Trump claims he'd 'rather deal with a liberal than a conservative' in Ottawa U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday said he wouldn't mind if the Liberal Party won the upcoming Canadian election, saying: "I'd rather deal with a liberal than a conservative." #politics #election #Ottawa #Canada #News #World cbc.ca/news/world/trump-canada…
A power plant, NATO aspirations, and land will likely be on the table when President Trump tries to convince Russia's President Putin of a ceasefire in Ukraine.
#Ukraine : I want my life back #Trump : Let’s end this war. Deal me in… #Ukraine : Yes #Russia: But first, cut off your arms, legs and ears, and put your eyes out #Ukraine: What? #Russia : Oh, and move out of your house, I’m staying here. Then, there will be lasting peace between us. #US : You’ve got a deal … #EU : This doesn’t look good… We ought to say something… #Orban & #Pico (chorus) : #Russia is owed another chance.
When you look at this bad script and see the actors for whom they are you’d quite rightly think that the author needs to go back and do some more scripting practice. Yet this is playing out before our eyes and the consequences are world changing for every one of us no matter where we live.
The monopoly over letter mail forms the core of the Crown corporation’s operations. Its erosion or elimination in the name of “liberalizing” trade barriers and protecting corporate Canada’s profits during the trade war would mean the destruction of t…
@Snowshadow This is past Fox, more like Rebel/ Epoch/ OAN garbage. Absolute propaganda to weaken support for the only party consistently, effectively fighting against Trump. Gross. @br00t4c
@Snowshadow “both sides are the same” is an ignorant *lie* that supports extremism and enables tinpot despot wannabe’s like the fascist felon and copycats.
I know you know this Snowshadow, but for others less versed in Canadian politics, what is said in this piece about the Liberals is a complete fabrication, twisting what the right wing “conservative” party & far-right extremist parties want to achieve, while the Liberals are who support social programs & the CBC. Absolute rubbish.
@fsinn Yup. I do know that. Canadians also need to realize we are living in dangerous times so we need a calm, cool, collected, "get it done" PM, We want someone who is accustomed to dealing with emergencies and Carney has the track record to prove he is capable.
'I haven't slept in a while and haven't eaten proper food well, so I'm just really going through the motions,' Jasmine Mooney told Global News after touching down at YVR.
Confidently incorrect is the default with these people. I spend most of my time with family aggressively correcting misinformation about my field and related ones. They will die earlier thinking they know more because of Youtube. Getting them to stop taking bad health advice and mystery joint injections from a fucking chiropractor is the latest battle.
The impression of legitimacy enjoyed by chiropractic is too damn high. I was well into my 20s before I ever heard a single word about it being pseudoscience. Walking around (usually on people's fucking spines) calling themselves doctors, I absolutely believed it was just some sub-variety of physiotherapy, which I guess is the point. In the whole universe of alternative medicine, I think that has to be the practice which has most effectively disguised itself as conventional medicine. It's gross.
The way chiropractic plays itself as the cure all for any ailment with regular "adjustments" is the real bullshit, it's straight up a sales pitch to get people in a recurring schedule for that sweet appointment revenue. Don't get me wrong, when I've thrown my back out the best and most immediate relief I've found is to have the guy super twist and crack my back loose just so I can get some mobility to stretch and walk. But the way they sell it as you need several appointments a week to stay "regular" is a crock of shit.
I guess I should count myself lucky for where I grew up: there's a big/famous chiropractic school in this city, so this creepy motherfucker was on TV commercials all the time:
Never mind quackery; I thought it was legitimately some sort of cult!
The quackness of chiropractors depends on where you are, in many places it's indeed just a type of physiotherapy, or better put you have to be a physio to be a chiropractor. Similarly, in practically all of the world osteopaths are quacks while in the US they're doing evidence-based medicine with particular philosophical accents.
They provided me valuable placebo (I think). I still have no idea what my issue really was, but at least it's gone. Never been back to a chiropractor since though.
I walked in to a chiropractors' office once to try and see if they'd take me for an appointment, found a brochure proudly proclaiming that chiropractic treatments can help cure autism and cancer, and turned right the fuck around and walked back out.
If you think you need a chiropractor you actually need a physical therapist and anyone trying to tell you otherwise is lying to you.
One of my mates goes to a chiro. The rest of us detail for him how our problems were helped by physios and they were fixed, and stayed fixed, while he needs to see a chiro every 3 months for just exactly the same problems
He describes himself as an idiot, and I believe him. He still goes to a chiro.
Australia has high respect for chiropractic because the King likes them, and when he was a prince he was pretty influential too. No idea why it would be popular outside the Commonwealth
In Australia they are able to request some x-rays. As in the entire spine, which ends up irradiating radio-sensitive organs like the thyroid and ovaries, often in young people. As a radiographer this shit drives me up the fucking wall, especially given the already frustrating battles over inappropriate imaging requests from real, actual doctors. Want to know a contributing factor to the increase in cancers? The absolutely absurd radiation doses people are sucking up over years of over-imaging.
I find irony that they disregard expert opinions on the things they are experts for (climate scientists for example) but will accept an entire worldview of opinions based on someone being "smart" like the opinion of a software engineer has on philosophy or politics.
Reject the expert on the subject they're an expert on because that makes them "elite" and they were trained to think that was bad, but accept an unfounded opinion of someone who may be smart in an unrelated field because the opinion is "different" so it must be "smart"
I think this is the trap all self assigned internet intellectuals fall into. They parrot opinions and vibes from echo chambers that discredit real science or real reporting and call it enlightenment. This in itself is stupid, but then even more stupid people are drawn in and suddenly we have a big club of geniuses
Just curious, is this chiro actually injecting something into their joints? Or is it like pretend injections, like with that magic gun thing that makes a click but doesn't actually do anything?
Exceptions: While XX and XY are the most common sex chromosome combinations, there are exceptions, such as individuals with variations in their sex chromosomes, such as XXY (Klinefelter syndrome) or XYY.
I can try. The cis part means the person's naughty bits are aligned with their gender identity. The male is their gender identity. So post-bottom surgery it's perfectly possible. If you use different definitions for concepts though you will have difficulty making it work.
None of this has anything to do with the claimed PhD in genomics though. These are socio-cultural concepts. So they should stick their PhD where it belongs and address the arguments head on instead of trying to argue from authority.
I don't have a PhD, but my understanding of the basics is this:
All people start out developing as female in the womb before a certain point where a large dose of testosterone caused (usually) by the Y chromosome activating (basically the only time in life that it does apart from starting puberty AFAIK) causes the proto-labia and vagina to push outwards and form the ball sack and enlarging the clitoris and urethra into what we know of as the penis. This is why you can see that line down the middle of your ball sack; that's where your labia fused together. It's also why the tissue that makes up your ball sack is biologically identical to the tissue that makes up the inside of the vagina. It's an outie vs. an innie.
There are many reasons why this wouldn't happen "correctly" since biology is more a wonder of things somehow working at all after evolution is done with them rather than a perfectly designed, well-oiled machine. Sometimes the Y chromosome simply doesn't activate, or it does, but the person has androgen insensitivity and so the testosterone doesn't do anything
... show more
I don't have a PhD, but my understanding of the basics is this:
All people start out developing as female in the womb before a certain point where a large dose of testosterone caused (usually) by the Y chromosome activating (basically the only time in life that it does apart from starting puberty AFAIK) causes the proto-labia and vagina to push outwards and form the ball sack and enlarging the clitoris and urethra into what we know of as the penis. This is why you can see that line down the middle of your ball sack; that's where your labia fused together. It's also why the tissue that makes up your ball sack is biologically identical to the tissue that makes up the inside of the vagina. It's an outie vs. an innie.
There are many reasons why this wouldn't happen "correctly" since biology is more a wonder of things somehow working at all after evolution is done with them rather than a perfectly designed, well-oiled machine. Sometimes the Y chromosome simply doesn't activate, or it does, but the person has androgen insensitivity and so the testosterone doesn't do anything, or they develop as female but have testicles where their ovaries should be, rendering them infertile but otherwise a perfectly normal woman. Sometimes a person is XX, but they experienced a higher than normal amount of testosterone during development and developed male instead of female.
And that's before you get into the issue of intersex people, who are often surgically altered as babies when they're born by the doctor to match with the genitalia that the doctor thinks should be the "correct" one. In a number of places, the doctors don't have to ask permission or even tell the parents after.
Also, your definition of cis male is slightly off. "Cis" is the opposite Latin prefix of "trans," meaning a non-changing/stable state of being, and in this case it's used to mean that one's gender identity matches up with the one that you were given at birth. It ultimately has nothing to do with what genitalia you have, and it's simply an identification saying that your sense of gender matches up with the sex that the doctor declared and that you therefore aren't trans. It's an after the fact solution to the question of what to call people who aren't trans and comes from the use of trans to identify somebody who transitions from one gender to another.
Chemists have moved away from cis and trans partly because of all of this. We use zusammen-together or entgegen-opposite now. I can attest to how politically charged a class about organic molecules can become.
I am not deeply versed on the socio-cultural side of it all, and there is clearly space to learn. I am reluctant to let cis hinge on a doctor's proclamation but I'll let it sit there for the moment.
As somebody with a bit of learning on the matter (it's amazing the hats you have to wear to prove you deserve to live - from anthropologist to biologist to archeologist), it's interesting to see how the language of the community has evolved as our scientific understanding of sex vs gender has.
The term started as transsexual, and there are older people who refer to themselves by that term, but by the 2000s the term had shifted in favor of transgender, noting the recognition that sex doesn't equate to gender that happened around that time.
Then came the use of cis as well as AMAB and AFAB (assigned male/female at birth) in order to better describe the complexity involved around the fact that a doctor has to declare you one gender or another when you're born, and the easiest way to do that with the highest likelihood of being correct is based on sexual characteristics - namely, what genitalia you have. So cis is used to describe people who have no reason to disagree with the doctor's assessment, and there's a lot of discussion around where intersex people fall in the com
... show more
As somebody with a bit of learning on the matter (it's amazing the hats you have to wear to prove you deserve to live - from anthropologist to biologist to archeologist), it's interesting to see how the language of the community has evolved as our scientific understanding of sex vs gender has.
The term started as transsexual, and there are older people who refer to themselves by that term, but by the 2000s the term had shifted in favor of transgender, noting the recognition that sex doesn't equate to gender that happened around that time.
Then came the use of cis as well as AMAB and AFAB (assigned male/female at birth) in order to better describe the complexity involved around the fact that a doctor has to declare you one gender or another when you're born, and the easiest way to do that with the highest likelihood of being correct is based on sexual characteristics - namely, what genitalia you have. So cis is used to describe people who have no reason to disagree with the doctor's assessment, and there's a lot of discussion around where intersex people fall in the community (do they fit in the trans umbrella term?).
People like Dunning-Kruger up there are basically arguing that isotopes don't exist.
I think you're misunderstanding the point the OP is making. Typically, male/female are used when referring to sex, and masculine/feminine and man/woman are used when referring to gender. So this conversation isn't about gender identity at all, but completely about biological sex.
There are a bunch of factors that go into determining sex. The two main categories are related to the person's genes (their genotype) and how the person physically presents (phenotype). The biggest genetic marker is whether the person has XX or XY chromosomes (or some other combination). The easiest marker for phenotype is the person's genitalia, but there are others, such as gonads, gamete production, hormones, etc.
So even just talking about biological sex, a person's genotype and phenotype might give conflicting determinations of sex. So an "XX male" refers to someone with the genotype of a female, but the phenotype of a male, but says nothing about their gender identity or any surgeries they might've undergone.
With that in mind, someone with a PhD in genomics seems to be in the righ
... show more
I think you're misunderstanding the point the OP is making. Typically, male/female are used when referring to sex, and masculine/feminine and man/woman are used when referring to gender. So this conversation isn't about gender identity at all, but completely about biological sex.
There are a bunch of factors that go into determining sex. The two main categories are related to the person's genes (their genotype) and how the person physically presents (phenotype). The biggest genetic marker is whether the person has XX or XY chromosomes (or some other combination). The easiest marker for phenotype is the person's genitalia, but there are others, such as gonads, gamete production, hormones, etc.
So even just talking about biological sex, a person's genotype and phenotype might give conflicting determinations of sex. So an "XX male" refers to someone with the genotype of a female, but the phenotype of a male, but says nothing about their gender identity or any surgeries they might've undergone.
With that in mind, someone with a PhD in genomics seems to be in the right field to address gene expression and genotypes vs phenotypes. Although you're right that we shouldn't rely on authority, but instead on the arguments presented. What we've been shown here, though, isn't a fully fleshed out debate. It's about 60 words on social media that amounts to "your mental model of sex is wrong; here are cases to rebut it"
I also have a PhD. Not in genomics but in physiology. But we all do genetic work now.
The Dr. says that XX persons can become cis men. "CIS men" is explicitly about gender. I was trying to make the point (not very well as it turns out) that all of this hinges on definitions. So you have to unpack CIS men in this context. Without a sound understanding of the basics, all the rest is supposition.
And the gender identity and expression parts have nothing to do with gene expression, penetrance (giggity), DNA, RNA or epigenetic factors in gene expression.
Also the better example for the counter argument would probably be CAIS.
Oh, sorry if my response was too basic-level for your experience.
I get what you're saying about "cis men" being explicitly about gender. I took it as meaning phenotypic males, and that they used "cis men" either for simplicity (perhaps to avoid getting into the details of trans people that they thought was irrelevant to the point they were making) or because they were just imprecise with their language. It's also possible it was based off of something from earlier in the conversation that we can't see because it's just a screenshot.
Anyways, I agree, it was poorly worded, but I think the point they were trying to make was pretty straightforward (unless you insist on interpreting what they said to be something about genes affecting gender expression, then it doesn't make sense).
In 90 percent of these individuals, the syndrome is caused by the Y chromosome's SRY gene, which triggers male reproductive development, being atypically included in the crossing over of genetic information that takes place between the pseudoautosomal regions of the X and Y chromosomes during meiosis in the father.[2][7] When the X with the SRY gene combines with a normal X from the mother during fertilization, the result is an XX genetic male. Less common are SRY-negative individuals, those who are genetically females, which can be caused by a mutation in an autosomal or X chromosomal gene.[2] The masculinization of XX males is variable.
De La Chappell syndrome, congenital adrenal hyperplasia, androgen exposure in utero, ovotesticular disorder of of sex development all result in a person with cis male characteristics and in some cases cis male typical genitalia despite having xx chromosomes
This is the best resource I've seen to show things relatively simply.
The TL;DR is that a whole "Y" chromosome isn't exactly responsible for "maleness", the SRY gene is. It's normally on the Y chromosome, but mutations can occur placing that gene onto the X chromosome. Inversely, someone could inherit a Y chromosome without that gene, in which case they would develop with female traits.
It's not considered trans because someone with 46XX plus the SRY gene would develop male genitalia, be identified as male at birth, and likely identify themselves as male. For some types of these conditions, there are plenty of people walking around with no clue that their chromosomes don't match their gender.
Disclaimer: I'm not a geneticist, so i could have explained something a little off.
I'm also not a geneticist but I did study genetics for a while and that's pretty much what I remember learning, so you're good.
The books Mutants: On Genetic Variety and the Human Body by Armand Marie Leroi explains it all very well and touches on many other related genetic conditions like the Klinefelter syndrome (XXY). It's an incredible read all around that really opened my eyes to how malleable biology is.
tldr biology is dice rolls and humans are intersex for no reason sometimes
on a side note one of my friends had this and she only found out when she started transitioning. she is now a trans woman with XX chromosomes. i can only imagine how fucking vindicating it must have felt
Wiki Education serves as the bridge between academia and Wikipedia. A small 501(c)(3) nonprofit, we run programs that seek to build connections between universities and Wikipedia and other Wikimedi…
cis just means your current gender identity is the same that was assigned to you at birth. there are cases where someone has XX chromosomes, but the body develops as male.
I swear I was learning about extra X and Y in high school 20 years ago and that studies (at the time) were showing correlation between different traits displayed by effected people. Just that alone shows incredible gender fluidity.
So where we are, 20 years later, you’d think we’d have a better understanding within society but instead somehow it’s literally regressed since then.
Note how they always enshrine gender in biology, but then make all kinds of non-biological statements about what gender is.
"XX is woman"/"Large gametes is woman"/"can conceive is woman"
And then they'll say
"Women aren't as aggressive", "women are more emotional", "women like being in the home more", "those are women's clothes", etc.
The only reason it's so important for it to be biological is because of how it punishes gender non-conformity and makes the lives of trans people hell. Like it isn't ideologically consistent and they know that. They just don't care. If it was just about genitals or chromosomes, then why is it that gender dictates all these social things about us? The only reason to root gender in how you were born is to ensure gender roles are as rigid and immutable as possible.
Correct on both counts. To make it even better, there exist some creatures that primarily mate and reproduce sexually, but can also reproduce asexually if the situation requires it - I think ants, and some reptiles, if I remember right.
But that's not more that two sexes. It's the same number or less. A hermaphrodite isn't a third sex, it's two sexes side by side and a sexless cellular organism has exactly one sex.
The distinction male/female is usually determined by measuring the size of the gametes. Female gametes are the bigger ones (e. g. ovum) and male gametes are the smaller ones (e. g. spermatozoon). There are organisms where the gametes of both sexes have the same size. So technically they have two sexes but don't fit the categories male and female.
Sex in the sense that we have been talking about it here is in reference to mammals. The moment you wander outside of the mammalian class of vertebrates these concepts of sex start to become far less applicable.
There are many birds that have more than 2 sexes. Reptiles and invertebrates as well. Asexual reproduction would be classed as it's own sex apart from any male/female system.
You are vastly underestimating the prevalence of chromosomal variations. They are common, especially among cis women.
I like the way you phrased that at the end. Sexes are categories that relate exclusively to the concept of progeny. If you're not able to reproduce, you're already kind of excluded from the sex binary. If we break the human concept of sex down to its constituent parts, it is just "can procreate". The categories are useful in some contexts, but to state them as universal or to try and extrapolate them so widely is significantly disruptive and unhelpful. Humans are and always have been more than our reproductive anatomy. Your doctor and anyone you want to reproduce with are really the only people who need to know whether you fit into either category.
Yes, there are many species that have more than 2 sexes. Those are decided by scientific consensus.
But sex is ultimately a category to describe the process of reproduction. By definition, this is exclusionary. It's why conservatives fumble so much when trying to describe sex in terms of actual definitions. Inherently, it is not possible to fit every person into a table of 2 columns in that way. Sex is not a binary because human beings are not binary. There is an incredible amount of variation in our bodies.
The only reason to root gender in how you were born is to ensure gender roles are as rigid and immutable as possible.
This, this right here, that's the game, that's the whole game. They want to punish transness and then start changing what the definition of trans is.
"Your daughter was wearing pants, and said no when my boy asked her out, that's trans behavior and it's unAmerican, might have to report you to a correction agency if this shit doesn't stop."
While this is very funny, and definitely representative of a sort of ignorance/arrogance commonly found in ideologues - I recently learned that most people talking about the effect have, in fact, been Dunning-Krugering themselves.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is not the problem - Nice Micro Mondays 43
Have you heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect, and how it makes people who know almost nothing very confident? Well, you can forget it, because this is not what we see in public life, it is just good old con artists trying to trick you.
Fig 1 is a modified emotional change curve applied in learning and business settings. The term "Valley of Despair" is used in both concepts, and it's cool, memorable verbiage, but it shouldn't imply relation between Dunning-Kreuger and the change curve
Image description: A modified emotional change curve from Evocon with Y-Axis being "attitude during change process" and X-Axis is time. There are 6 emotional phases described on this chart: 1. Neutral attitude, no knowledge; 2. Initial excitement, motivated; 3. Denial, indifferent, passive, apathy; 4. Resistance, frustration, doubt, anxiety (this phase falls below neutral and is described as "The Valley of Despair"); 5. Exploration, energized, small wins, creative; 6. Commitment, enthusiasm, problem solving, focus, team work.
The Valley of Despair, seems so ominous, doesn’t it? Well it is, actually. But it’s a step, and it leads up, or it leads down permanently, depending on how you approach things.
Yeah, it's really frustrating and quite ironic that pop culture keeps using this obscure scientific reference, that they don't really understand in its intended context, to describe something that really ought be plainly said: that we all have a tendency to overinflate our competence. if anything Dunning-Krueger showed that only the most seasoned experts judge themselves modestly. (and even then we'd likely only find their modesty in that particular area of expertise). it's a commentary on all of us!
But no, people name-drop this research just to dunk on people and feel smugly superior. (and I am glad I agree with the politics of the intellectual in the OP, that means it's okay and I'm a bit more competent too!) ugh. I cringe every time i read someone say Dunning-Krueger.
PS on your first image, whoever failed to put "phd student" at the trough of that curve fucked up
I mean yeah, if you spent 5 years of your life pushing the edge of human understanding on a subject, and a shithead tells you to do the science on your research subject, it's relevant lol
Funny enough, my boss has a PhD in Evolutionary Biology. She never tells people because they start referring to her as Doctor, and she hates that. I don't think I've actually ever heard her bring it up on her own.
I'm a bit uninformed on this; it seems fascinating. Do these things happen due to something unusual during the growth of a fetus? What's the name for this phenomenon?
Moron here: Are XY females sterile or is it possible for them to pass on the Y, along with a male partner Y gene to give the baby YY genes? Or is this combination non-viable and wont develop?
Mothers always pass the X chromosome due to how the egg works from what I remember. The sperm determines whether you get x or y for the second part.
There is a rare event where you can have multiple sex chromosomes, like XYY, but the X is always present (at least for humans). Considering the genes in an X chromosome are vital to life, even if we could artificially create YY, it would probably end up nonviable
XY females aren't always sterile! Most of the cases we know of are sterile though, because you don't get tested for this stuff unless something's wrong (the woman in the case study got tested because XY women are common in her family, her daughter is XY).
Context: We report herein a remarkable family in which the mother of a woman with 46,XY complete gonadal dysgenesis was found to have a 46,XY karyotype in peripheral lymphocytes, mosaicism in cultured skin fibroblasts (80% 46,XY and 20% 45,X) and a .
Context: We report herein a remarkable family in which the mother of a woman with 46,XY complete gonadal dysgenesis was found to have a 46,XY karyotype in peripheral lymphocytes, mosaicism in cultured skin fibroblasts (80% 46,XY and 20% 45,X) and a .
You know how a bunch of villains are Dr. So-and-So? I bet it's dealing with morons talking about your area of expertise that leads to one's villain era.
Can I get a T shirt that says “I have Dunning-Krueger and your Phd looks cute”? I just have a lot of BS to share and I don’t want to be sorry about it.
I think a lot of these XX XY "only two genders" people aren't just dunning Kruger, they're transphobic idiots with an agenda. So even if they had the science and knowledge it wouldn't matter because they're pushing their hateful stupid agenda, facts and logic be damned. They don't care, they just want to rationalize hating us trans people because we make them uncomfy.
I would honestly be very surprised if any Republican politicians actually care about sex or gender. I think they're just evil and those are convenient issues to divide the working class. When you don't have popular policy in real issues, you need to make up some fake ones to get people to still support you.
The current moral panic about queer people is definitely manufactured, but the hatred that it's stirred up is still real. All the religious psychos in power (including Speaker of the House Mike Johnson) really believe that stuff and want to enforce their hierarchy.
What really bothers me is that they seem to be winning on the "Trans Sports" issues which sucks, it's such a blatant distraction that I'd let them just "have that", but... you know damn well that's the floor and not the ceiling, and even then their wins are based on lies.
There are less trans athletes in the world then there are kids with measles in Texas, but the Right would have you believe ever Macho Man Randy Savage type is getting into sports and just blowing records clean away. Hence the push to "Ban transwomen and revoke their records"
What records? Even Lia Thomas, the closest they've gotten to finding an "Evil Cheating Trans!!1111" only came in 4th place....
Is there some third gender that trans people can transition to that I'm unaware of? I'm afraid I don't follow the whole situation all too well sorry. My partner has some transgender family members, but i've never i've seen anyone that isn't male to female or female to male. I guess non binary exists, but doesn't that mean no gender or both?
I'm afraid I don't know much on the subject It's unfortunate.
You're confusing sex with gender. Both are a spectrum but sex is a biological spectrum of sexual organs in a living creature and gender is a quality, projection and performance of a person that also lands on a spectrum.
The confusion is because they both use male and female but sex and gender are different things. Gender can change throughout a person's life. A person's sex is consistent throughout life and can't be changed. A person's gender can't change their sex. Sex also isn't as simple as xx is female and xy is male, there's a whole bunch of things that can't put a person in one, both, or none of those categories. Gender is even more complicated.
The current doctrine is that there are unlimited genders, if you can think of one you can call yourself that, they call them "neopronouns" and aren't simply relegated to xe/xer but include things like wolfkin and dragonfucker. There's also plurals which to the best of my understanding feel like there's multiple people usually with multiple neopronouns inside their head simultaneously.
I'm not either of these so maybe someone who is can elaborate better, but that's what I've been told and I hope it helps.
Fear not I, a still rather confused individual, but with slightly more knowledge on the topic shall answer thy call (I seem to suffer from the curse referred to as "being genderfluid" by the scholars of that gender stuff)!
Somebody who is non-binary is just someone who does not feel like they are entirely male or female. This can mean that they are both, neither or a different gender not connected to either but also not entirely absent or of course any combination of the previous examples.
In my case (genderfluid) I just flop around on the gender spectrum, mostly not having a gender or feeling a bit feminine but sometimes I do feel male or like some other gender. Though genderfluid just means that the persons gender changes over time, it doesn't have to be the same genders that I experience.
I keep hearing this. If gender is not sex than gender is not real, you can be whatever you want whenever you want, right?
Still, if a dudes is a dude it's a he, if a woman is a woman it's a she.
The only time I would actually bother ask someone what they like to be called is if they have an intersex condition. That's it.
Have you ever, in good faith, talked to a trans person?
Yes, it was the exactly stereotypical "call me mam" hairy dude. Yeah, that's never gonna happen. First time in my life I told someone to never talk with me and pretend I don't exist. I don't want to interact with these kind of lunatics.
Have you ever, in good faith, talked to an intersex person?
No but I would love too, that seems genuinely interesting. I'd have so many questions to ask
If gender is not sex than gender is not real, you can be whatever you want whenever you want, right?
How does "you can chose" make something not real? Also, it doesn't appear to be a conscious effort to be trans. Do you really think trans people go through all that just for the fun of it?
Still, if a dudes is a dude it's a he, if a woman is a woman it's a she.
And if a women is not a woman and starts HRT and everything, he's a dude. You're exactly right!
The only time I would actually bother ask someone what they like to be called is if they have an intersex condition. That's it.
Can you tell that just by looking at people?
Yes, it was the exactly stereotypical "call me mam" hairy dude.
What if it was someone who visually fit in your expectation? Would you treat them with basic respect? Can you tell me the sex of each of those people?
... show more
If gender is not sex than gender is not real, you can be whatever you want whenever you want, right?
How does "you can chose" make something not real? Also, it doesn't appear to be a conscious effort to be trans. Do you really think trans people go through all that just for the fun of it?
Still, if a dudes is a dude it's a he, if a woman is a woman it's a she.
And if a women is not a woman and starts HRT and everything, he's a dude. You're exactly right!
The only time I would actually bother ask someone what they like to be called is if they have an intersex condition. That's it.
Can you tell that just by looking at people?
Yes, it was the exactly stereotypical "call me mam" hairy dude.
What if it was someone who visually fit in your expectation? Would you treat them with basic respect? Can you tell me the sex of each of those people?
No but I would love too, that seems genuinely interesting. I'd have so many questions to ask
Wouldn't it be interesting to talk to a trans person, too? Understand their perspective? Maybe you already met someone intersex but called them slurs and walked off because you thought they might be trans.
Your baseless hate for trans people only brings evil into this world. Maybe try giving people a chance. We're all human.
Do you really think trans people go through all that just for the fun of it? I honestly think they have mental problems that won't be solved by mutilating themselves. It's not me to make that decision for them and it's their body but I try to keep myself as far away as possible.
And if a women is not a woman and starts HRT and everything, he’s a dude.
What do you mean a woman is not a woman?
Can you tell that just by looking at people?
Most likely not, but by interacting with people, yes.
Can you tell me the sex of each of those people?
Only from faces? Most likely not. First pic looks like a woman, second like a man, 3rd pic that dude might be a woman, 4th the dude is a woman and 5th I have no damn idea
called them slurs
I don't call people slurs mate, I just avoid interaction.
Those are classifications made by humans. Nature doesn't have a concept for sexes and even less so for syndromes. If it became evolutionarily advantageous to have a dick and a vagina, nature would be onto that.
Cis men and women? How does that work? Does he mean in the womb? I thought the entire problem was that trans surgery was never quite good enough to make you truly male or female.
Ngl, even if I'm more than fine with my gender, we where all curious what it's like to be the other gender, so if you could do it at a press of a button...
Countries besides the US exist, y'know? Where getting a master's degree does not require you to go into debt and you're usually employed by the university as a TA while pursuing a PhD?
I think it's sus that a Math Lecturer decides to post an article about philosophy and then doesn't describe any of the steps he took. The article basically just says i did a thing, but doesnt explain what he did/how to reproduce the result... On the other hand, philosophy is a field with many wrong conclusions and the like, so it is believable. But again in my eyes it's not proven, since it's just 'one guy' saying something and not replicated nor reproduced.
Edit after replied comment edit: The second article you linked (actually the first in the post) changes my believe about the dunning-kruger effect. Thank you for sharing!
They are not saying that the X chromosome mutates to Y, but rather saying that XY doesn't define the sex. For example, some people with XY are born with female genitalia and look female their whole lives. Sometimes they don't find out they are XY until trying to have kids and are unable to. It isn't like the X changes to Y over time. That isn't possible.
I think you may have misread. The PHD isn't saying that XY becomes XX, they are saying, genetically, a person carrying XY can be a cis woman. Biologically, XY doesn't determine the sex.
I honestly don't understand. What does define the sex biologically? The genitalia, then? I always understood positions like William's like "XY is the biologically male sex by definition, if the human develops female genitalia and feels like a woman they were biologically speaking still intended to be a man." I don't understand what else there could be on an elemental level to biologically determine the sex.
To preface: this is from a previous bout of hyper focus curiosity (i.e. I am not an expert). But the human genome is significantly more complex than "XX chromosome means biological female". Other genomic markers can trigger that don't align with the typical, which can result in male reproductive organs on a person with XX chromosome and vice versa. XX and XY are also not the only options. There are three, four, and even five somal groupings (e.g. XXY, XYY, XXX - note that to my understanding, you can't have all Y chromosomes even in these outliers). If anyone has further information or any corrections for me, I'd welcome them - I'm going off of memory from a couple of years ago and it's not directly relevant to me (i.e. I am cis-male with no known chromosomal abnormalities)
There's no one thing that defines sex, that's what makes it so complicated. What is often thought of as "biological sex" are two clustered sets of checkboxes (e.g chromosomes, genitalia, secondary sex characteristics, primary sex hormone), but people often have a mixture from both lists. Here's an interesting nature article on it nature.com/articles/518288a
It's crazy how you're still insisting that "the PhD is wrong if he meant that"' rather than figure out that no, what you think they meant is not what they meant, it is not what they said, you are the one misunderstanding what they said. It has to be the PhD's fault, certainly not yours.
And yet, when someone explained to you what the PhD said and meant, your response was:
So not what the phd claims
And just now you were still comparing them to anti-vaxx doctors "if they meant that", when they clearly didn't mean that, and you were already told what they meant. You're still pretending that maybe they said something wrong. They didn't.
Or the thought the phd must have meant something else
But sure the phd is wrong if he meant that; just like those anti-vax doctors and anti-abortion doctors
The PhD is not wrong. The PhD meant what they said, but it is not what you think they meant or said. The mistake is yours, and you still insist that maybe it's the PhD who's wrong and meant something else they didn't say - even after somebody else correctly explained what the PhD said and meant, to which you wrongly responded "that's not what the PhD claims."
What the person said as an explanation was wrong full stop. There is no argument for it we know that gender isn’t related to genitalia, we know gender isn’t related to behaviour.
Those are just things conservatives say to reinforce gender identity/roles
So you can pick one or the other; is the phd saying that in which case they are wrong. Or is the explanation wrong and the phd is talking about something else
Your insistence that both are correct just puts you in the same crowd as antivaxxers
You're the only one here claiming that the PhD is equating gender, sex, genitalia. The PhD says no such thing. The person the PhD is responding to is the one trying to equate gender, sex, genitalia, chromosoms, reducing it to "there are only two sexes, male or female." The PhD is telling that person that they are wrong, and chromosoms do not determine what comes out in the end. The PhD is correct an you are misreading them, and it has already been explained to you that the PhD is saying, verbatim, that chromosoms do not determine gender or even the sex. If you think that contradicts the PhD, you are still misunderstanding and assuming that the one who's wrong must be the PhD and certainly not you. But you really really want to say that the PhD is equating gender and sex, or that the explanation that was given to you is contradicting what the PhD is saying. At this point, you're just trying to obfuscate what the PhD is claiming and what you are defending, and somehow the PhD is the one who's wrong and as bad as anti-vaxxers.
Once again: the PhD is correct, you misunderstan
... show more
You're the only one here claiming that the PhD is equating gender, sex, genitalia. The PhD says no such thing. The person the PhD is responding to is the one trying to equate gender, sex, genitalia, chromosoms, reducing it to "there are only two sexes, male or female." The PhD is telling that person that they are wrong, and chromosoms do not determine what comes out in the end. The PhD is correct an you are misreading them, and it has already been explained to you that the PhD is saying, verbatim, that chromosoms do not determine gender or even the sex. If you think that contradicts the PhD, you are still misunderstanding and assuming that the one who's wrong must be the PhD and certainly not you. But you really really want to say that the PhD is equating gender and sex, or that the explanation that was given to you is contradicting what the PhD is saying. At this point, you're just trying to obfuscate what the PhD is claiming and what you are defending, and somehow the PhD is the one who's wrong and as bad as anti-vaxxers.
Once again: the PhD is correct, you misunderstand what they said, someone explained to you what the PhD was saying, and that explanation is not contradicting what the PhD said. The PhD and the explanation are both correct and they are saying the same thing. You keep trying to pretend that you know better than the PhD and the PhD must be anti science somehow, instead of wondering if you're not completely missing the entire discussion. The only way you are going is trying to devaluate science.
... And you still don't understand it, and you assume that everyone else is wrong even after it was explained to you. That quote is correct and it does not contradict what the PhD said. In fact, it illustrates exactly what they said.
This is your misunderstanding right there. XY is not automatically a man. You are the one making the claim that chromosoms define if you are a man or a woman, and the PhD and the other guy are telling you that there are people born with XY who are cis women with female genitalia. You are wrong.
they talk about xx becoming xy
No, they are saying no such thing. They are telling you that there are people born with XY but who have female genitalia and grow up to be cis women. No one told you that some XY people changed to XX, or XX to XY. This does not happen. This is not what the PhD said, and this is not what the other guy explained to you. You are wrong. And you keep claiming that everybody else is wrong, without ever questioning your own understanding.
??? No one said it determines your gender. We're telling you that it happens. Obviously there are XY people who grow up to be cis men, trans women, but also cis women, and surely trans men as well, or anything inbetween, with any form of gender expression you can think of. You're the only one making this all up for some reason.
No. You are conflating chromosoms, gender, sex. The PhD is telling you that you are wrong. You are claiming that you know better than them. The whole meme is about you, you have Dunning-Kruger, they have a PhD.
No one has said anything about any of that, you are making up this argument out of nothing, no one has tried to define what a man or a woman is - except you, actually. You are moving the discussion and muddying what is even being argued about, so you can pretend I'm a conservative for some reason and the doctor is as bad as an anti-vaxxer. Even though you're the one who tried to declare what a man or a woman is, when that wasn't the subject at all. You are projecting.
But for determining truth, both sides are wrong here.
Dunning-Kruger is bad, but so is credentialism and appeal to authority.
Many people with PhD's have had Dunning-Kruger. Someone else mentioned Ben Carson being great at neurosurgery, but not politics.
A PhD doesn't make you infallible.
I am saying this as someone who is taking graduate-level courses and will be pursuing my PhD. When I'm correct, it's not because my future PhD causes reality to magically conform to my opinions - it's because I rigorously looked at the evidence, logic, and formed my own conclusion that better aligns with reality.
Just a branch off thought I had when you said many people with PhDs have had Dunning-Kruger. In general, I think the way the term is used (especially online) is used incorrectly.
Everybody should experience Dunning-Kruger, it's part of the process of learning something. People who use it as an insult should be calling their accusee arrogant instead.
Okay but what is good engagement against "follow the science" aside from "I literally DO the science"? Dr. McCreight offered a point and was met with "nuh uh" so at that point it can hardly be called an argument or debate. Do those fallacies honestly matter at that point when one refuses to engage with tangible points of discussion?
it is basic biology, ie biology simplified to teach a kid in middle school. the thing is sciences don't stop at middle school level. a lot of university education is about clarifying that things you learned before were simplified to the point that they're practically useless if not outright wrong.
To be fair light does travel in straight lines (more or less... ignoring that nothing travels in any set or even single path something something veritasium video), its not lights fault if a straight line in physical reality doesn't always happen to match up with the geometry we invented.
A person’s biological sex usually refers to their status as female or male depending on their chromosomes, reproductive organs, and other characteristics. Chromosomes are tightly packed DNA, or molecules that contain the genetic instructions for the development and functioning of all living things. Humans typically have forty-six chromosomes. Two of those are sex chromosomes that contain instructions for the development and functioning of characteristics related to biological sex, such as reproductive organs. There are two kinds of human sex chromosomes, X and Y. Individuals identified as males tend to have one X and one Y chromosome, while those identified as females tend to have two X chromosomes. However, other people are born with other chromosome combinations, such as XXY, that lead them to develop a mix of characteristics. People who fit that description are often referred to as intersex, a category for people whose bodies do not conform with stereotypical expectations of males or females at birth.
In the United States, most people are assigned both a biological sex and gender at birth based on their chromosomes and reproductive organs. However, there is an important distinction between biological sex and gender.
Yeah, and those are malformations and genetical defects that come with a lot of problems.
I don't know why people glorify them... Also, there is absolutely no way that a man born with XY magically will change it in their lifetime as the posts sugests.
BY MORTEN BUSCH Sex chromosomes usually determine whether you are female or male. Women are XX. Men are XY. However, genetically, a few women are actually men.
You're the only one talking about this. A change can occur without any surgery. Reread the article to understand better, please.
You read the article and you even quoted it. It says how xx people can be men and how xy people can be women. Nobody said anything about any surgery or magic pill that grows a penis or whatever you're imagining.
I knew already about sawyer syndrome and that genetically XY can develop woman traits but I understood from the PhD, for some reason, that you can change from XY to XX during your life...
The post suggests that some people with XY chromosomes are assigned female at birth and will live as a woman. And some people with XX chromosomes are assigned male at birth and will live as a man. Not that the chromosomes change.
Those are two real medical diagnoses - Swyer syndrome or XY gonadal dysgenesis for XY women (occurs in about 1:100000 women) and de la Chapelle syndrome or XX male syndrome for XX men (occurs in about 1:20000 to 1:30000 men)
My take is that sex-linked characteristic are grouped together due to prehistoric and historic evolution. Since I dont have a womb my tits would not have been worth the energy cost in an ancestral environment. Therefore, they are not coded in my DNA and I have to dose to maintain them.
There are people who are different, that is a fact.
Some folks are given "PhD", others are kidnapped and sent to concentration camps. Is the education system legitimate, or corrupted by authority?
XY it's man, XX it's woman, nothing will ever change that...
There are intersex people, of course: Klinfelter syndrome (XXY) Turner syndrome (X) There is also XXXY which brings serious disabilities
So you as a man puttin on a wig WILL NEVER make you a woman.
"~95% of all animals in the world are ghonocoric in which individuals are either female or male sex" - "Genome evolution and mating systems in plants" Aline Muyle and Gabriel Marais
You are either a man, a woman, or you have a syndrome, a genetical mutation, a birth defect. It's a delusion to believe that you can change your biological sex during your lifetime.
I will never hold anything against these poor souls, it's not their fault for how they were born. But people cutting up their genitals and saying they are a woman now while stuffing themselves full of hormones are simply delusional.
I'm so glad that were I live there are virtually 0 "trans". Only time in my life when I had to say "Please stop talking to me and imagine I don't exist" was with a dude cosplaying as a woman.
... show more
XY it's man, XX it's woman, nothing will ever change that...
There are intersex people, of course: Klinfelter syndrome (XXY) Turner syndrome (X) There is also XXXY which brings serious disabilities
So you as a man puttin on a wig WILL NEVER make you a woman.
"~95% of all animals in the world are ghonocoric in which individuals are either female or male sex" - "Genome evolution and mating systems in plants" Aline Muyle and Gabriel Marais
You are either a man, a woman, or you have a syndrome, a genetical mutation, a birth defect. It's a delusion to believe that you can change your biological sex during your lifetime.
I will never hold anything against these poor souls, it's not their fault for how they were born. But people cutting up their genitals and saying they are a woman now while stuffing themselves full of hormones are simply delusional.
I'm so glad that were I live there are virtually 0 "trans". Only time in my life when I had to say "Please stop talking to me and imagine I don't exist" was with a dude cosplaying as a woman.
And no, you won't change speech, you are a man and a he, a woman and a she. That's it, you can get as angry as you want, nothing will ever change that.
What is the 3rd gender that one can "transition" to? Does one need to take drugs to impede their biological physiology to work properly if they want to "transition"? If one stops taking hormonal drugs what will happen?
Any individual can have different traits: - a woman can be agressive, impatient with kids and mean - a man can be a good cook, can like to clean take care of kids and easy to scare - a woman can be good at fighting and assertive - a man can have mood swings
Nothing of what I said makes anyone less of a man or woman, they are EXACTLY what they were born with whatever masculine or feminine traits they have.
"what is the third gender" your deliberate misunderstanding and simplification of the issue is just bad faith debate. you're proving us that fractions are "syndromes" by using only integers. this is just a display of ignorance and bigotry, it doesn't really paint you as smart as you're trying to appear
And some genetic mutationa in between XXY - Klinfelter syndrome XXXY - no idea how this is called X -Turner syndrome XX intersex XY intersex And true gonadal intersex
And still these are medical conditions, a man on drugs wearing a wig is still a man, and a woman on drugs to grow facial hair is still a woman.
Honey, nobody claims that trans women are biologically identical to cis women or the other way around. Sex is not gender.
And chromosomal deviations is exactly what the PhD in the OP is talking about. You can call them medical conditions if you like, but that doesn't change the fact that there are XY women and XX cis men.
Ok here I can see my lack in logic. I understood that the PhD was saying that XX can change into XY during the life of the person, not that they are born XY and naturally develop female traits.
My only pet peeve with all this is "misgendering" which I honestly despise. If one is a grown up 180cm male I'm never gonna call him a "her" just because of a wig and makeup.
But if someone was raised as a woman because that's how her body developed even if she has XY chromosomes I won't call her "he".
My only pet peeve with all this is "misgendering" which I honestly despise. If one is a grown up 180cm male I'm never gonna call him a "her" just because of a wig and makeup.
Interesting.
What if they were 165cm, had the face and body and voice of a woman and you had no idea they were trans? Would you call them He if you found out?
Would you call a big burly bearded guy She after you found out they are a trans man?
Yes I would, in both cases. But I guess it would depend, if we were friends I might call them the way they want. But that is a favor as a friend, not something that I would accept be demanded from me
Because I'm selective with my friends and I don't want any drama, and from my experience and what I keep seeing thsese king of people are all about atention.
So what you're saying is that if you don't know the particular person, you will actively go out of way to be an asshole to them, but if they're someone you care about, then you'd pretend to respect trans people enough not to intentionally fuck with them.
if we were friends I might call them the way they want
You specifically said you would actively misgender them, unless they're your friend, in which case you "might" not actively go out of your way to do so. That's a dick move, simple as.
And no, you can't pretend that answer isn't real by adding "I would never interact with or see a trans person" because that's not how life works.
congrats on your strawman, you're really driving your point home
numbers can be proven mathematically
congrats on proving math with math
there is scientific proof that gender ideology is not "today i feel", that sex and gender are distinct. you brought up multiple chromosomal conditions which are part of the scientific proof of such claim, but are too sold on high school biology to entertain complex concepts
if you want to bring "science" in this discussion, maybe read it first? it's ok to be uninformed, you can be wrong on the internet
If you're going to do a binary, X and Y chromosome doesn't hold up due to the presence of functional XX males from an SRY gene. Its speculated most Y chromosomes started as X chromosomes in animals that have that dichotomy.
In fact a functional or non functional SRY gene is a better determinant for biological sex.
The fact is though that testerone and SRY receptors have relatively high variability and trying to socially stress people into a group of traits will create a feedback loop that is opposed to more natural courses of evolution.
Its likely trans people - of whom there are records of going back to time immemorial - are likely an evolutionary adaptation and serve some evolutionary function to society we may not yet understand
Since gender is socially constructed (male norms, female norms, male jobs, female jobs) the presence of trans people in society that not only understand both sets of roles but can navigate them is probably an advantage over societies where those roles are less fluid and more strict.
There's a case to be made that the more s
... show more
If you're going to do a binary, X and Y chromosome doesn't hold up due to the presence of functional XX males from an SRY gene. Its speculated most Y chromosomes started as X chromosomes in animals that have that dichotomy.
In fact a functional or non functional SRY gene is a better determinant for biological sex.
The fact is though that testerone and SRY receptors have relatively high variability and trying to socially stress people into a group of traits will create a feedback loop that is opposed to more natural courses of evolution.
Its likely trans people - of whom there are records of going back to time immemorial - are likely an evolutionary adaptation and serve some evolutionary function to society we may not yet understand
Since gender is socially constructed (male norms, female norms, male jobs, female jobs) the presence of trans people in society that not only understand both sets of roles but can navigate them is probably an advantage over societies where those roles are less fluid and more strict.
There's a case to be made that the more strict gender roles become, the more evolutionary pressure there is to create trans people.
Since gender is socially constructed (male norms, female norms, male jobs, female jobs) the presence of trans people in society that not only understand both sets of roles but can navigate them is probably an advantage over societies where those roles are less fluid and more strict.
This might sound strange but I don't believe in an set of norms in that sense. People can do whatever the fuck they like. Male jobs are male jobs because they require more muscle, female jobs might require more emotional IQ but I don't see why you should be constrained to that
I'm a dude, I like doing laundry, and I like playing with kids, don't like cars and don't like football. Does that make me a woman?
They are saying its a choice to accept those social characteristics that are tied to gender. If people just let people express themselves how they wanted to regardless of gender, would people even want to transition in the first place?
So "until time immemorial" means we have records up to the point we don't any records. The suggestion is its a thing that probably predates the records
You haven't read anything about this. It's very clear. The first thing you learn is that sex and gender are different. Sex is biology. Gender is identity.
The second thing you learn is that sex is not binary. (And gender, being a social construct, certainly is not set in stone.) Genes may be XX, but maybe some other factor may be preventing that gene from expressing fully or even at all. This can lead to highly androgynous folks or folks with odd genital configurations. It takes genes, gene expression, and hormones for a human to express characteristics of some sex. Not all three of these are perfectly aligned. You can argue that genes control all of it, but that doesn't stand. Genes can conflict, and environmental factors can affect things.
I learned all that and more in just twenty minutes of reading. Please, go do some homework. Start with "what is the difference between sex and gender," then let the rabbit hole take you down. At least, that's the path that helped me learn a bunch of this stuff.
And regarding Dunning-Kruger, the key point is confidence. That s
... show more
You haven't read anything about this. It's very clear. The first thing you learn is that sex and gender are different. Sex is biology. Gender is identity.
The second thing you learn is that sex is not binary. (And gender, being a social construct, certainly is not set in stone.) Genes may be XX, but maybe some other factor may be preventing that gene from expressing fully or even at all. This can lead to highly androgynous folks or folks with odd genital configurations. It takes genes, gene expression, and hormones for a human to express characteristics of some sex. Not all three of these are perfectly aligned. You can argue that genes control all of it, but that doesn't stand. Genes can conflict, and environmental factors can affect things.
I learned all that and more in just twenty minutes of reading. Please, go do some homework. Start with "what is the difference between sex and gender," then let the rabbit hole take you down. At least, that's the path that helped me learn a bunch of this stuff.
And regarding Dunning-Kruger, the key point is confidence. That said, I'll caveat all the above I've said with this is just stuff that I've read from sources that I trust, which I can corroborate with my existing knowledge of genetics and broader biology. I'm not an expert. I can be proven wrong. Most of this is definitions and quite simple stuff, so my confidence is high but still shakeable.
Normally, I'm a stickler about answering asked questions, but your questions seem to be based on a misunderstanding of definitions. Once you get that sorted out, we can try again and maybe learn something together
You are either a man, a woman, or you have a syndrome
So someone with de la Chapelle syndrome is neither a man nor a woman but has a syndrome? 'Man' and 'woman' are social categories and syndrome is not, so this makes no sense. Also I doubt you'd be able to spot the 'syndrome' in a group of men.
It’s a delusion to believe that you can change your biological sex during your lifetime.
This is a strawman I see repeated a lot. I've never seen trans advocates claim this, only opponents. Even then I would still argue that it is true to some extent. S
... show more
XY it’s man, XX it’s woman, nothing will ever change that…
You are either a man, a woman, or you have a syndrome
So someone with de la Chapelle syndrome is neither a man nor a woman but has a syndrome? 'Man' and 'woman' are social categories and syndrome is not, so this makes no sense. Also I doubt you'd be able to spot the 'syndrome' in a group of men.
It’s a delusion to believe that you can change your biological sex during your lifetime.
This is a strawman I see repeated a lot. I've never seen trans advocates claim this, only opponents. Even then I would still argue that it is true to some extent. Sex is not just chromosomes (as proven by the two conditions I linked above). It's made up of many different characteristics and you can change some of them, e.g. with hormone replacement therapy, which changes some secondary sex characteristics. Or even just gynecomastia does it too.
And no, you won’t change speech, you are a man and a he, a woman and a she. That’s it, you can get as angry as you want, nothing will ever change that.
Language is completely made up and changes all the time. But you're claiming it will never change again?
You’re approaching this discussion from a place of certainty, but the reality of biology, language, and human variation is more complex than the rigid model you’re presenting.
A few key points:
If sex is strictly XX = woman and XY = man, how do you explain the people who don’t fit that?
1 in 50 people has a variation of sex development (VSD). That’s not an anomaly, but a substantial population.
Genetic chimerism, which is rarely tested for, suggests as many as 12% of people have mixed chromosomal expressions—that’s 3 in every 25 people who do not neatly fit XX or XY.
Any woman who has ever had a child is a genetic chimera, because she retains some of her child’s DNA, meaning many women carry male DNA within their bodies.
If sex were as simple as XX/XY, these biological realities wouldn’t exist. But they do, and they complicate the notion that sex is an unchangeable binary.
If hormones don’t affect biological sex, why do they permanently alter the body?
Pu
... show more
You’re approaching this discussion from a place of certainty, but the reality of biology, language, and human variation is more complex than the rigid model you’re presenting.
A few key points:
If sex is strictly XX = woman and XY = man, how do you explain the people who don’t fit that?
1 in 50 people has a variation of sex development (VSD). That’s not an anomaly, but a substantial population.
Genetic chimerism, which is rarely tested for, suggests as many as 12% of people have mixed chromosomal expressions—that’s 3 in every 25 people who do not neatly fit XX or XY.
Any woman who has ever had a child is a genetic chimera, because she retains some of her child’s DNA, meaning many women carry male DNA within their bodies.
If sex were as simple as XX/XY, these biological realities wouldn’t exist. But they do, and they complicate the notion that sex is an unchangeable binary.
If hormones don’t affect biological sex, why do they permanently alter the body?
Puberty is a hormonal process. It reshapes bodies, voices, muscle structure, brain development, and reproductive function.
If sex were truly "fixed," introducing testosterone or estrogen wouldn’t fundamentally change these same traits in adults. But it does.
So which is it? If hormones don’t influence sex, then puberty doesn’t matter either. If they do, then transitioning alters biological characteristics in ways that contradict your claims.
If language is purely "natural evolution," why has it been deliberately changed by societies and governments throughout history?
Modern Italian was not a natural evolution—it was imposed on Italy’s diverse dialects by the state.
After WWI, German was banned in schools and public institutions in parts of the U.S.
The French government has actively tried to suppress regional languages like Breton and Occitan to enforce a singular linguistic identity.
These weren’t "organic" shifts—they were deliberate policy changes. If language only changes on its own, these documented historical events should not have been possible.
If entire nations have altered their linguistic structures through conscious intervention, why would the evolution of gendered language be any different?
You argue that intersex people are "rare," but rarity does not erase reality.
Left-handed people make up about 10% of the population—a minority, but we don’t dismiss their existence because they aren’t the majority.
The number of people with red hair is lower than the percentage of intersex people, yet no one claims red hair is "unnatural."
Statistical frequency doesn’t determine what is real. Something doesn’t need to be common to be biologically significant.
The pattern in your responses suggests you are more emotionally invested in this topic than you claim.
You’ve repeatedly expressed personal relief that trans people are not common in your area. That’s not a neutral scientific observation—that’s a personal bias.
You dismiss contradictory biological realities by calling them "defects" rather than engaging with what they actually mean.
You insist this discussion is about "logic," yet when presented with genetic, medical, and linguistic evidence, you shift the argument rather than addressing the inconsistencies.
If you want to engage with this topic honestly, you’ll have to account for these contradictions instead of sidestepping them. If your argument is strong, it should be able to withstand scrutiny. If it can’t, then maybe the issue isn’t with the facts—it’s with the assumptions you started with.
And again, those are conditions, not something you choose to be, you are simply born like that.
I was pointing out how XX doesn't always mean female and XY doesn't always mean male. I didn't say you could change your chromosomes. I think you might be misunderstanding the OP. When it says 'some XX people become cis men' it means that embryos with XX chromosomes develop into cis men, not that they decide to be later in life.
Well than, waht is someone with Chappel syndrome?
Usually a man.
Oh yes, it’s also the malformations that you were born with
How do you differentiate between "normal" and a malformation? These are just arbitrary categories we made up. The reality is that we can observe that some humans just are like that and that's fine and normal.
oh so you need drugs to mimic traits from the opposite sex (there are only two after all) and gender is given by your sex.
You're moving the goalposts. You were arguing that you can't chan
... show more
And again, those are conditions, not something you choose to be, you are simply born like that.
I was pointing out how XX doesn't always mean female and XY doesn't always mean male. I didn't say you could change your chromosomes. I think you might be misunderstanding the OP. When it says 'some XX people become cis men' it means that embryos with XX chromosomes develop into cis men, not that they decide to be later in life.
Well than, waht is someone with Chappel syndrome?
Usually a man.
Oh yes, it’s also the malformations that you were born with
How do you differentiate between "normal" and a malformation? These are just arbitrary categories we made up. The reality is that we can observe that some humans just are like that and that's fine and normal.
oh so you need drugs to mimic traits from the opposite sex (there are only two after all) and gender is given by your sex.
You're moving the goalposts. You were arguing that you can't change sex and now you're retreating to 'you need drugs to change sex', which is true for HRT, but not necessarily for gynecomastia.
It's also not "mimicking" traits. Someone with gynecomastia or someone who takes feminising HRT grows the same kind of breasts as a cis woman.
Yes, language is not “made up” it evolved and will evolve naturally, demanding language to change to cater to you is not natural.
Even if this was true it would just be an appeal to nature. Natural doesn't mean good and unnatural doesn't mean bad.
But I don't think you can differentiate between 'natural' and 'unnatural' changes to language. Do you think language just evolves on its own without any human interference? Language is by definition something we do.
How do you differentiate between "normal" and a malformation?
If you need special care or attention that is a malformation. If there is a change in your physionomy that impedes you to have a life as normal as other human (you were born without a hand) that's a malformation.
You were arguing that you can't change sex and now you're retreating to 'you need drugs to change sex'
I was actually arguing that you can't change your genome, so yeah, sex. But by HRT you still don't change that, you just try to mimic traits oposite of yours.
Do you think language just evolves on its own without any human interference? Language is by definition something we do.
Of course language can be influenced, but usually when it is, it's for ease of understanding, and generally making people lives better.
By changing the language just for some people to be triggered because they were "misgendered" you don't bring any value
If you need special care or attention that is a malformation. If there is a change in your physionomy that impedes you to have a life as normal as other human (you were born without a hand) that’s a malformation.
This doesn't apply to many of the intersex conditions we talked about. They can present in a way where people don't even notice they have them.
I was actually arguing that you can’t change your genome, so yeah, sex. But by HRT you still don’t change that, you just try to mimic traits oposite of yours.
We've already established that genome doesn't exclusively determine sex. An XX male could live their entire life as a man and never even know that they have XX and not XY chromosomes.
Of course language can be influenced, but usually when it is, it’s for ease of understanding, and generally making people lives better. By changing the language just for some people to be triggered because they were “misgendered” you don’t bring any value
... show more
If you need special care or attention that is a malformation. If there is a change in your physionomy that impedes you to have a life as normal as other human (you were born without a hand) that’s a malformation.
This doesn't apply to many of the intersex conditions we talked about. They can present in a way where people don't even notice they have them.
I was actually arguing that you can’t change your genome, so yeah, sex. But by HRT you still don’t change that, you just try to mimic traits oposite of yours.
We've already established that genome doesn't exclusively determine sex. An XX male could live their entire life as a man and never even know that they have XX and not XY chromosomes.
Of course language can be influenced, but usually when it is, it’s for ease of understanding, and generally making people lives better. By changing the language just for some people to be triggered because they were “misgendered” you don’t bring any value
It brings value to the people who are affected. And we do this sort of thing a lot. Just like almost nobody says the n-word any more because we've collectively decided that it's inappropriate.
Honestly it feels like you're doing all these mental gymnastics just so you can have a justification for being rude to trans people. Is that really how you want to spend your energy?
Oh, if we are comparing people with atoms than hydrogen can become helium and helium can become hydrogen, right?
Also, I said that there are intersex people and that it is a condition. They do exist, they are real, some of them will need medical help for all their life and the ones that don't need understanding. Being trans it's self inflicted problem tho
They're pointing out the stupidity of your argument, since it depends on ignoring the fact that the remaining 5% exist, in the same way that classifying everything as those two elements requires ignoring the fact that the other 1% of matter exists
You're a sad transphobic loser. Have fun being banned. I'll personally find and report the rest of your alts to make sure you're banned from all of Lemmy forever.
Some XX people live their entire lives as men without ever knowing otherwise, and the same happens with XY individuals living as women. Even having children won't reveal the apparent discrepancy, unless they need certain tests done.
Traditional friends: Threatened by US, Canada hugs France and Britain close
> "Canada was built upon a union of peoples –- indigenous, French, and British," Carney said, in a statement released before he set off from Ottawa on Sunday, two days after he was sworn in, replacing 10-year veteran prime minister Justin Trudeau as leader of the G7, NATO and Commonwealth power. today.rtl.lu/news/world/a/2285… #CDNpoli #Canada #France #Britain
I grew up in Canada - recently, 40 years after I left Canada, I moved to France, and I was surprised how many contacts people had here with Québec, but it's very logical in hindsight.
🇺🇸 bénéficient d'un important excédent commercial avec le #Canada, exportant 877.5M $ CA de produits laitiers et important 357.9M $ CA en retour.i Cet accès accru des États-Unis a eu un coût direct pour les producteurs laitiers #canadiens, en réduisant leur part de marché du secteur laitier national🇨🇦”
“🇺🇸 enjoys a dairy trade surplus with #Canada, exporting $877.5 million CAD in dairy products while importing $357.9 million CAD in return.This increased 🇺🇸 = direct cost to #Canadiandairyfarmers, reducing their market share and weakening the stability of Canada’s domestic #dairy sector. “ #DFOC #CAD😡
David Wiens, President of Dairy Farmers of Canada, issued the following statement regarding the March 7 announcement of potential tariffs on Canadian dairy.
“We look forward to working with the new Prime Minister to protect our nation’s food security and sovereignty by ensuring that key foods, including dairy, are made in Canada for Canadians. “
Woaahh! In our neighbours house, this man went on FOX and spoke the TRUTH! Americans need to protect this man and his family now! This Canadian is PROUD of his bravery to use USA’s FREEDOM OF SPEECH to spread the truth, during a time when FOTUS47 tries very hard to silence anyone who doesn’t share his narrative or complexion. #uspoli #USA #FOXnews #foxnewschannel #usapolitics #FreedomOfSpeech #canadianshearyou
Auchincloss on Fox News Sunday: "This economy is inflationary right now...you know what the GOP response is? Their response is, 'Well, get ready for a rocky ride & by the way, we're gonna give tax cuts to the top 20% of earners & pay for it by taking…
#US - One of the most common questions asked of the Foreign Agricultural Service (#FAS) office based in the United States #Embassy in #Ottawa, #Canada is why Canada is able to restrict the entry of US #dairy #products into Canada, and yet Canada is able to #export dairy products to the United States. This report, by the #USDA Foreign #Agricultural Service, attempts to provide a clear explanation using yogurt #trade as a case study.
US - One of the most common questions asked of the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) office based in the United States Embassy in Ottawa, Canada is why Canada is able to restrict the entry of US dair
Since 1970 Canada's dairy industry has been operating under a supply management system by which supply is matched with domestic demand. In the process of controlling the supply the amount of imports are made predictable through a system of tariff rate quotas. Canada annually allows in a pre- determined amount of dairy products in various categories duty free from the United States, but once the volume limit has been reached (quota), anything over that amount is subject to tariffs of a minimum of 200 per cent and up to 313.5 per cent.”
Before #FOTUS47 began his push, during his first term, to gain unfettered access to Canada’s dairy market… did he even read this article? He probably didn’t care. He just wants to sell sell sell.
Donald Trump and Elon Musk think this country belongs to them. They're taking everything they can get their hands on and daring the world to stop them.
“ “The tariffs are having a tremendously positive impact — they will have, and they are having.” Trump told the gathering of CEOs, saying the import taxes would cause more factories to relocate to the United States.”
“My government will keep our tariffs on until the Americans show us respect and make credible, reliable commitments to free and fair trade,” - Mark Carney
I predict the opposite is going to happen. Foreign companies that currently have manufacturing facilities in the US will pull out. These foreign companies benefitted from the free trade agreement between the US Canada and Mexico. It made sense to put factories in the US, in the middle of the three countries, then freely distribute their products to three different countries.
Canadians are refusing to buy American products or anything that comes out of the US, regardless of tariffs being placed on imported goods from the US. US citizens are going to see drastic price increases across the board. They might hit a recession, and if that happens foreign companies with factories in the US will lose revenue, and possibly have to look into pulling out of the US.
Canada has long been a close ally and trading partner of the United States, but President Donald Trump's steep new tariffs are getting the U.S. into a major trade war with its neighbor to the north.
Reposted from ( bsky.app/profile/charlieangus1… ) “Trump has declared economic war on Europe. To our democratic allies respond in the Canadian way - cancel trips, boycott bourbon and any American product. Let your purchases send a message to the oligarchs.”
Trump has declared economic war on Europe.
To our democratic allies respond in the Canadian way - cancel trips, boycott bourbon and any American product.
Let your purchases send a message to the oligarchs.
I guess my next phone is NOT going to be made in the US 🤷🏼♀️
Enjoy the extra tariffs #tRump. Canadians are getting more reasons from our governments to boycott the things you make, with the resources you buy from us with YOUR tariffs on it,… and our sovereign nation is loving it.
Mom says Canadian woman in 'inhumane' U.S. detention, Global Affairs can't intervene
Global Affairs says it can’t intervene on behalf of a Canadian being held in an Arizona immigration detention centre, where the woman’s mother says conditions are “inhumane and deeply concerning.”
the Brits and the Germans haven’t been able to do anything about their national who have been detained either (and the Germans even had return tickets, so that should have been a no-brainer). This should be a warning to everyone not to travel to the US for any reason. They will be taking foreign nationals as hostages just like Russia does.
oh, I have been, and quite forcefully, but as a friend of mine’s father says, “you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make a jackass drink.” (No offence to donkeys, they are smarter than most people).
@Lynn D 🇨🇦 ugh..we’re Canadian and my inlaws are in florida. They go to Fl jan-April every yr. They’ve been FoxWashed and don’t think there’s a big issue.
I was asking my husband what happens if they get detained on their drive back home.
@datum @happyfamjam @Lynnd Isn't Rubio in Canada? We could detain him and make him sleep in same conditions, till they release all the illegally detained people.
The big guns are coming out! BC creating a law to impose restrictions on USA activity in BC.
"He has no regard for the chaos that he's causing," Eby said, referring to Trump. "We feel this is part of his strategy to hurt the Canadian economy and to force us into his vision of annexation into the United States of America, redrawing our borders and [getting] access to our water."
Part 1 of this Bill provides for the removal of barriers to the sale and use of goods and the supply of services in British Columbia in relation to goods and services from another province or territory of Canada.
3/n Part 3 of this Bill provides for tolls, fees and charges in respect of the use of a provincial undertaking.
Part 4 of this Bill provides authority for regulations to modify enactments, authorizations and material adopted by reference. It also requires reports to be tabled in the Legislative Assembly respecting the exercise of powers under this Part.
4/END Part 5 of this Bill provides that the general offence provision of the Offence Act does not apply, provides for general powers respecting regulations and provides for the repeal of specified provisions of this Bill.
Finally, an account of US politicians speaking out against this B/S, and validitating how Canadians are feeling. Now do something productive outside of talking.
When Ukraine's president faced a fiery meeting with Donald Trump at the White House, his plight struck a chord with a couple 16,000 kilometres away in rural Australia.
Energy trading between the United States and Canada -- and how Texas factors in -- has been a point of discussion this week at a global energy conference in Houston.
CERAWeek by S&P Global is being held through Friday at the George R. Brown Convention Center and adjacent Hilton Americas-Houston. The annual conference features government officials and energy industry leaders from across the world.
⚠️ Anyone who doesn't like it when a Canadian such as myself pushes back against this Joking" about Canada joining the US or the US joining Canada rhetoric... please do us both a favour and block me now because if you don't want to understand the seriousness of how this normalizes Trump's agenda I do not want to hear your "Calm Down", or "it's just a joke, get over it". This is not a game. It is my country. It is the independence of Canada at stake.
It's long past time people stopped treating the offhand or idiotic things Trump et al keep saying as a joke.
These assholes aren't joking, they're not your friends, they do not have your best interests at heart and the sooner people realise this the better for all of us.
@Wintermane And perpetuating that joke is irresponsible, displays an easily manipulated mind, a lack of critical thinking, and zero empathy for Canadians--and that includes my fellow citizens who are repeating Trump's message.
I could see the US becoming a Canadian providence, and americans having to learn to live under the Canadian cannon of laws... it would be a shock to some people (million/billionaires) but for the general populace not a lot would really change, other than better medical, politicians that are actually working for the people, maybe some changes in politeness, improved schooling, you know nothing too substantial for most of what is currently USA (not so united right now I fear) as for the other way around.. nope, can not see Canada becoming the 51st state of the US, or the 50anythingth state to be honest... Canadian people are much to kind and honorable to live under american law, and show too much concern for community to be willing to subject themselves to the US... trump blows a lot of smoke up peoples ass and his claims that tariffs will make Canada beg to become a state are just that, him blowing smoke up peoples ass... invoking a tariff on products going out to other countries is about as effective as saying "we dont want to sell this stuff, but we really want you to buy it for mor... show more
I could see the US becoming a Canadian providence, and americans having to learn to live under the Canadian cannon of laws... it would be a shock to some people (million/billionaires) but for the general populace not a lot would really change, other than better medical, politicians that are actually working for the people, maybe some changes in politeness, improved schooling, you know nothing too substantial for most of what is currently USA (not so united right now I fear) as for the other way around.. nope, can not see Canada becoming the 51st state of the US, or the 50anythingth state to be honest... Canadian people are much to kind and honorable to live under american law, and show too much concern for community to be willing to subject themselves to the US... trump blows a lot of smoke up peoples ass and his claims that tariffs will make Canada beg to become a state are just that, him blowing smoke up peoples ass... invoking a tariff on products going out to other countries is about as effective as saying "we dont want to sell this stuff, but we really want you to buy it for more then its worth to you" which might fly in the US, but isnt going to fly in places like Canada and the EU... tbh, I can see a higher probability that Canada will join the EU then Canada joining the US.. and thats from an american whos eyes are open, and ears can hear the truth of whats happening.
🇨🇦 🇺🇸 This is why we need to stop "joking" or talking about Canada becoming part of the US and vice versa
'Not just trolling': Security analyst warns Trump no longer joking about taking Canada "So I think we are all, in the beginning, thinking about this like this is just kind of the trolling, he's having a little fun, right?" Sanner continued. "But one of the things 👉 about President Trump is, when he repeats things over and over and over again, it becomes more real. And I think that in this case, it's not just about negotiating, it's not just about trolling. And I think that absolutely there will be more to come and more pressure. How serious this is is a different matter. But does he actually think it should be true? I think he does. I think he's convincing himself."
President Donald Trump has moved on from joking about acquiring Canada as a U.S. state to thinking it's a good idea, former Deputy Director of National Intelligence Beth Sanner told CNN's Jake Tapper on Friday.
That’s not how tariffs work. Trump is essentially taxing goods crossing *into* the US. He’s forcing his own citizens to pay more for anything imported.
@happyfamjam tariffs are bi-directional, they can be placed on goods entering a country, or placed on goods leaving a country, in an attempt to apply political pressure on another nation for various purposes, none of which should apply in a civilized society any more, since we shouldnt be trying to conquer a neighbor but instead treat with them... we dont want them placing tariffs on our products, why should we do it? on the other hand tariffs can work with sanctions when dealing with a hostile nation that you and other nations around the world are trying to get to cease hostile actions for instance, making it more expensive for those countries to export their goods to your country or other countries that are supporting and including tariffs of their own. in the case of the current one, trump is imposing a tax on US goods being sent out of the country to various nations making them more expensive for those countries to buy, and yes more so imposing tariffs on goods coming... show more
@happyfamjam tariffs are bi-directional, they can be placed on goods entering a country, or placed on goods leaving a country, in an attempt to apply political pressure on another nation for various purposes, none of which should apply in a civilized society any more, since we shouldnt be trying to conquer a neighbor but instead treat with them... we dont want them placing tariffs on our products, why should we do it? on the other hand tariffs can work with sanctions when dealing with a hostile nation that you and other nations around the world are trying to get to cease hostile actions for instance, making it more expensive for those countries to export their goods to your country or other countries that are supporting and including tariffs of their own. in the case of the current one, trump is imposing a tax on US goods being sent out of the country to various nations making them more expensive for those countries to buy, and yes more so imposing tariffs on goods coming in from those countries raising their price so american companies wont want to buy them, or need to raise the prices they charge the public supposedly making american made products look like the better purchase. but they are bi-directional, not uni-directional
Laura Anna
in reply to br00t4c • •Snowshadow 🇨🇦
in reply to br00t4c • • •Francisca Sinn
in reply to Snowshadow 🇨🇦 • • •Snowshadow 🇨🇦
in reply to Francisca Sinn • • •Francisca Sinn
in reply to Snowshadow 🇨🇦 • • •@Snowshadow “both sides are the same” is an ignorant *lie* that supports extremism and enables tinpot despot wannabe’s like the fascist felon and copycats.
I know you know this Snowshadow, but for others less versed in Canadian politics, what is said in this piece about the Liberals is a complete fabrication, twisting what the right wing “conservative” party & far-right extremist parties want to achieve, while the Liberals are who support social programs & the CBC. Absolute rubbish.
Snowshadow 🇨🇦
in reply to Francisca Sinn • • •@fsinn
Yup. I do know that.
Canadians also need to realize we are living in dangerous times so we need a calm, cool, collected, "get it done" PM, We want someone who is accustomed to dealing with emergencies and Carney has the track record to prove he is capable.
And Bothsidesism was the path to Trump.
ItsDoctorNotMrs
in reply to Snowshadow 🇨🇦 • • •Very much so.