Grenartia wrote:Tarsonis wrote:So have I. I can find a single professor to claim the Roswell incident was a plot by Stalin to scare Americans, doesn't make it true. Those "communities" you speak of, by and large do not accept your claim.
Prove it.
You first. But maybe you're not understanding what I mean. Gender is not completely unmoored from biological sex. The concept is inherently tied to the expression of biological sex in both the Id and the societal conception. While strict dichotomous gender roles and expression has been challenged in modern thinking, gender is still rooted in how biological sex is expressed. A transgender person is someone whose self expressed gender, does not match their biological sex. An "Agender" person is someone who doesn't claim to be of either gender (male/female) and usually expresses an androgenous gender, that is ultimately a compilation of gender traits to a varying degree, or in some a complete rejection of gender identifying traits (though usually still results in a compilation of gender traits).
While our expression of gender is understood to be much less determined by biological sex, the concept of gender is inherently rooted in the biological sexes.
That's not saying much.
Good.
A self created "other" gender expressed as a mix of traits from both genders.
I imagine several of the agender posters here will have several things to say about that.
That they may. I expect disagreement, this is a debate forum after all.
By definition, not norm.
Science does account for its existence, and for the existence of intersex.
One is the result of a recessive gene pairing, the other through improper gene sequencing.
True, by definition Red hair wouldn't be considered "normal" either. It's a deviation form the statistical norm, and reaching for them as "proof" is as faulty as reaching for intersex.
God, that's a lazy and stupid argument. That last sentence alone arguably implies that "red" shouldn't be a valid description of somebody's natural hair color, simply because it deviates from the statistical norm.
By this same logic, nobody who isn't a 20-something Han Chinese guy named Mohammed is valid.
I see the problem, you're conflating normal with valid. Just because something isn't "normal" doesn't make it invalid. Case in point with Red hair. Red hair isn't a normal phenotype, in the wholesale population. It's the result of a recessive gene pairing, thus making it rare. Granted due to the nature of breeding communities, Red hair is quite common in the anglo-community, but as a whole of the species it is quite rare. Same with blue eyes. However, this differs with intersex, because red hair is not the result of genetic defect. And I'm not appealing to some vague post modern idea of "defect is subjective." Red Hair is the result of successful gene paring, but of recessive traits. The genes correctly separated during meiosis, and correctly paired during conception.
What is typically referred to as intersex, is the result of several genetic or congenital defects that cause intersex.
such as:
"Congenital adrenal hyperplasia"
"Aromatase deficiency"
"turner syndrom"
"true hermaphroditism"
And these are just a few.
These do not constitute "alternative gene sequences" they are medically defined intersex disorders. The intersex community is an attempt to normalize the expression of said defects in public perception, the same way being deaf has been normalized. Like intersex, being deaf is objectively a deviation from the norm, it is a disability, a defect, a loss of normal human ability. A normalized culture of being deaf has developed due to a lack of ability to treat said disability, and because the defect does not invalidate the humanity of the individual. However, now that there is implants that effectually cure deafness, I suspect, and rather hope really that community will ultimately disappear. Not because they're evil or should be persecuted or are subhuman or anything, because they aren't but because we can effectually cure the ailment.
Hopefully deafness will go the way of polio.
Hopefully, we'll eventually be able to treat intersex disorders and eliminate it as well.
Only if they all skipped the classes on Punnett Squares, and Sexual Reproduction.
I never shy from an argument
Then you have the time to "explain the birds and the bees".
Alright, see when a mommy and a daddy love each other, or make bad decisions....
Haha, sidestepping all the information that proves you wrong and only responding to the cheeky dig. Politics might be a good field for you.
No, more like simply not arguing with points that I don't disagree with.
If you don't disagree with them, then you have to admit your position is wrong. Biological sex classification is inherently related to their role in reproduction. Sterility, though preventing sexual reproduction, does not invalidate the biological sex of the individual, because biological sex is classified in relation to the species as a whole, not the individual. An individual or even most females being sterile would not make them not female.
Except it doesn't violate my claims, not if you understand how biological sex works.
If you say so.
It's not me, it's biology. And you just said above that you don't disagree with the points presented, therefor it's reasonable to deduce that you agree with me on this point. So where exactly do we disagree.
Okay. See you in a week when you can muster another half assed response.
I'm sorry that my personal life doesn't allow me to respond to your blatant trolling on
your time.
I'm not trolling, I'm engaging in a reasoned argument. You being offended by the argument does not make it trolling.
Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2018 12:35 pm
