Science My transgender hobbyhorse

[Jarhyn]

We should note that what made people "men" or "women" in many cultures prior to such nonsense was not the shape of the genital but on heuristics of social behavior, and they weren't treated as mutually exclusive.

Tell that to the Spartans.

Oleg, one anecdote does not a population survey make.

Yeah know, the "two-spirit," or Berdache, of some North American tribes had nothing to do with a person changing their sex. No society has confused the sexual binary, regardless of some mostly homosexual men taking on female responsibilities. And in Iran, there's no conflict between sexist groups and genderist groups. The mullahs just want to trans away the gay.

And you want to gay away the trans or whatever. If you can't see the arbitrariness in your position from that, that's your issue.

The fact is, you're the one confusing yourself with "binary" when it's "multimodal with bimodal comorbidity groups".

I get that might be too hard to process with a highschool diploma or less, which many people lack.

For their edification "gender and sex is complicated, and you have no right or reason to know what their genitals look like. You have no problem with treating most people who ask to be treated 'as you would a woman' that way, without knowing what their genitals look like, so you should be comfortable treating them as such when their genitals don't look as you expect."

If it helps, you can absolutely justify treating a woman who is 7 foot tall and 250 lbs of muscle like you would  anyone who is 7 feet tall and 250 lbs of muscle (with caution and care, and possibly a good deal of violence if that doesn't work in preventing injury or attack otherwise).

You can absolutely treat a woman who has very broad shoulders and an adams apple with the level of attraction that you would treat anyone who has broad shoulders and an adams apple.

You can absolutely treat a woman who is angry and threatening to punch you like anyone who is angry and threatening to punch you.

You can absolutely treat a woman with a 6 inch member and closed urethra with the level of attraction you might have for anyone with a 6 inch member and a closed urethra*.

Which is to say, you should respect them as people, treat them with the caution that befits their behavior and stature, and otherwise treat them with normal social acceptance, especially if they aren't interested in sex with you.

It's just rather socially considerate to not talk about other people's genitals.

*To be fair, attraction to and interest in such is a stereotypically straight condition, as the presence of a more peniform genital is a pornographic cue for many who identify as straight.

Likewise stereotypical gay people normally attracted to the more historically masculine tropes of the human body tend to be the primary consumers of the inverse tropes to those who identify as stereotypically straight: they consume more porn containing those who identify as "men" who have what they identify as "vaginas".

As such, if you're not attracted at least a little bit to futanari, you MIGHT be gay...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The point is they are counting minor offenses and pretending it's an actual threat. A voyeur is unpleasant, not dangerous.

I completely disagree.

A voyeur is demonstrably willing to disregard social convention and basic respect for others. He wants something, for some reason, and there's no way for the rest of us to know what that is. Maybe it doesn't include rape, but maybe it does.

You and I are dudes who can casually dismiss that sort of threat. Women don't have the luxury of such basic security.

But a voyeur in a mixed environment is probably just someone who looked a bit too long. There's no reason to think he's a problem.

At least you agree with me that the placard is security theater, not actual protection.

I completely disagree with this.

Those labels are not a guarantee of personal security, but they are an effective first line of defense. A man inside the room designated for women has committed an actionable violation merely by being male. The occupants and staff don't need to wait around until things get worse to do something about it. That much, in itself, is security against most illicit, sociopathic, behavior. It's easily breached by a deliberate and determined miscreant. But it is a clear line drawn in the sand.
Tom

And you have missed my point--in any environment where he's incurring any appreciable risk of discovery he's not in a position to be assaulting anyone anyway because someone is too likely to walk in on him. The privacy to assault is the privacy to not be detected.

And nothing says he can't be dressed up as a woman anyway. Especially these days with masking much of the face being perfectly ordinary behavior.

 

[Oleg]

And you want to gay away the trans or whatever. If you can't see the arbitrariness in your position from that, that's your issue.

What? Just pointing out that officially there are no gay men in Iran. That’s how they do it.

The fact is, you're the one confusing yourself with "binary" when it's "multimodal with bimodal comorbidity groups".

Two biological males cannot procreate. Two biological females cannot procreate. The binary is required for procreation. Why do you think sex evolved, anyway?

You can absolutely treat a woman who has very broad shoulders and an adams apple with the level of attraction that you would treat anyone who has broad shoulders and an adams apple.

So, like a man?

Which is to say, you should respect them as people, treat them with the caution that befits their behavior and stature, and otherwise treat them with normal social acceptance, especially if they aren't interested in sex with you.

And you should respect that it wrong to require people to deny reality so to affirm a confused man’s sexual dysphoria. Be nice to people, yes. But being a woman is not some costume a guy can put on and expect us to ignore our eyes and millions of years of evolved psychology. I suppose this is why there’s the LGB without the T.

 

[Jarhyn]

Just pointing out that officially there are no gay men in Iran. That’s how they do it.

Indeed, just like I suspect you might believe there are no men with vaginal openings and ovaries, that there are no women with closed 6 inch members and testicles.

Both are results of such essentialism as you espouse, but while you can seem to recognize one nonsensical declaration in the umbrella of sexuality/sex/gender, you can't seem to figure out how to use that as a mirror.

It's sad but not unexpected.

Two biological males cannot procreate. Two biological females cannot procreate. The binary is required for procreation. Why do you think sex evolved, anyway?

Aphids

Page contains pest description and control methods for Aphid

hortipm.tamu.edu

:Rolleyes:

So, like a man?

No, like themselves. I just note that this feature isn't highly appreciated by most people who call themselves men, and is attractive feature for people who also tend to appreciate hard bodies without developed breasts.

You aren't required to be attracted to it is the point, even if it occurs on someone who has a vaginal opening and a supermajority of ovarian tissue.

And you should respect that it wrong to require people to deny reality

What reality? That they are exactly themselves? You are already denying that reality.

Rather you wish as many do to talk explicitly about something you have no right to discuss and conjecture about, their genitals.

Let their private parts be their private business.

This is why there is such a thing as "my genitals are not your business".

 

[Oleg]

Indeed, just like I suspect you might believe there are no men with vaginal openings and ovaries, that there are no women with closed 6 inch members and testicles.

Men do not have vaginas. I mean, WTF. So your mother had a penis?

Rolleyes

Are you an insect? Name me one mammal - just one - that can change it’s sex. This is one of the dumbest arguments gender cultist make: “Hey, this non-human, non-primate, non-mammal species exhibits these characteristics so there’s no difference between male and female humans!” So dumb. It’s Ken Hovid level denial of biological reality.

Rather you wish as many do to talk explicitly about something you have no right to discuss and conjecture about, their genitals.

A eunuch is still a man.

 

[Oleg]

I don’t have to affirm this.

 

[Jarhyn]

Men do not have vaginas

This is again a rather bold statement. Also false.

I mean, WTF. So your mother had a penis?

I don't know. I've never seen my egg donor's genitals, and I certainly wouldn't call that person my "mother", and I also never saw the genitals of the person who I do call "mom".

So to answer your question, whatever arbitrary bounds you put around "penis", whether my mother has one.

I never needed to see it, or an absence of it, to call  her my mother.

Are you an insect?

So dumb. It’s Ken Hovid level denial of biological reality.

You were the one posing stupid essentialism around the concept of biological sexual reproduction. It's not my fault that you can't seem to grok that humans can also accomplish parthenogenesis, it just takes a lot more work, and some test tubes.

The fact is, humans who cannot reproduce, as you mention, are still often referred to as "men", so sexual reproduction isn't actually what we could possibly be discussing if this is to be part of the context in which the idea of "man" implies.

In the discussion of sexual reproductions there are three sets, two of which have overlap: pregnancy theoretic males, pregnancy theoretic females, and pregnancy theoretic neuters.

If you want to discuss the implications of those categories on human behavior and sociology, go ahead and start a thread. Ping me on it.

 

[Oleg]

This is again a rather bold statement. Also false.

When a guy gets his dick sliced up and an open wound is made in his body, that is not a vagina. It’s just an open wound.

It's not my fault that you can't seem to grok that humans can also accomplish parthenogenesis, it just takes a lot more work, and some test tubes.

Name one mammal, just one, that can undertake parthenogenesis naturally.

The fact is, humans who cannot reproduce, as you mention, are still often referred to as "men", so sexual reproduction isn't actually what we could possibly be discussing if this is to be part of the context in which the idea of "man" implies.

Some humans cannot walk on two legs. Ergo, humans are not bipedal.

 

[Jarhyn]

Name one mammal, just one, that can undertake parthenogenesis naturally

Better be careful there with that "naturally". The way starfish do it is by literally ripping themselves in half.

That whole "naturally" bit in there is a trick and everyone knows it.

It doesn't mean anything but "in a way Oleg can't shift the goalposts with the Naturalistic Fallacy"

Some humans cannot walk on two legs. Ergo, humans are not bipedal.

Correct. "Humans" are not bipedal as a universal. Humans are often bipedal, rarely quadrupedal beyond early life, occasionally tripedal, and again very rarely monopedal.

Personally, I am tripedal, with one of these "legs" being in fact made mostly of wood.

Humans are most often bipedal, but to make the declaration "Humans are bipedal" is in fact to make an error.

Most people are just also charitable enough to accept that you probably mean "MOST humans" or "humans  generally."

Mostly these kinds of idiotic positions as "humans are either men or women" are exactly that because they don't acknowledge the hidden "mostly" that allows someone who understands such to tolerate someone who thinks sloppily.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Anti-trans group admits bathroom predator myth is made up

Empirical research shows bathroom predator concerns are baseless.

www.pinknews.co.uk

Oops, they simply made up the myth of "trans" bathroom attacks. Much easier than actually finding some evidence.

 

[Oleg]

Name one mammal, just one, that can undertake parthenogenesis naturally

Better be careful there with that "naturally". The way starfish do it is by literally ripping themselves in half.

That whole "naturally" bit in there is a trick and everyone knows it.

It doesn't mean anything but "in a way Oleg can't shift the goalposts with the Naturalistic Fallacy"

Some humans cannot walk on two legs. Ergo, humans are not bipedal.

Correct. "Humans" are not bipedal as a universal. Humans are often bipedal, rarely quadrupedal beyond early life, occasionally tripedal, and again very rarely monopedal.

Personally, I am tripedal, with one of these "legs" being in fact made mostly of wood.

Humans are most often bipedal, but to make the declaration "Humans are bipedal" is in fact to make an error.

Most people are just also charitable enough to accept that you probably mean "MOST humans" or "humans  generally."

Mostly these kinds of idiotic positions as "humans are either men or women" are exactly that because they don't acknowledge the hidden "mostly" that allows someone who understands such to tolerate someone who thinks sloppily.

Good grief. If you don’t know what a woman is, what, exactly, are transsexuals trying to change to?

 

[Oleg]

Eventually, objective reality overtakes fantasy.

Who Needs to Register | Selective Service System

www.sss.gov

US citizens or immigrants who are born male and changed their gender to female are still required to register. Individuals who are born female and changed their gender to male are not required to register.

 

[Oleg]

Anti-trans group admits bathroom predator myth is made up

Empirical research shows bathroom predator concerns are baseless.

www.pinknews.co.uk

Oops, they simply made up the myth of "trans" bathroom attacks. Much easier than actually finding some evidence.

As trans women are no different than biological women, you’d expect the rates for sexual offenses to be same for both. But woah you’d be wrong.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/

 

[Jarhyn]

Name one mammal, just one, that can undertake parthenogenesis naturally

Better be careful there with that "naturally". The way starfish do it is by literally ripping themselves in half.

That whole "naturally" bit in there is a trick and everyone knows it.

It doesn't mean anything but "in a way Oleg can't shift the goalposts with the Naturalistic Fallacy"

Some humans cannot walk on two legs. Ergo, humans are not bipedal.

Correct. "Humans" are not bipedal as a universal. Humans are often bipedal, rarely quadrupedal beyond early life, occasionally tripedal, and again very rarely monopedal.

Personally, I am tripedal, with one of these "legs" being in fact made mostly of wood.

Humans are most often bipedal, but to make the declaration "Humans are bipedal" is in fact to make an error.

Most people are just also charitable enough to accept that you probably mean "MOST humans" or "humans  generally."

Mostly these kinds of idiotic positions as "humans are either men or women" are exactly that because they don't acknowledge the hidden "mostly" that allows someone who understands such to tolerate someone who thinks sloppily.

Good grief. If you don’t know what a woman is, what, exactly, are transsexuals trying to change to?

The point is that you in fact don't know what "woman" is.

You don't have the foggiest clue. It is not something that trans people are changing into it's a part of who they always were.

It's a part of their brain, or has at least a real enough chance to be that I'm not going to question it and I have absolutely no reason to question it.

All absolutes of gender and sex exist only in your head, except those categories I keep mentioning within pregnancy theoretics as regards to compulsory shared spaces, and with regards to steroidal theoretics as regards sports and performance based comparisons don't serve for use in discrimination beyond those dimensions.

People who wish to not share along different dimensions may, but they will face the same criticisms I level against you: that your usage of the concept of "woman" might need some work, and you present as your own views the views of supreme bags assholes.

I'm happy to call people woman. I will call them woman so long as they say "I'm a woman she/her please".

They could be 7 feet tall, have a large Adams apple, broad shoulders, the stink of having just worked out large muscles, testicles, and a massive bellend with a closed urethra, and I would happily greet Ms. Nesbitt or whatever.

They could be seven feet tall, covered with tentacles and have an exoskeleton, and reproduce by budding and I would be willing to accept them as a "woman".

I might not invite her to a sleepover right away, at least not until I got to know her. If she acts like a rude oaf or makes advances on folks who are just there for a good time or tries to absorb them or whatever, I certainly would not.

 

[JohnG]

I listen to a podcast that includes Matt Walsh - he is one bad take after another. This is another in a long line of bad takes.

Here is the fact of the matter

Sex, Gender, and Sexuality: It’s Complicated

When a baby is born, the obstetrician or midwife announces “It’s a boy” or “It’s a girl.” As toddlers, children learn to classify everyone as either boy or girl. When our firstborn was ver

sciencebasedmedicine.org

 

[Oleg]

I listen to a podcast that includes Matt Walsh - he is one bad take after another. This is another in a long line of bad takes.

Here is the fact of the matter

Sex, Gender, and Sexuality: It’s Complicated

When a baby is born, the obstetrician or midwife announces “It’s a boy” or “It’s a girl.” As toddlers, children learn to classify everyone as either boy or girl. When our firstborn was ver

sciencebasedmedicine.org

It's not complicated at all. Mammals are sexually dimorphic. No mammal can change its sex. No animal. Not one. That some people are born with abnormalities does not change the sex binary. What goes on in your head does not change your biological sex.

 

[pood]

I listen to a podcast that includes Matt Walsh - he is one bad take after another. This is another in a long line of bad takes.

Here is the fact of the matter

Sex, Gender, and Sexuality: It’s Complicated

When a baby is born, the obstetrician or midwife announces “It’s a boy” or “It’s a girl.” As toddlers, children learn to classify everyone as either boy or girl. When our firstborn was ver

sciencebasedmedicine.org

It's not complicated at all. Mammals are sexually dimorphic. No mammal can change its sex. No animal. Not one. That some people are born with abnormalities does not change the sex binary. What goes on in your head does not change your biological sex.

Except the science says it is complicated, and explains why, and so you’re wrong.

 

[lpetrich]

Some fish can change their sex, though they are the only vertebrates to do so - Environmental Cues and Mechanisms Underpinning Sex Change in Fish - PMC and What we learn from a fish that can change sex in just 10 days

Sex can be determined by the environment, like temperature:  Temperature-dependent sex determination - it is common among reptiles, though some reptiles have sex chromosomes. Most turtles become male if the temperature is lower than some transition temperature and female if the temperature is higher. Some reptiles have the reverse, like the tuatara: female if lower, male if higher. Some turtles, lizards, and crocodilians became female if the temperature is below or above some range, male if in that range.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Some fish can change their sex, though they are the only vertebrates to do so - Environmental Cues and Mechanisms Underpinning Sex Change in Fish - PMC and What we learn from a fish that can change sex in just 10 days

Sex can be determined by the environment, like temperature:  Temperature-dependent sex determination - it is common among reptiles, though some reptiles have sex chromosomes. Most turtles become male if the temperature is lower than some transition temperature and female if the temperature is higher. Some reptiles have the reverse, like the tuatara: female if lower, male if higher. Some turtles, lizards, and crocodilians became female if the temperature is below or above some range, male if in that range.

Pretty sure there at least a few amphibians out there that do so as well.

Not sure if there are any reptiles (don't think so), but there are some reptiles that go through parthogenesis. So the whole fucking 'sex' system is pretty damn complex.

 

[lpetrich]

Looking across our planet's biota, the original form of reproduction is asexual: multiplying by dividing.

Some prokaryotes can inject bits of genetic material ("plasmids") into each other.

But it was the ancestral eukaryote that invented sexual reproduction: haploid-diploid alternation, the fusion-meiosis cycle.

Haploid: (X) -- haploid to haploid (mitosis): (X) -> (XX) -> (X) (X)
Diploid: (XX) -- diploid to diploid (mitosis): (XX) -> (XXXX) -> (XX) (XX)

Diploid to haploid (meiosis): (XX) -> (XXXX) -> (XX) (XX) -> (X) (X) (X) (X)
Haploid to diploid (cell fusion): (X) + (X) -> (XX)

All Eukaryotes Are Sexual, unless Proven Otherwise - Hofstatter - 2019 - BioEssays - Wiley Online Library

Here a wide distribution of meiotic machinery is shown, indicating the occurrence of sexual processes in all major eukaryotic groups, without exceptions, including the putative “asexuals.” Meiotic machinery has evolved from archaeal DNA repair machinery by means of ancestral gene duplications. Sex is very conserved and widespread in eukaryotes, even though its evolutionary importance is still a matter of debate. The main processes in sex are plasmogamy, followed by karyogamy and meiosis. Meiosis is fundamentally a chromosomal process, which implies recombination and ploidy reduction. Several eukaryotic lineages are proposed to be asexual because their sexual processes are never observed, but presumed asexuality correlates with lack of study.

Conservation and Variability of Meiosis Across the Eukaryotes | Annual Review of Genetics

Comparisons among a variety of eukaryotes have revealed considerable variability in the structures and processes involved in their meiosis. Nevertheless, conventional forms of meiosis occur in all major groups of eukaryotes, including early-branching protists. This finding confirms that meiosis originated in the common ancestor of all eukaryotes and suggests that primordial meiosis may have had many characteristics in common with conventional extant meiosis.

Cell fusion has this sequence:

1. Plasmogamy = cell nucleus without cell-nucleus fusion
2. Karyogamy = cell-nucleus fusion

This is usually a quick sequence, but in some fungi ("Dikarya"), the second step can be delayed long after the first step, for several generations of reproduction. Yes, many fungi can have cells with two nuclei - a "dikaryon".