a unique location in the universe, and WYSIWYG.

 

[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?

X axis is 100% female to 100% male. The intersexed make it not binary.

How does one measure "female"? What is the quantifiable basis being used? How female is your wife, or your mom? How male are you?