Republican Congresswoman provides the definition of a woman. (It's worse than you think)

[BlackNGoldBleeder]

You're distorting what people are saying. For 80-90% of the population there's no real issue with identifying what sex they are. That's now normative curves work. 80% of the people generally fall within just one or two standard deviation where they feel comfortable with the definition of female, they're attracted to the opposite sex, they fall within societies cultural norms on what those mean with no real issue. I've never had any problem identifying myself as male. I don't fall into every category of male that some people demand, but I'm a male, I'm attracted to women, I'm a Father, a Husband, my pronouns are He/His/Him and no issue at all.

Unfortunately there's a lot more complexity to it. Some people say that it's chromosomes but there are people who's chromosomes don't match their sex organs, there are people who are born with more than one sex organ, there are people who's brains are functionally female while the rest of their body looks like male or vice versa. Those people fall on the outskirts of what it means to be a male/female and it's not as clear for them.

So yes, for 80-90 % of people, I have no issue with identifying them as male or female. In the past we simply told those who fell outside the spectrum that they had to fall inline and so they lived what felt wrong and broken because society demanded it. But how do you define people who have traits outside of your narrow vision of what it means to be male/female? People just like to ignore those and pretend they don't exist or worse yet, call them some type of broken perversion/mutation.

Those are the people I'm speaking about and it's not clear. Yes, some people simply have gender dysphoria that may all be in their heads; that's why anyone dealing with this should have a good therapist to help them work through everything, but the more we learn about science, the more we learn that nothing in nature is ever as simple as we like to say it is. Things are crazy and all over the place, and the same applies to human sexuality/gender. It's just that some of us aren't comfortable with it, and so we want to deny it.

To me the harder question is how you handle those situations. When it comes to things like what we do when we find out someone falls outside those "normal" situations, how do we treat them, how do we handle academics, etc...? In that I don't know. Those were all setup with the idea of a binary that we're starting to learn isn't as clear for a small percentage of the population.

But you don't want to talk about those because you just learned about it from some tweets from actual scientists (As if it isn't valid since they tweeted it), or because it's clear to you when someone is male/female.

I understand what you are saying and agree with highlighting nuance.

I think tumorboy is right about this not being worth arguing over. It seems you are arguing on the basis of gender being included in the definition of a woman. In that case, I concede the point you are making.

Biology is still biology. 😁

 

[BlackNGoldBleeder]

except scientists are literally telling us that they haven't. But yeah, believe what you want about science. How dare we point out facts.

Those aren’t facts about biology.

 

[BelemNole]

Those aren’t facts about biology.

No matter how many times you tell yourself that it won't make it true. What are you so afraid of?

 

[TennNole17]

No matter how many times you tell yourself that it won't make it true. What are you so afraid of?

Maybe he’s afraid social opinion is the tail wagging the dog with regard to scientific opinion?

 

[BelemNole]

Maybe he’s afraid social opinion is the tail wagging the dog with regard to scientific opinion?

Then he should provide evidence of such.

 

[TennNole17]

Then he should provide evidence of such.

Not speaking for BNG:

Broadly speaking, I don’t know why (for example) Utah legislature has spent a year debating trans in sports, when there’s 4 athletes in question; whereas we’ve somehow cutout free school lunches.

my thought process, is that social sentiment is driving these non-issues because it divides voters into little red or blue boxes and makes people ultra defensive on them.

to that end, why are scientists even addressing these from a biological point of view, if not for social sentiment? Was there an issue identifying remains, to your example, that prompted further differences on male and female? Or were further studies done in response to all the hoopla in our country?

I typed this on the toilet, so the composition probably reflects that.

 

[gohawks50]

In every experience I had in class they used everyone's correct pro-nouns and no one corrected them on their pro-noun usage.

In fact one time we had a class separate between males and females and there was no difficulty with that what so ever. I was never shocked by having a person that I considered to be female to be part of the male side or vice versa.

But I'm sure your correct that we should just ask everyone if their sex is male or female and if their gender is male or female because we can't really tell can we? It's completely impossible. No way one could guess those things with better than a 50/50 accuracy.

Are you saying your professors could look at any person and correctly identify their sex? There were no androgenous people in your class.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Are you saying your professors could look at any person and correctly identify their sex? There were no androgenous people in your class.

View embedded media

I have seen a few people that could be described as androgenous. But they are few and far in-between. 99.9% of people can have their sex correctly identified by simply looking at them.

 

[Warrior Poet31]

Then he should provide evidence of such.

How's all of recorded history where sex and gender were synonymous.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

How's all of recorded history where sex and gender were synonymous.

I agree with the broken clock.

 

[BelemNole]

I agree with the broken clock.

That should alarm you.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

That should alarm you.

No it doesn't alarm me. I think for myself and some people are broken clocks and right two times a day and wrong pretty much every other time.

All of this is quite ridiculous. Do you honestly ask every person you meet their sex/gender/preferred pro-nouns? I don't and I've never been wrong on any human being older than 2. (I admit I was wrong on a baby once, but in my defense it's not always clear when the baby isn't naked and this baby had clothes on.)

 

[BelemNole]

Not speaking for BNG:

Broadly speaking, I don’t know why (for example) Utah legislature has spent a year debating trans in sports, when there’s 4 athletes in question; whereas we’ve somehow cutout free school lunches.

my thought process, is that social sentiment is driving these non-issues because it divides voters into little red or blue boxes and makes people ultra defensive on them.

to that end, why are scientists even addressing these from a biological point of view, if not for social sentiment? Was there an issue identifying remains, to your example, that prompted further differences on male and female? Or were further studies done in response to all the hoopla in our country?

I typed this on the toilet, so the composition probably reflects that.

The GOP is campaigning on culture war issues. That's why there are so many trans laws. The Utah governor stated that the law was mean and unnecessary. They're doing this because they have no actual policy positions....and because it works. Punching down has always been popular.
Scientists are addressing it because people are misrepresenting science in order to discriminate against people.

 

[BelemNole]

No it doesn't alarm me. I think for myself and some people are broken clocks and right two times a day and wrong pretty much every other time.

By right you mean "agrees with my religious dogma"

 

[Warrior Poet31]

^^^

This guys claims to be an intellectual. Let that sink in.

 

[BlackNGoldBleeder]

Maybe he’s afraid social opinion is the tail wagging the dog with regard to scientific opinion?

Yes. There’s no reason to engage beyond respecting nuance. Big D-Port summarized the argument quite nicely. Libturds are just as myopic and self-assured as their Trump chump counterparts. It’s a waste of time to engage. Not a single libturd has provided a cogent scientific argument for biological nuance outside of anomaly.

If they need validation for how sophisticated and intellectually superior they are, they can go elsewhere.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

By right you mean "agrees with my religious dogma"

Agrees with common sense.

 

[BlackNGoldBleeder]

^^^

This guys claims to be an intellectual. Let that sink in.

Belem is triggered and has the cognitive dexterity of an amoeba. It’s a winning formula in biological “polemics.”

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

You're labelled when you don't conform. It's a Borg hive mind mentality.

It's organized superstition that's trying to force people to conform. I may not understand the trans point of view, but they are the anti-hive folks in this equation.

 

[BelemNole]

Agrees with common sense.

lol, ah good old 'common sense' the last bastion of flat earthers and evolution deniers. Who needs science when you can just common sense it!!

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

except scientists are literally telling us that they haven't. But yeah, believe what you want about science. How dare we point out facts.

Science can tell us whether a person has a Y chromosome or not.

Beyond that, are any of these questions really science questions? I mean, we can study them scientifically, but that's not the same thing.

For example, we can study how many men are attracted to women vs those attracted to men (or both or whatever). That study can be conducted scientifically. But whether I am attracted to women or not is not a scientific question, is it? It's just a data point.

Similarly, a person born physiologically/genetically female may identify as a male. Could there be a scientific reason for that? Maybe. But even if there is, so what? What does knowing that if your mother took some med while pregnant, you are more likely to identify with a different gender do for the debate about whether you should be allowed to so-identify?

 

[Warrior Poet31]

Who needs science when you can just common sense it!!

Or just change the definition.

That all depends on which definition you're using.

 

[gohawks50]

I have seen a few people that could be described as androgenous. But they are few and far in-between. 99.9% of people can have their sex correctly identified by simply looking at them.

Where did you get your percentage? Just a guess, right?

 

[BelemNole]

Where did you get your percentage? Just a guess, right?

"common sense"

 

[Warrior Poet31]

You guys like empirical data...until you don't.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

How determine who is the woman. [You'll need to turn up the volume to hear it, but it's worth it.]

 

[fsu1jreed]

Cognitive dissonance is not allowed.

FIFY

 

[kc78]

Those aren’t facts about biology.

I literally posted quotes from a biologist talking about biology, but you ignored it because she chose to share those thoughts in twitter.

 

[kc78]

Science can tell us whether a person has a Y chromosome or not.

Beyond that, are any of these questions really science questions? I mean, we can study them scientifically, but that's not the same thing.

For example, we can study how many men are attracted to women vs those attracted to men (or both or whatever). That study can be conducted scientifically. But whether I am attracted to women or not is not a scientific question, is it? It's just a data point.

Similarly, a person born physiologically/genetically female may identify as a male. Could there be a scientific reason for that? Maybe. But even if there is, so what? What does knowing that if your mother took some med while pregnant, you are more likely to identify with a different gender do for the debate about whether you should be allowed to so-identify?

in the tweets I posted she discusses how many people have all the female or male organs but actually don't have the same chromosomes. We just never know because we don't generally go looking, and she doesn't let her students look because in class isn't the time for someone to find that information out.

I'm just saying that defining gender still requires nuance.

If you say that they have a vagina so they're a woman, then what do we do with intersex. They have to fit somewhere.
If you say that they have Chromosomes, then what happens when their chromosomes don't match their organs.
We've also studied the brain, and there are distinctions in male and female brains. What do we do when the brain is "female" but everything else screams male?

Biology is complex and it doesn't fit into neat boxes. It never has. When it doesn't as society we've just tried to make the boxes bigger, but then you lose nuance.

Now none of that means that someone who grew up with male testosterone should be allowed to compete as a female. I don't know the answer to that; but I'm saying it isn't settled science and we need to keep researching and try to respect that people who don't' fall neatly into the spectrum aren't perverts or people with mental health problems (Although some of them likely are). I just hate when we say that this is all settled stuff and we shouldn't even be discussing it because we're just stupid liberals who want to groom children or whatever nonsense Republicans are spouting today.

 

[sober_teacher]

How? With the exception of birth defects and weird anomalies, there are clear and distinct biological characteristics that distinguish male and female homo sapiens. Because I was born male, I have a penis, testicles, and greater bone density and muscle mass than my female counterparts. This simple aphorism is so solid and backed incontrovertibly by modern science, through such advances in (e.g.) forensics, which allow us to determine if (e.g) human remains found years later in the woods once belonged to a man or woman, that there should be no controversy whatsoever about biological differences between males and females.

Now, gender, gender roles, and gender identity is an entirely different matter. But the biological differences between males and females are settled science.

There is a difference between one’s sex and one’s gender. Imo, you are born with the one, but the later evolves over time.

It’s not that the judge couldn’t answer the question, the Senator wasn’t after that answer at all. The Judge simply wasn’t going to play her little game.

Anyone with a brain knows it was a trap and there was no right answer. Blackburn would have twisted it either way no matter she answered it. Even tho it’s highly unlikely it will ever come up as an issue with any future SC case.

How's all of recorded history where sex and gender were synonymous.

Well, it helps that psychology is barely a century old as a legit and respected field of medicine, and for a long time considered gender conversion therapy as a legit treatment option. There’s a lot about gender related questions that we’ve simply not asked until relatively recently.

heck, in the not too distant past, bleeding someone was a commonly accepted practice as well.

 

[NoleATL]

Apparently, according to our next Supreme Court Justice, only biologists can speak on that subject.

LOL... No, but she did know a trap question when she heard one. MTG, apparently, did not.

 

[stout1]

Where did you get your percentage? Just a guess, right?

I believe the scientific term is "from his ass".

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Where did you get your percentage? Just a guess, right?

Wow you are going to quibble out that. Ok how about the vast vast majority?

 

[gohawks50]

Wow you are going to quibble out that. Ok how about the vast vast majority?

I just think it's silly that you think your professors knew your classmates gender just by looking at them. You have no idea if any of your classmates spoke to the professor in advance about their preferences. Your assumption is that in your eyes the students referred to by female pronouns were born female and those they referred to by male pronouns were born male. You could be correct, but you could also be completely off the mark.

 

[BlackNGoldBleeder]

There is a difference between one’s sex and one’s gender. Imo, you are born with the one, but the later evolves over time.

Anyone with a brain knows it was a trap and there was no right answer. Blackburn would have twisted it either way no matter she answered it. Even tho it’s highly unlikely it will ever come up as an issue with any future SC case.

Well, it helps that psychology is barely a century old as a legit and respected field of medicine, and for a long time considered gender conversion therapy as a legit treatment option. There’s a lot about gender related questions that we’ve simply not asked until relatively recently.

heck, in the not too distant past, bleeding someone was a commonly accepted practice as well.

I agree sex and gender are not necessarily one and the same. Hence my point on nuance. The biology remains the same, though. If it didn’t, trans people would not be seeking surgeries that matched their biology with their gender identity.

 

[kc78]

I just think it's silly that you think your professors knew your classmates gender just by looking at them. You have no idea if any of your classmates spoke to the professor in advance about their preferences. Your assumption is that in your eyes the students referred to by female pronouns were born female and those they referred to by male pronouns were born male. You could be correct, but you could also be completely off the mark.

I was a teacher at one point at a college. We required our male students to wear shirt and ties (A stupid policy, but there nonetheless). One of my colleagues almost got fired because he started to jump all over a female in his class who didn't have the required tie. She was very female, but she had didn't look it. I push back on the idea that professors always know by just looking.

 

[kc78]

I agree sex and gender are not necessarily one and the same. Hence my point on nuance. The biology remains the same, though. If it didn’t, trans people would not be seeking surgeries that matched their biology with their gender identity.

But I keep asking, what about people who have more than one set of gentalia so their parents simply choose a gender, what about those who have chromosomes that don't match their organs? You keep saying it's set. Yes, for most people it is. By nature doesn't work that clearly all the time. Trans people are a very small percentage of the population which would fall well with those who are several deviations outside of the norm.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

This thread is great.


Sex is biological and determined by Genetics.


Gender is an identity and can be fluid.



If someone ask you "what makes a woman" the answer is XX chromosomes.

 

[BlackNGoldBleeder]

I just think it's silly that you think your professors knew your classmates gender just by looking at them. You have no idea if any of your classmates spoke to the professor in advance about their preferences. Your assumption is that in your eyes the students referred to by female pronouns were born female and those they referred to by male pronouns were born male. You could be correct, but you could also be completely off the mark.

And in how many cases in such a scenario were professors unable to correctly match gender by appearance? 1 in 100? 1 in a 1,000? 100,000? 1,000,000?

?

We are frequently told (e.g) transgender girls competing in athletic competition is a wedge issue because the numbers are so nominal they’re practically obsolete. That’s fine, but what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If <1% of U.S. adults identify as transgender, and that number doesn’t include the cases where gender dysphoria is due to mental health, then how in the world can it be argued that that number is statistically significant enough to even suggest there’s a possibility biological determinants of male and female are more ambiguous than originally thought? It’s absolutely ludicrous.

Gender, gender identity, and gender expression are very fluid. I don’t disagree with that. But this notion biological determinants that make one male or female upon birth is not cut and dry is laughably ridiculous. And frankly, not even worth debating.

 

[sober_teacher]

And in how many cases in such a scenario were professors unable to correctly match gender by appearance? 1 in 100? 1 in a 1,000? 100,000? 1,000,000?

?

We are frequently told (e.g) transgender girls competing in athletic competition is a wedge issue because the numbers are so nominal they’re practically obsolete. That’s fine, but what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If <1% of U.S. adults identify as transgender, and that number doesn’t include the cases where gender dysphoria is due to mental health, then how in the world can it be argued that that number is statistically significant enough to even suggest there’s a possibility biological determinants of male and female are more ambiguous than originally thought? It’s absolutely ludicrous.

Gender, gender identity, and gender expression are very fluid. I don’t disagree with that. But this notion biological determinants that make one male or female upon birth is not cut and dry is laughably ridiculous. And frankly, not even worth debating.

The problem for me, as I tried to allude to earlier is that, as you acknowledged there is a difference between gender and sex. Republicans and Blackburn in particular with her question to Jackson, are trying to argue they’re the same thing. And they get away with it because people want simple solutions to not-simple problems, whether or not it’s actually a problem in the first place.