Mississippi Passes "More Dead Kids Please" bill. Texas responds w/ "hold my beer"

[Jarhyn]

The only right implied by "female" are rights directly driven from "egg", because that's what female means biologically.

No. This is the made-up-by Jarhyn definition that you personally keep pushing. This is NOT what female means biologically.

Every single thing you post which derives from your personal made-up humpty-dumpty premise is fallacious.

You deciding to shoehorn everything into binary categories doesn't make it so.

All you need to do in order to prove that sex in mammals is NOT binary is to show me a single example of a mammal that has a reproductive anatomy that has clearly evolved to produce a third type of gamete, or one that has evolved to produce a sperg.

Go on. I'll wait.

It is not binary because it does not have two options, it has four:

Male
Female
Both
Neither

Binary means two options.

2 =/= 4

 

[Emily Lake]

The only right implied by "female" are rights directly driven from "egg", because that's what female means biologically.

No. This is the made-up-by Jarhyn definition that you personally keep pushing. This is NOT what female means biologically.

Every single thing you post which derives from your personal made-up humpty-dumpty premise is fallacious.

You deciding to shoehorn everything into binary categories doesn't make it so.

All you need to do in order to prove that sex in mammals is NOT binary is to show me a single example of a mammal that has a reproductive anatomy that has clearly evolved to produce a third type of gamete, or one that has evolved to produce a sperg.

Go on. I'll wait.

It is not binary because it does not have two options, it has four:

Male
Female
Both
Neither

Binary means two options.

2 =/= 4

Please show me any mammal that has a reproductive anatomy that has clearly evolved to produce both gametes. Not a case of a developmental disorder, but where it is clear that the anatomy has evolved to do exactly that - produce both gametes. I'll give you either in parallel or sequentially.

Please show me any mammal that has a reproductive anatomy that has clearly evolved to produce no gametes. Not a case of a developmental disorder, but where it is clear that the anatomy has evolved to do exactly that - produce no gametes at all.

 

[Jarhyn]

Please show me any mammal that has a reproductive anatomy that has clearly evolved to produce both gametes.

This assumes one of the fundamental errors most often made about evolution: that it has goals.

This in and of itself invalidates any attempt at a point you were trying to make because evolution does not have goals.

Every intersex person who produces both gametes "evolved to produce" both gametes.

That's what evolution is. That's how it works.

Reality doesn't have a concept of a "disorder" or "real purpose" or any of that.

What you see is what you get.

There is no "right" biology.

There is no "wrong" biology.

There is only the biology that happens, and whether or not it sticks around.

You are engaging in yet another no-true-scotsman fallacy, as you fail to understand that you can't exclude things that exist merely because you wish to imagine that it is a disorder.

There are two concepts of "disorder": one driven by the same fevered imagination that statistical imaginaries advise towards essentialization of the statistical model, and the other concept instead relying on the actual person's opinion about which order of arrangement people want vs which order order of arrangement people have.

There is no purpose to life, other than the purposes we give ourselves, or the usefulness we find.

To that end, someone born with testicles and the desired order of not-testicles has a disorder of "having testicles when I do not want them, and the noise they create in my brain is intolerable!"

Obviously to re-order the system to resolve the conflict, they can either do complex brain surgery to change they are and probably not survive the process, or remove the source of the intolerable noise.

This of course takes a fairly different view of what a disorder MUST be in light of the realization that "evolution" doesn't care.

This then supports an argument to move to a "post-normal" society, one where expectations of normalcy are abandoned, even though most people will continue to cluster around statistical normals.

The idea is to remove artificial forcing towards any particular state, so long as the removal doesn't remove the ability of the persons looking at it to seek their own personal orderings, at which point a conflict resolution and compromise is necessary.

 

[Elixir]

This assumes one of the fundamental errors most often made about evolution: that it has goals.

True. Thing is, WE have goals that we like to impose on evolution, and we tend to reject outcomes that are inconsistent with the goals we impose as “aberrations“.
In a perfect world we would equally honor outcomes that conform to and those that vary from the “standards” we impose (consciously or otherwise) on evolution. But we don’t. Humans are tribalist, xenophobic little creatures that try to make nature yield to our wishes. We even elect presidents that claim “superior genes”, as if such things actually exist. That reality isn’t going to change any time soon.

 

[Jarhyn]

This assumes one of the fundamental errors most often made about evolution: that it has goals.

True. Thing is, WE have goals that we like to impose on evolution, and we tend to reject outcomes that are inconsistent with the goals we impose as “aberrations“.
In a perfect world we would equally honor outcomes that conform to and those that vary from the “standards” we impose (consciously or otherwise) on evolution. But we don’t. Humans are tribalist, xenophobic little creatures that try to make nature yield to our wishes. We even elect presidents that claim “superior genes”, as if such things actually exist. That reality isn’t going to change any time soon.

Well, it depends on the human, I think.

At best we can hold a mirror up to those who act that way.

 

[Elixir]

This assumes one of the fundamental errors most often made about evolution: that it has goals.

True. Thing is, WE have goals that we like to impose on evolution, and we tend to reject outcomes that are inconsistent with the goals we impose as “aberrations“.
In a perfect world we would equally honor outcomes that conform to and those that vary from the “standards” we impose (consciously or otherwise) on evolution. But we don’t. Humans are tribalist, xenophobic little creatures that try to make nature yield to our wishes. We even elect presidents that claim “superior genes”, as if such things actually exist. That reality isn’t going to change any time soon.

Well, it depends on the human, I think.

At best we can hold a mirror up to those who act that way.

We ALL act that way - or at least have the impulse to do so (it once provided a reproductive advantage). To discuss the human condition we must consider humans collectively. And collectively, we reflexively turn away from mirrors that show our individual variances from the self-imposed evolutionary “ideal” we imagine.
This is not to disparage or discourage individual introspection, but just to remind that we can only do that for ourselves, not for anyone else.

 

[Jarhyn]

This assumes one of the fundamental errors most often made about evolution: that it has goals.

True. Thing is, WE have goals that we like to impose on evolution, and we tend to reject outcomes that are inconsistent with the goals we impose as “aberrations“.
In a perfect world we would equally honor outcomes that conform to and those that vary from the “standards” we impose (consciously or otherwise) on evolution. But we don’t. Humans are tribalist, xenophobic little creatures that try to make nature yield to our wishes. We even elect presidents that claim “superior genes”, as if such things actually exist. That reality isn’t going to change any time soon.

Well, it depends on the human, I think.

At best we can hold a mirror up to those who act that way.

We ALL act that way - or at least have the impulse to do so (it once provided a reproductive advantage). To discuss the human condition we must consider humans collectively. And collectively, we reflexively turn away from mirrors that show our individual variances from the self-imposed evolutionary “ideal” we imagine.
This is not to disparage or discourage individual introspection, but just to remind that we can only do that for ourselves, not for anyone else.

Well, the issue comes when people fail to seek the reasonable compromise based on the state of reality.

I'm going to keep pushing for a society that can recognize the importance of, and ability to be by-in-large "post-normal", against the fierce opposition of people who would rather our society become "post-truth".

 

[Elixir]

I fully support those who plot their own course, even if they are tacking into the winds of social norms. But I do not entertain those feigning surprise that such a course is much slower and more difficult than setting a spinnaker and racing downwind. Of course it is; that’s nobody‘s fault, it’s just a feature in the evolutionary landscape. Knowing that doesn’t make it easier, but it does heighten resolve.

 

[Bomb#20]

Please show me any mammal that has a reproductive anatomy that has clearly evolved to produce both gametes.

This assumes one of the fundamental errors most often made about evolution: that it has goals.

This in and of itself invalidates any attempt at a point you were trying to make because evolution does not have goals.

Every intersex person who produces both gametes "evolved to produce" both gametes.

You know you just contradicted yourself, don't you?

That's what evolution is. That's how it works.

Wrong. No intersex person who produces both gametes "evolved to produce" both gametes. Every species evolved. Every gene evolved. Individuals did not evolve.

Reality doesn't have a concept of a "disorder" or "real purpose" or any of that.

The "evolved to" concept and the "disorder" concept do not imply, rely on, or in any way involve the "it has goals" concept or the "real purpose" concept or any of that. Emily did not claim evolution has a purpose. Biological elements of reality have functions even when carrying out that function is nothing's goal, simply because long ago genes that made something nonfunctional didn't reproduce and left a niche open for genes that made something functional.

What you see is what you get.

And it is perfectly wysiwyg to observe that a heart's function is to pump blood. To dispute that is pretty much equivalent to stipulating that the creationists are right about 747s and hurricanes.

You are engaging in yet another no-true-scotsman fallacy, as you fail to understand that you can't exclude things that exist merely because you wish to imagine that it is a disorder.

There are two concepts of "disorder": one driven by the same fevered imagination that statistical imaginaries advise towards essentialization of the statistical model, and the other concept instead relying on the actual person's opinion about which order of arrangement people want vs which order order of arrangement people have.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

 

[Bomb#20]

Of course, actual philosophy about "ought" starts with "ought", because "is" won't get you there without a goal.

it's a statement of means-ends rationality, not a statement of ethics

You make a stunning and foolish declaration that means/ends logic fails to ever become a statement of ethics in any framework wherein there is a methodology for reducing the set of all goals to the set of ethical goals.

Um, reducing the set of all goals to the set of ethical goals necessarily involves identifying some goal as unethical. To identify a goal as unethical is to determine that it's a goal an agent ought not to have. But according to your theory, "oughts" depend on goals. Your theory has an infinite regress problem.

This is common among people who do not want to acknowledge that not all goals are acceptable, or to acknowledge there is a systematic way for determining which goals are appropriate or not, and for those who do not wish to acknowledge that all goals not so forbidden are universally acceptable.

Yes, yes, we all know you're very fond of inventing fictional thought processes and imputing them to those who point out your errors. Of course not all goals are acceptable, and of course there is a systematic way for determining which goals are appropriate or not, and of course it does not rely on regress to some higher level goal, because a goal isn't adequate to get from an "is" to an ethical "ought".

Of course, I completely ignored that whole conversation because it is not pertinent here.

Hey, you're the one who jumped to meta-ethics when you imagined it supported your position in an ethics debate. People who do that almost always do it because they spot some meta-ethical weakness in an opponent's ethical argument that they erroneously imagine their own arguments are immune to. If you want to pursue the matter, feel free to start a thread in M&P.

What is pertinent is that "is" informs "ought" through strategic requirements based on goals.

If you want to discuss whether the goal itself is appropriate, you have to actually take your time to work out the paradox of tolerance,

It's not that hard to work out. Paradoxes aren't true. Russell's Paradox doesn't show there's a set that both does and does not contain itself; it shows the theory it arises in is just wrong. "Paradox of tolerance" is a self-deceptive slogan McCarthyists use to pat themselves on the back about how tolerant they are while they're acting intolerantly.

and the principles that forbid unilateral actions which create goal conflicts,

No such principle is correct. Ethics is not a genetic suicide pact. Unilateral actions which create goal conflicts are an intrinsic characteristic of the very mechanism that brought ethics into existence: sexual reproduction. When parents have two children, it's in the interests of child A to get the lion's share of parental investment, shortchanging child B. It's in the interests of child B to get the lion's share of parental investment, shortchanging child A. And it's in the interests of the parents to invest in their children equally. This is why one of the earliest ethical lessons parents have to teach toddlers is sharing with their siblings. The only way for parents to avoid unilateral actions which create goal conflicts is to have only one child. A sexual species that does that dies out. So unless you can exhibit an asexually reproducing species complex enough to evolve ethics, your proposed ethical principle is self-defeating.

and the concept of consent to response through action.

Word salad.

 

[Jarhyn]

You know you just contradicted yourself, don't you?

Please attempt one more time to read the statement. "Evolved to produce" does not imply goals, just the actual product. It evolved (reproduced and mutated over generations), and the result produced, without any intent, that product.

Wrong. No intersex person who produces both gametes "evolved to produce" both gametes. Every species evolved. Every gene evolved. Individuals did not evolve.

Read my above statement to your inability to parse.

Biological elements of reality have functions even when carrying out that function is nothing's goal, simply because long ago genes that made something nonfunctional didn't reproduce and left a niche open for genes that made something functional

This is still descriptive, not prescriptive. They do what they do, they are not required to do it except by sheer momentum of what they are, the accident of their absurd configuration.

There is no prescription, no goal there, just raw behavior.

And it is perfectly wysiwyg to observe that a heart's function is to pump blood.

Except that it isn't. The heart's function when connected will be contracting it's muscles. When those muscles are connected in a way, it will accomplish pumping fluid, but that has nothing to do with the function of the systems of the heart. When that system is connected to a vascular system full of blood, it will accomplish pumping blood.

But what it accomplishes and what it's function is are two different things.

Um, reducing the set of all goals to the set of ethical goals necessarily involves identifying some goal as unethical

And I have, repeatedly, discussed this boundary of what makes unethical goals unethical, namely unilateral imposition. If you want to discuss ethics in terms of goals I will, but this is not the thread for that. That belongs in M&P.

There is no such infinite regress as you claim because the concept stops at a point of consent but again, that's a M&P topic, not a PD topic.

Unilateral actions which create goal conflicts are an intrinsic characteristic of the very mechanism that brought ethics into existence: sexual reproduction

No, sexual reproduction does not inform ethics. Sexual reproduction informs solipsism.

Memetic reproduction informs ethics.

 

[Toni]

The only right implied by "female" are rights directly driven from "egg", because that's what female means biologically.

No. This is the made-up-by Jarhyn definition that you personally keep pushing. This is NOT what female means biologically.

Every single thing you post which derives from your personal made-up humpty-dumpty premise is fallacious.

You deciding to shoehorn everything into binary categories doesn't make it so.

All you need to do in order to prove that sex in mammals is NOT binary is to show me a single example of a mammal that has a reproductive anatomy that has clearly evolved to produce a third type of gamete, or one that has evolved to produce a sperg.

Go on. I'll wait.

It is not binary because it does not have two options, it has four:

Male
Female
Both
Neither

Binary means two options.

2 =/= 4

Not really. All mammals have 2 kidneys. That is the norm. Of course some people lose a kidney through disease or injury.

And some people are like me: they have 3 kidneys. This is a fairly rare condition and for individuals like me, me, having two fully functioning left kidneys, one located cranial with respect to the other in the usual position, in addition to a single, fully functioning normal right kidney, is even more rare, both because of the placement of the extra kidney and because I am female.

I am fully human, even though I have an extra organ. Individuals with trisomy conditions are fully human even if they have an extra copy of a chromosome. There are many such anomalies that do not take away from the fact that humans have 2 kidneys and 26 chromosomes. There are exceptions. These exceptions are not examples of a third or fourth type of human.

Humans are sexually dimorphism, even though there are exceptions to this. Some few individuals are intersex. As far as I know, there are zero cases of human beings who were born with no sex.

Sexuality, that is, feelings of sexual impulse and desire may be directed towards male, female, both, neither or towards individuals regardless of sex or gender, which is different than being attracted to male and female partners.

 

[Jarhyn]

Not really. All mammals have 2 kidneys.

No. Some mammals have 3, some mammals have 1, some mammals have 4, even ones with 3 or 1 or 4 are rare. I am a mammal. You are a mammal. Loren is a mammal. As you say, you have three kidneys so not all mammals have three kidneys.

Technically "mammal" is an arbitrarily selected group, here, but we can fairly well whittle it down to a true statement about common descent within the group, that not all of us have exactly two kidneys. As soon as you start trying to compare statistical normals, though, and try to exclude people from a group of common descent because they stand as an outlier from normal, you lose it.

You are making the same mistake though in letting yourself think biology has anything prescriptive going on. What you see is what you get.

There is no right and there is no wrong other than what people decide is right for themselves, as far as bodies go. There are some rights and wrongs to be found elsewhere in the discussion of behavior, but that's something that really deserves it's own treatment, philosophically speaking.

It's true to say mammals have 2 kidneys +/- some small decimal @ 1 standard deviation unit. But you said "all" have exactly 2.

Some individual types have wider standard deviations. Some types have smaller standard deviations.

Humans are sexually dimorphism,

No, they aren't. "Humans" are as a sea of individuals, each one with their own subjective experience and environmentally driven arbitrary differences.

Some as you note have three kidneys.

Some have one particular mix & match of hormones, genital, gonadal location, gamete production, and brain configuration, and hormonal receptor prevalence. Some have a different mix of them.

I think it's quite important when discussing the reality of trans folks and their needs,.we acknowledge that there is no right or wrong, order or disorder, except that which disrupts the order we seek in our lives, and that which runs roughshod against the power of self determination and right of others to withhold consent for that which abridges their goals.

 

[Toni]

Not really. All mammals have 2 kidneys.

No. Some mammals have 3, some mammals have 1, some mammals have 4, even ones with 3 or 1 or 4 are rare. I am a mammal. You are a mammal. Loren is a mammal. As you say, you have three kidneys so not all mammals have three kidneys.

Technically "mammal" is an arbitrarily selected group, here, but we can fairly well whittle it down to a true statement about common descent within the group, that not all of us have exactly two kidneys. As soon as you start trying to compare statistical normals, though, and try to exclude people from a group of common descent because they stand as an outlier from normal, you lose it.

You are making the same mistake though in letting yourself think biology has anything prescriptive going on. What you see is what you get.

There is no right and there is no wrong other than what people decide is right for themselves, as far as bodies go. There are some rights and wrongs to be found elsewhere in the discussion of behavior, but that's something that really deserves it's own treatment, philosophically speaking.

It's true to say mammals have 2 kidneys +/- some small decimal @ 1 standard deviation unit. But you said "all" have exactly 2.

Some individual types have wider standard deviations. Some types have smaller standard deviations.

Humans are sexually dimorphism,

No, they aren't. "Humans" are as a sea of individuals, each one with their own subjective experience and environmentally driven arbitrary differences.

Some as you note have three kidneys.

Some have one particular mix & match of hormones, genital, gonadal location, gamete production, and brain configuration, and hormonal receptor prevalence. Some have a different mix of them.

I think it's quite important when discussing the reality of trans folks and their needs,.we acknowledge that there is no right or wrong, order or disorder, except that which disrupts the order we seek in our lives, and that which runs roughshod against the power of self determination and right of others to withhold consent for that which abridges their goals.

No, you are deliberately misunderstanding me. Mammals have 2 kidneys. Google how many kidneys do mammals have and you will find that mammals have 2 kidneys. The fact that there are excelptiins among individual mammals —not mammal species, but a very tiny number of individuals -does not refute the veracity of the statenent that mammals have 2 kidneys.

Every organism has exceptions within its population.

You keep stating that certain terms have arbitrary meanings. You are incorrect as far as biology goes. Arbitrary means based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. Taxonomy is highly organized based on a system using specific criteria: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. This is the opposite of arbitrary. Organ systems are defined and named in ways that describe their location, shape, function. Humans have devoted a great deal of time and effort to describe in a methodical and organized way how the human body is organized, how every organism known is organized and how they all function.

This does not say anything at all about the existence of trans individuals, their value as human beings, their needs, wants, rights, which certainly are equal to the
value, needs, wants and rights of every other human being.

When we describe human being, we describe the standard issue human, but also understand that having a slightly different array of chromosomes or an extra kidney or two or double eyelashes, or an extra digit or four or extra nipples or the dozens of other things —including very occasionally both male and female sex organs, that make us each a unique individual but do not make us less human.

We know that for thousands of years, some societies have recognized that some individuals do not look like or behave in a way that is consistent with what is considered make or considered female. It’s time we recognized that wisdom and embraced humanity in all of its various forms, genders, gender expression, and so forth.

 

[Jarhyn]

No, you are deliberately misunderstanding me. Mammals have 2 kidneys

No, I'm not deliberately misunderstanding you. I am being pendantic because we must be painfully, pendantically correct when discussing anything that could be mistakenly applied as being prescriptive.

Google how many kidneys do mammals have and you will find that mammals have 2 kidneys.

No, I will find many people making a "close to correct statement" because they don't have the time or desire to make the correct statement, and because it is hard to know the exactly correct statement to make.

When talking about populations, there is always an implied error, and the people who say there is not are not simply wrong.

The fact that there are excelptiins among individual mammals —not mammal species, but a very tiny number of individuals -does not refute the veracity of the statenent that mammals have 2 kidneys.

Yes, it does. It is literally disproof by counterexample.

We have to be pendantic here about this in this way because someone is trying to use central tendency to be prescriptivist.

As soon as the exception is accepted into the tacit use of language, and the idea is acknowledged as not actually allowing prescriptivism, then we can get back to using the "sloppy", easy less pendantic language, because it will have been acknowledged that cannot prescribe towards forcing of "norms".

Then this will get dragged right back out again the next time some idiot comes by saying "look at these norms they matter and they are all that exists, this is what humans ARE, man and woman..." And we have to disabuse them of that neive view of reality.

Every organism has exceptions within its population.

No, every organism is itself.. the population is not the organism, and while the existence of the population gives the animal abilities and options and contextual powers and freedoms and knowledge of many of the different possible survivable orderings of matter, it does not advise what it ought be.

That can only be advised from or through the inside of the mind of the organism.

You keep stating that certain terms have arbitrary meanings. You are incorrect as far as biology goes. Arbitrary means based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system

The problem is that "arbitrariness", much like "constness", a programming concept, touches everything right down the line. It's an infectious sticky thing.

If there is anything arbitrarily decided about the structure of the system, anything that arbitrary decision touches is also arbitrary.

Now, I have already said that the one non-arbitrary thing here is that there is a fixed history of descent, and that can be used to isolate historical, ancestral brachiations of the "tree of life". We have ended up with several islands of groups with a reproductive set, after all. You can point to that, but at best this gives you the ability to make an arbitrary selection of a population based on common descent of some arbitrarily selected precursor group.
it just happens that there's a group that can be selected in many cases which "bottlenecks".

When we describe human being, we describe the standard issue human

Which is to say, an object of our imaginations, of an accidental quirk of statistics, a strange being with ~2 kidneys rather than 2 kidneys, ~1 testicle, ~1 ovary, ~2.5 inches of phallus, ~1 grown breast...

Or if you want to separate on modes rather than means, ~2 kidneys, ~2tesrickes or ~2 ovaries, ~5 inces of phallus or ~.5 inches of phallus, ~0 breasts (>0)/~2 breasts...

These are not real objects or persons. They are figments of the statistics, accidents rather than prescriptions.

The sooner we move to a post-normal world the better.

[Things can] make us each a unique individual but do not make us less human.

Correct, because what is meaningfully "human" is "a thing that descended from these things and not other things". That doesn't tell us anything about what "things which descended from these things" "should be" or "are" other than "descended from those things".

Still there is the utter lack of any reality to this platonic organism, it's just a statistical normal.

We have to be very careful about that, because it means that "enforcing norms with respect to conforming them toward a those norms" is not actually prescribed by the calculation of the norm.

We know that for thousands of years, some societies have recognized that some individuals do not look like or behave in a way that is consistent with what is considered make or considered female. It’s time we recognized that wisdom and embraced humanity in all of its various forms, genders, gender expression, and so forth.

This, however, I agree with. This group is in reality "literally everyone" because the center of the modes are imaginary statistical objects, and while "male" and "female" are not because some scientist had the clever ideas of basing it on production of a structure.

This would technically make a machine that consists of a single human ovary, and a machine to keep it functioning and producing eggs, a "human woman", which is kind of hilarious the term can stretch that far.

When we can see the limitations of the use of the idea of "male" and "female" clearly, when we can see the purely imaginary nature of "man" and "woman" clearly as imaginary statistical groups then we can get past the things which stem from the prescriptivism.

Even so, we MUST disabuse ourselves of the notion that that "mammals have 2 kidneys". If I am going to use "human" as "a mammal", that number is not going to be exactly two, specifically because you have three.

 

[Toni]

No, I'm not deliberately misunderstanding you. I am being pendantic because we must be painfully, pendantically correct when discussing anything that could be mistakenly applied as being prescriptive.

No you simply are being pedantic because it serves your particular purpose. Trust me, if you find yourself in acute medical distress, with lower back pain on one side and a fever, you will not want a physician who is not aware that is the location of kidneys and who will examine you and screen for a kidney infection, even if you've never had a kidney infection. Or who will absolutely realize that if you have acute abdominal pain and fever on the left side of your body that it is most likely not appendicitis but diverticulitis, and who will conduct the appropriate exams, and order the appropriate tests and if needed, the appropriate medications, give the appropriate follow up, etc.

Yes, humans are individuals and have individual quirks in their anatomies, usually of no medical significance. YES medicine is moving more towards individualized medicine, gearing treatment, particularly cancer treatment, for the exact genetics of the individual and of the cancer itself. That does NOT mean that the medical team throws out all known knowledge about how the body works and invents medicine from scratch. If that were the case, an awful lot of us would die rather than recover.

No, I will find many people making a "close to correct statement" because they don't have the time or desire to make the correct statement, and because it is hard to know the exactly correct statement to make.

You wont' find this an issue if you go to a reliable website.

The fact that there are excelptiins among individual mammals —not mammal species, but a very tiny number of individuals -does not refute the veracity of the statenent that mammals have 2 kidneys.

Yes, it does. It is literally disproof by counterexample.

When one uses a general term such as human or tree or dog, one does not mean that every single example of human, tree, dog is identical. One means that is true with some exceptions.
Supernumerary kidneys (or other organs) is the exception and does NOT negate the fact that humans and indeed, mammals, have two kidneys. With an occasional exception in an individual of any given species.

Every organism is itself, sure, but every organism is also bound by laws of nature. We can all be as individual as we like but we'd best avoid eating rat poison or jumping off of high buildings or pointing a loaded gun at our heads and pulling the trigger because however unique we are, however we stray from the norm, we will still be gravely injured or killed.

kidneys being one.

 

[Jarhyn]

No you simply are being pedantic because it serves your particular purpose

And seeing as my particular purpose is to expose the reality of the imaginal nature of "normals", I think I squarely accomplish my goals that way.

Trust me, if you find yourself in acute medical distress, with lower back pain on one side and a fever, you will not want a physician who is not aware that is the location of kidneys

This is again based on a flawed understanding of what it is that I want.

Rather, I want a doctor that knows ALL the various locations of a kidney, and how that material reality impacts the organisms who display such results. Ideally, I would prefer they take an image of me so that they know where my kidneys are and how many of them I have.

In this case, I would like them to start with where they imagine my kidney might be, what they imagine my problem could be resulting from, and then who IMAGES the situation to find out the reality from what is really just an "educated guess".

That does NOT mean that the medical team throws out all known knowledge about how the body works

Rather, "how various people's bodies work", as there is no "platonic body". Again as soon as you acknowledge the fact that it's a truism and not a truth, we can get to discussing it in terms of post-normal thinking.

This shows all of the orderings of flesh and the physiological results of those orderings, and informs different orders that may be imposed based on general mechanical principles.

This is not actually "how the body works" per SE, but how the body MAY work, selecting one of those ways off a menu of options, and applying it to a given body.

When one uses a general term such as human or tree or dog, one does not mean that every single example of human, tree, dog is identical. One means that is true with some exceptions.

Except that it isn't "true with exceptions". It's simply not true, because there is no prescription built in nature other than "what you see is what you get".

Supernumerary kidneys (or other organs) is the exception and does NOT negate the fact that humans and indeed, mammals, have two kidneys.

Except that it really DOES negate that view. Mammals have ~2 kidneys. Mammals do not have exactly 2 kidneys, they have ~2.

Any expression that they DO, factually, have 2, is special pleading which ignores the "exceptions".

Humans have perhaps 2+. Dogs perhaps have 2-. Together the group of humans and dogs may have 2+. And so on. That's how statistics actually work, with a great deal of truncation for brevity.

 

[Toni]

This is my kidney infection journey:

I had a 24 hr. Stomach bug, with…explosive symptoms. Initial symptom began while attending a crowded house party—we departed immediately after it became apparent I was ill. I recovered quickly.

A week later, I went into work despite feeling unwell, and needing to urinate very frequently. A friend suggested bladder infection and that I needed to go to the doctor PDQ: untreated bladder infections can very quickly become kidney infections. When I am sick, I get real stupid, so I thought I could ignore that advice, tough out the day and sleep that night. Work was extraordinarily busy that day with a big crisis involving the head honcho. By early afternoon, I was very feverish, lower back pain and feeling very sick. Normally my boss would have insisted I leave work and would have asked one of the drivers to take me home( I usually commuted via bus abd subway). But that day was… extra extra crisis mode. I did get permission to leave early and called my husband to ask to be picked up. Although he’s a really good person and a really good husband, he was also extremely busy and declined to drop his work and drive all the way downtown to pick me up, finally relenting and picking me up at the subway station. Note: I never get sick so this was an unusual request, the import of which flew right over his head—and everybody’s head, including mine. Next day I felt worse and called in sick to work, infuriating the head honcho. My HMO only reluctantly agreed to give me an appointment as my usual doc was not in that day. By the time I got there ( hubby drove) I was close to fainting in pain. And fever, as it turns out. It took the doc a few minutes to really hear that I was in acute pain because I was too weak to actually scream when he pressed on my lower back. He ordered imaging, which was fun as I was so dehydrated, they had difficulty getting a vein. Also urinalysis, which results were not back until the following day. He correctly diagnosed the kidney infection, showed me the image which showed the third kidney( both left ones were infected) and told me that 3 kidneys was very unusual, explained exactly why I was so sick and told me I was very fortunate to have complete and unobstructed ureters for all 3 kidneys ( even more unusual), which explained why I had never had an issue previously and why there were no issues during previous pregnancy. He prescribed the most common antibiotic for my infection and then switched antibiotics the next day when the culture showed a different organism was causing the infection.

So: my doc started off assuming the usual: probable kidney infection. Confirmed diagnosis via imaging and urinalysis, treated immediately with antibiotics and then corrected when urinalysis came back. Without the imaging, no one would know about my extra kidney.

Because that’s how medicine works. He knew medicine, anatomy, physiology, modes of disease, etc. he adjusted treatment as more complete information allowed a more precise diagnosis. He did not work up my entire body but focused on symptoms, preferred appropriate tests and prescribed appropriate medication.

Lesson here is: lower back pain on either or both sides but not along spine, accompanied by fever = kidney infection almost certainly. Do not fuck around thinking it will get better on its own. You will end up in the hospital and could lose a kidney. Or your life.

 

[Jarhyn]

my doc started off assuming the usual: probable kidney infection. Confirmed diagnosis via imaging and urinalysis

So they didn't assume. They did test, get an image, and use the image appropriately. They used the sum total of known orders to narrow down a field of possible immediately present orders, and then did a secondary test, as well as a tertiary one.

This does not assume anything from an "average" as more than a figment of the imagination. It says "you can probably trust your imagination, but verify anyway". It does not say that this imagination is real. Because no sane doctor does. They get images. They test. Or else they get slapped with malpractice lawsuits.

The qualifications in your post are recognized, and the advice is noted in the form "this is one of the things that can happen in a body, and one of the orderings of flesh that lead to it."

It's certainly not something that I would want going on so based on my goals, BECAUSE of them, that would be in my body a "disorder", not because anyone else says it must be, but because I don't want it happening to me, as a part of my subjective experience.

All these statements are made specifically without needing to acknowledge some statistical object as "real".

 

[Toni]

my doc started off assuming the usual: probable kidney infection. Confirmed diagnosis via imaging and urinalysis

So they didn't assume. They did test, get an image, and use the image appropriately. They used the sum total of known orders to narrow down a field of possible immediately present orders, and then did a secondary test, as well as a tertiary one.

This does not assume anything from an "average" as more than a figment of the imagination. It says "you can probably trust your imagination, but verify anyway". It does not say that this imagination is real. Because no sane doctor does. They get images. They test. Or else they get slapped with malpractice lawsuits.

The qualifications in your post are recognized, and the advice is noted in the form "this is one of the things that can happen in a body, and one of the orderings of flesh that lead to it."

It's certainly not something that I would want going on, so based on my goals, BECAUSE of them that would be in my body a "disorder", not because anyone else says it must be, but because I don't want it happening to me, as a part of my subjective experience.

Of course they used established knowledge: humans have two kidneys! Located in the lower back—it’s established medical fact! With a few exceptions! Which this doctor was skilled enough to recognize— to share that information with me—show it to me, actually. In case it were ever relevant. Which, so far, it has not been.

Long ago, I came to terms with the limitations of my body; I wish I were taller. I wish that I were thinner. I wi sh thst my skin was nicer. I wish that I didn’t have so many ear infections when I was small and did not have the consequent hearing loss. I wish that I were not gone deaf! I wish that I didn’t have presbyopia! I wish I did not inherit my mother’s knees or hips. I wish that 3 cloudy days in a row did not trigger SADD, especially in the winter. I wish that I had a little less of my father’s temperament. PMS was not my favorite, either, but time has mostly resolved that.

I realize that you have personal goals with regards to your body. I truly hope that you are able to achieve what you want to achieve.