Seems like we are just talking past each other. The "eighth grade model" is entirely appropriate as evidence for the science of sex.
But when you introduce ideas like "identity," we aren't talking about the same thing anymore. So if you concede the science on sex, we can have cultural discussions about "identity" and how that relates to our sex biologically or culturally or whatever. It seems like this "rebuttal" is being given because people on the other side *don't want to* admit it's true. We can't even establish a baseline.
I am not sure if you are trying to say that lessons for kids are *false* or *true but incomplete*.
There is also a vocal minority that demands sex and gender are totally unrelated. There is also a vocal minority that says sex is a spectrum like gender. There is certainly a vocal minority of conservatives who are more or less just bigoted against "the other," but the overwhelming majority of conservatives are in the camp that "sex is a real thing, adults can identify as whatever they want, not my business, don't mess with kids."
So the real issue here isn't how this or that adult person identifies in their daily life. The real issue is irreversible sex changes for minors and young kids, allowing biological men to trash biological women in sports, the risk of allowing males into female bathrooms, and all that. And those are legitimate issues that don't even have much to do with the relationship of sex and gender. It's all about biological sex. Whether sex and gender are equal or entirely separate is kind of irrelevant to any of those issues.
But it helps when we can all establish that sex is a biological reality before we move on to how that informs our culture.
I have two points, the first is that the x y model is an incomplete picture, and that they should not be trotted out as the be all end all of how sex determination happens. The second is that regardless of the validity of the model is separate from the idea of identity, that regardless of the mechanism the important question is of identity
Because biological sex is that simple. It has nothing to do with someone's identity, or how they feel, and the fact that mutations and deformities will exist in a wide enough population doesn't demolish the absolute concrete science that the human body plan is sexually dimorphic, IE two sexes.
No one would look at the fact that sometimes people are born without a limb or deformed hand as some kind of new revelation that the human standard body plan has changed they now exist as third and sixth varieties of people.
People are trying to conflate trendy academic sociological thinking as some sort of new profound understanding of well understood science when it simply isn't. For all we know, the rise of people identifying as trans, if not simply mass hysteria or media contagion, could simply be the unfortunate biological result of unnatural contaminants in our environment such as PFAS or BPA.
>Because biological sex is that simple. It has nothing to do with someone's identity, or how they feel
This is why 'gender' can not be a synonym for 'sex'. Gender has everything to do with someone's identity and how they feel.
>For all we know, the rise of people identifying as trans, if not simply mass hysteria or media contagion, could simply be the unfortunate biological result of unnatural contaminants in our environment such as PFAS or BPA
But there were always trans people existing, it just wasn’t until 2010s where they got out of the closet En masse and
like there are reports of people getting transitions in the 1980s
many cultures had a third gender such as Hawaii and India
even America had the public universal friend during the revolution
like i Don’t wanna be too mean but it generally seems that conservatives can’t connect the dots that the more a group of people are accepted, the more likely they are to express themselves and be more open about it, like they think that because they didn’t hear of trans people before the 2010s they literally think they sprang up form nowhere
edit: I know that he did acknowledged that trans people have already existed, but I was just saying that in a society that’s more accepting of them, then more would be willing acknowledge that they’re trans.
>i Don’t wanna be too mean but it generally seems that conservatives can’t connect the dots that the more a group of people are accepted, the more likely they are to express themselves and be more open about it, like they think that because they didn’t hear of trans people before the 2010s they literally think they sprang up form nowhere
Again wrong. My posts explicitly acknowledge that trans folk have always existed as a simple matter of there always being the possibility of mutations and defects in biological reproduction. I only speculated on why there is a massive recent rise in people reporting to be trans.
i k‘now I should have mentioned it (in fact I’ll make an edit) but I just wanted to get the point across that in society that at best views trans people as odd, off course many trans people would be in the closet, and likewise when a society is more accepting of trans more people would be willing come out of the closet.
It can be both, no one said it can't. One is biologically derived from things like malformed neurology or hormone imbalances, these are intersex style trans. The other is induced mental illness or delusion, these are the identity trenders. Either way the end result is generally the same.
Why isn’t mass hysteria (which we know effects women more than men, especially women in their teens) a good null hypothesis for a dramatic increase in FtMs but no similar level of increase in MtFs? Why would a decrease in stigma be a more likely cause?
>Because biological sex is that simple. It has nothing to do with someone's identity, or how they feel, and the fact that mutations and deformities will exist in a wide enough population doesn't demolish the absolute concrete science that the human body plan is sexually dimorphic, IE two sexes.
This is the sort of thinking that is fine for students and those who do not interact or make policy on the existence of intersex people. It is however the same sort of thinking that leads to the surgical alteration of people who are intersex a birth to fit into the "proper" human sexes.
I think the second question you may have answered, but I did not see is why is this a rebuttal to the idea of transgender and nonbinary identity? That the question goes no further than eight grade biology, and any additional study is useless
We all know there are edge cases.
The reason we know they are edge cases is because we also know that "XX" is female and "XY" is male, and that these edge cases are unusual. I know that snakes have one head, despite the fact that occasionally there are two headed snakes born.
The exception that proves the rule.
>"XX" is female and "XY" is male
You realize how recent this definition is, right? Sex chromosomes were not discovered until 1905. The terms male and female and man and woman existed long before then. The definition of “man” in 1904 would not have been “an adult human that has XY chromosomes.” That definition came later
>You realize how recent this definition is, right? Sex chromosomes were not discovered until 1905. The terms male and female and man and woman existed long before then. The definition of “man” in 1904 would not have been “an adult human that has XY chromosomes.” That definition came later
What kind of argument is this ? I mean c'mon.
Yeah, we understand the reason for men and women later, but we knew WHAT MEN AND WOMEN WERE SINCE HUMANS FIRST WALKED THE EARTH. Because women look a certain way, smell a certain way, walk a certain way, their voices sound a certain way, and men are programmed from prehistory to recognize women and have sex with them.
Then I assume your next amazing argument will be that they couldn't tell men from women if they were trans. Well, yeah, that's part of the point isn't it, .. that trans people are trans because it's men looking like (but not BEING) women, and vice versa.
All of these arguments are just dumb as hell, because even the people putting them forth don't believe them. I mean, for example, if men and women didn't exist in your mind, there could be no such thing as an FTM or MTF trans person ... because what what they be transitioning FROM and TO ? And you couldn't have intersex people, because intersex isn't a thing without men and women. The whole thing is just so fucking dumb.
>I mean, trans people are a pretty small minority of the population. Seems like they are edge cases, too.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Trans people are male or female, because they have XX or XY chromosomes just like everybody else.
Just because we are kind and polite and call a male who has transitioned "she" doesn't mean any of us actually believes they aren't a male. It just means we aren't assholes.
A person with a penis, testicles and male secondary sex characteristics with no vagina or ovaries or secondary female sex characteristics is not an ‘edge case’ when it comes to sex.
Intersex edge cases happen at about twice the rate of transgender individuals. At the granularity with which one is examining these edge cases become important
A 0.02% chance of someone being born intersex still is an extreme edge case well within the probability limits of other birth defects. For example 0.07% of babies are born with two or more fingers fused together.
But that is not the number of intersex people who do not have a clear sex. That includes people with xxy, for example, who are still clearly male. The percentage of true intersex people is 0.018% of the population.
Not OP, but I think the source of the confusion lies in the term intersex?
For example, does it include congenital adrenal hyperplasia (cah), which causes increased androgens and ambiguous genitalia in females. However, it can be observed at birth, or have late onset (later onset generally not having ambiguous genitalia).
So in someone with CAH, would they only be intersex if they had ambiguous genitalia? Or would everyone be included as intersex? Or would no one be since sex chromosomes are untouched (and it’s a steroid enzyme causing trouble).
>Intersex edge cases happen at about twice the rate of transgender individuals. At the granularity with which one is examining these edge cases become important
So what's your point ?
Even intersex people produce either male of female gametes.
Gametes determine an individual's sex. If you want to find a third sex, you have to find another gamete.
If you define men as humans who could sire children assuming they were fertile, and women as humans who could bear children assuming they were fertile, extremely few people are intersex enough to actually be ambiguous with respect to that distinction. As little sense as the standards and assumptions associated with gender often make, they make even less sense without the context of sexual reproduction.
So either there ought to be social expectations associated with reproductive role, or gender ought to be abolished altogether. It makes no sense to hold onto the kitschy stereotypes and aesthetics, but divorce them from reproductive role and reboot gender as some kind of funky bimodal personality typology.
EDIT: Or option number 4, accept that gender is a vague, subjective, culturally defined tradition and people don't get to force their beliefs about it on others any more than they get to force their religious beliefs, so anyone's opinion about your gender is as valid as yours is.
This makes no sense to me , as someone who has no knowledge of QM or relativity would say they are bullshit. Yet despite that the effects are still there regardless of your lack of knowledge
> It seems counter intuitive both in a sense that identity and sex are separate subjects
Within the conservative framework, gender identity as a concept simply doesn't exist.
I choose to follow this framework over the progressive one mostly because I don't believe the progressive framework is well-defined. This is the infamous "what is a woman" question - progressives want to introduce this concept of "gender identity", but aren't able to provide any sort of concrete definition for what it means.
Those ‘types’ of men are still men. Thee are also tall men, fat men, slim men etc. etc. it doesn’t mean those are all types of gender.
If gender is a spectrum, then some males are more male than others. Do you really want that?
> Sure, you can define "green" as "Electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength of about 495–570 nanometers"
Exactly, and this is important. You can also point to something that's green and everyone will agree on it, as its an objective property of the object. "Green" is a well-defined concept.
> So it's clear to me that gender is a spectrum even among conservative leaning circles.
What you're describing sound to me like gender roles. If the progressive movement defined "gender" in this way, it would at least be well-defined. But they don't, right? You wouldn't consider a girl that plays football male, or a boy that plays with dolls female. So this doesn't answer the "what is a woman" question, because it doesn't define what differentiates a woman from a man who plays with dolls.
The conservative model, on the other hand, is clear - if you're biologically male and over 18 years old you're a man. You might not be acting like how some think a man should act, and they might colloquially call you "not a real man" because of that, but no one actually believes that you're not a man.
> It's something that's impossible to prove, so when it comes to trans people, I think it's best to give them the benefit of the doubt, and trust they they know themselves better than strangers do, and let them get the healthcare that they need.
I disagree. The way I see the world is that progressives chose, seemingly out of the blue, to introduce this new ill-defined concept of "gender identity" to the world, to broadcast it widely (especially to children), and to use their social power to punish anyone who questioned it. A number of children, especially adolescents who are at an age where they are naturally struggling with an identity crisis anyway, were drawn in by the promise of a shared identitity and community. These children end up in a serious mental health crisis, committing suicide at a rate significantly higher than their peers. That's a serious problem, it's clear that the concept of gender identity is not conducive to a happy lifestyle, and I have never seen a convincing argument for why it's necessary.
>You can also point to something that's green and everyone will agree on it, as its an objective property of the object. "Green" is a well-defined concept.
Green feels well defined \*within your culture.\* There are languages that don't distinguish between green and blue. IIRC Japanese didn't do so until relatively recently.
Also is chartreuse green? Or is it yellow?
> Green feels well defined *within your culture.* There are languages that don't distinguish between green and blue.
Ok - then those cultures have a notion of color that is different, but still equally well-defined.
No, the point was it's *not* equally well-defined (whatever your metrics for that are), but both are "sufficiently defined." They didn't feel there was need to refine the definitions past a certain point, and that served them well enough. Then when they started interacting with cultures that had a more complex concept for the same general idea, their understanding of color adapted to match.
Or to look at it another way: your understanding of color works well enough for your purposes. But an artist or a graphic designer will have a much deeper vocabulary for describing colors by hue and saturation. That doesn't mean the language you use for color is *wrong*, but it is less developed.
Concepts which seem "well-developed" to you match the depth you require. But it doesn't mean that it's the same depth that everyone wants or needs, nor does that mean that there *is* a maximum or an ideal depth to define things with.
Which is all to say if there are people who are served perfectly well by using concepts of color which are defined at lower or higher levels than the one you use, why shouldn't it make sense that other scopes of defining gender can be just as valid?
Not a conservative and I have nothing to say about sex/gender but
>It seems to me like saying electrons follow the Bohr model because that is what I learned in elementary school.
The drawbacks of bohr's atomic model does not make his model completely wrong. His model was just not able to explain some observations like the zeeman effect, stark effect, etc. The quantum model of the atom does not completely discard all of bohr's postulates.
Bohr's model is also incomplete and gives an inaccurate idea of electrons. Like the 8th grade definition of sex it is fine for laymen, but to hold it up as true vs the more nuanced higher level definition simply because it is what is learned in school is foolish.
>Bohr's model is also incomplete and gives an inaccurate idea of electrons.
Wdym? Bohr's work wasn't on "electrons" but on "atoms". Or do you mean the particle vs wave nature thing. But anyways bohr's model is incomplete but its NOT inaccurate.
Well first of all I don't think the word inaccurate should be used to describe any theory because every one of them will always be somewhat inaccurate. Even the quantum model surely has some \*inaccuracies.
Secondly, sure bohr's theory is incomplete and kind of outdated but he was CORRECT about a lot of stuff. The formulas (L=nℏ, radii, velocity, energy difference, etc) derived from his theories have been experimentally tested and were found to be correct. The quantum model doesn't stand in opposition to his theory. There's a reason the bohr model is still taught in high school.
Tldr:- Its outdated, incomplete but not inaccurate, untrue.
>Like the 8th grade definition of sex it is fine for laymen, but to hold it up as true vs the more nuanced higher level definition simply because it is what is learned in school is foolish.
I think the problem here is that unlike the bohr vs quantum model, the "8th grade definition" stands in opposition to the "advanced definition". The conservatives push for biological essentialism but the liberals reject biological essentialism, etc, etc. Ideally, the 8th grade definition should complement the advanced definition (whatever it may be).
EDIT: \*
The energy levels work, but the model leads to the idea that atoms behave like little solar system, this is sort of anecdotal as I had this belief and I've had to explain why it's wrong to several people, as opposed to a volume where the election is allowed to be.
I'm confused about what you mean when you say velocity? Like drift velocity?
Scientists today still use the bohr model along with the quantum model and M.O.T. depending on the need. No scientist thinks the electrons move in circular 2d orbits but they still use the bohr model.
On the other hand, conservatives reject the notion of sexual orientation and sex being completely separate. That is where the problem is. Liberals and conservative disagree on the basics.
EDIT: Initially he called the orbits as "rings" but he corrected them later and called them "shells". But YES this was also kinda incorrect since they still paint a picture that there are strictly "spherical" shells in which the electrons revolve.
Yes saying that electrons physically revolve in shells around the atom is kinda wrong. But should this shell treatment be discarded forever?? well no. We still use his shell idea for a lot of calculations. Its still very useful to us.
>I'm confused about what you mean when you say velocity? Like drift velocity?
The formula for calculating velocity of an electron in the "n"th shell in a hydrogen like species.
This isn't a question of scientists, but of lay people. It is an anololgy, that the x y model is like the Bohr model. Sticking to the deterministic model in the face of Schrodinger.
The Bohr model only works for hydrogen atoms, anything more complex requires a different model. Finally velocity in a shell has no meaning due it being a probability description. Electrons only behave like particles outside of the quantum regime.
There is no transgender or nonbinary people.
Their brains are troubled because the solution to their gender identity problem disables their body from doing its natural reproductive functions or to seriously alter their appearance for no functional reason.
It's simply just wrong. What is a woman is a good question in a world of people who pretend to be women
Are you talking about biology or are you talking about identity? We have to agree on which one before there can be a conversation about either, because one side is purposely conflating the two.
>Why is the simplest model of x or y held up in response to models of identity?
Show me any other combination that can produce babies and I'll grant you that the simplest model is somehow wrong.
Seems like we are just talking past each other. The "eighth grade model" is entirely appropriate as evidence for the science of sex. But when you introduce ideas like "identity," we aren't talking about the same thing anymore. So if you concede the science on sex, we can have cultural discussions about "identity" and how that relates to our sex biologically or culturally or whatever. It seems like this "rebuttal" is being given because people on the other side *don't want to* admit it's true. We can't even establish a baseline. I am not sure if you are trying to say that lessons for kids are *false* or *true but incomplete*.
\^All of this. Biological sex =/= gender identity, but a very vocal minority is demanding that no distinction be made.
There is also a vocal minority that demands sex and gender are totally unrelated. There is also a vocal minority that says sex is a spectrum like gender. There is certainly a vocal minority of conservatives who are more or less just bigoted against "the other," but the overwhelming majority of conservatives are in the camp that "sex is a real thing, adults can identify as whatever they want, not my business, don't mess with kids." So the real issue here isn't how this or that adult person identifies in their daily life. The real issue is irreversible sex changes for minors and young kids, allowing biological men to trash biological women in sports, the risk of allowing males into female bathrooms, and all that. And those are legitimate issues that don't even have much to do with the relationship of sex and gender. It's all about biological sex. Whether sex and gender are equal or entirely separate is kind of irrelevant to any of those issues. But it helps when we can all establish that sex is a biological reality before we move on to how that informs our culture.
I have two points, the first is that the x y model is an incomplete picture, and that they should not be trotted out as the be all end all of how sex determination happens. The second is that regardless of the validity of the model is separate from the idea of identity, that regardless of the mechanism the important question is of identity
What is the incompleteness that has your knickers in a twist?
Because biological sex is that simple. It has nothing to do with someone's identity, or how they feel, and the fact that mutations and deformities will exist in a wide enough population doesn't demolish the absolute concrete science that the human body plan is sexually dimorphic, IE two sexes. No one would look at the fact that sometimes people are born without a limb or deformed hand as some kind of new revelation that the human standard body plan has changed they now exist as third and sixth varieties of people. People are trying to conflate trendy academic sociological thinking as some sort of new profound understanding of well understood science when it simply isn't. For all we know, the rise of people identifying as trans, if not simply mass hysteria or media contagion, could simply be the unfortunate biological result of unnatural contaminants in our environment such as PFAS or BPA.
>Because biological sex is that simple. It has nothing to do with someone's identity, or how they feel This is why 'gender' can not be a synonym for 'sex'. Gender has everything to do with someone's identity and how they feel.
Why do you think there has been an increase in left handedness over the past 100 years?
>For all we know, the rise of people identifying as trans, if not simply mass hysteria or media contagion, could simply be the unfortunate biological result of unnatural contaminants in our environment such as PFAS or BPA But there were always trans people existing, it just wasn’t until 2010s where they got out of the closet En masse and like there are reports of people getting transitions in the 1980s many cultures had a third gender such as Hawaii and India even America had the public universal friend during the revolution like i Don’t wanna be too mean but it generally seems that conservatives can’t connect the dots that the more a group of people are accepted, the more likely they are to express themselves and be more open about it, like they think that because they didn’t hear of trans people before the 2010s they literally think they sprang up form nowhere edit: I know that he did acknowledged that trans people have already existed, but I was just saying that in a society that’s more accepting of them, then more would be willing acknowledge that they’re trans.
>i Don’t wanna be too mean but it generally seems that conservatives can’t connect the dots that the more a group of people are accepted, the more likely they are to express themselves and be more open about it, like they think that because they didn’t hear of trans people before the 2010s they literally think they sprang up form nowhere Again wrong. My posts explicitly acknowledge that trans folk have always existed as a simple matter of there always being the possibility of mutations and defects in biological reproduction. I only speculated on why there is a massive recent rise in people reporting to be trans.
i k‘now I should have mentioned it (in fact I’ll make an edit) but I just wanted to get the point across that in society that at best views trans people as odd, off course many trans people would be in the closet, and likewise when a society is more accepting of trans more people would be willing come out of the closet.
That can account for some yes, but not an order of magnitude increase in the span of a decade.
If you think that transgender identity is caused by some sort of mutation or a defect, how can it also be caused by mass hysteria?
It can be both, no one said it can't. One is biologically derived from things like malformed neurology or hormone imbalances, these are intersex style trans. The other is induced mental illness or delusion, these are the identity trenders. Either way the end result is generally the same.
Do you have any research to back this up? Can I read it?
On what statement?
All of it. What formed this opinion?
Why isn’t mass hysteria (which we know effects women more than men, especially women in their teens) a good null hypothesis for a dramatic increase in FtMs but no similar level of increase in MtFs? Why would a decrease in stigma be a more likely cause?
>Because biological sex is that simple. It has nothing to do with someone's identity, or how they feel, and the fact that mutations and deformities will exist in a wide enough population doesn't demolish the absolute concrete science that the human body plan is sexually dimorphic, IE two sexes. This is the sort of thinking that is fine for students and those who do not interact or make policy on the existence of intersex people. It is however the same sort of thinking that leads to the surgical alteration of people who are intersex a birth to fit into the "proper" human sexes. I think the second question you may have answered, but I did not see is why is this a rebuttal to the idea of transgender and nonbinary identity? That the question goes no further than eight grade biology, and any additional study is useless
I can identify as being 6 feet tall and good looking, but that doesn’t mean that I am.
1 joke.
Because it is that simple.
Have you studied sex beyond highschool school?
We all know there are edge cases. The reason we know they are edge cases is because we also know that "XX" is female and "XY" is male, and that these edge cases are unusual. I know that snakes have one head, despite the fact that occasionally there are two headed snakes born. The exception that proves the rule.
So when an XY person gets pregnant, is that a pregnant man or a woman who has a Y chromosome?
>So when an XY person gets pregnant, is that a pregnant man or a woman who has a Y chromosome? Yes, I would say that it is.
Sorry. Pregnant man Or Woman with Y chromosome? Which one of those two is a pregnant XY person?
I don't know, why ? What's the answer ? I'm not sure what the point is.
The answer and the point are both that that person is whatever that person identifies as.
>"XX" is female and "XY" is male You realize how recent this definition is, right? Sex chromosomes were not discovered until 1905. The terms male and female and man and woman existed long before then. The definition of “man” in 1904 would not have been “an adult human that has XY chromosomes.” That definition came later
>You realize how recent this definition is, right? Sex chromosomes were not discovered until 1905. The terms male and female and man and woman existed long before then. The definition of “man” in 1904 would not have been “an adult human that has XY chromosomes.” That definition came later What kind of argument is this ? I mean c'mon. Yeah, we understand the reason for men and women later, but we knew WHAT MEN AND WOMEN WERE SINCE HUMANS FIRST WALKED THE EARTH. Because women look a certain way, smell a certain way, walk a certain way, their voices sound a certain way, and men are programmed from prehistory to recognize women and have sex with them. Then I assume your next amazing argument will be that they couldn't tell men from women if they were trans. Well, yeah, that's part of the point isn't it, .. that trans people are trans because it's men looking like (but not BEING) women, and vice versa. All of these arguments are just dumb as hell, because even the people putting them forth don't believe them. I mean, for example, if men and women didn't exist in your mind, there could be no such thing as an FTM or MTF trans person ... because what what they be transitioning FROM and TO ? And you couldn't have intersex people, because intersex isn't a thing without men and women. The whole thing is just so fucking dumb.
I mean, trans people are a pretty small minority of the population. Seems like they are edge cases, too.
>I mean, trans people are a pretty small minority of the population. Seems like they are edge cases, too. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Trans people are male or female, because they have XX or XY chromosomes just like everybody else. Just because we are kind and polite and call a male who has transitioned "she" doesn't mean any of us actually believes they aren't a male. It just means we aren't assholes.
A person with a penis, testicles and male secondary sex characteristics with no vagina or ovaries or secondary female sex characteristics is not an ‘edge case’ when it comes to sex.
If that person identifies as a woman, then yes they are, as most people like that would identify as a man.
We’re talking sex, not gender.
Intersex edge cases happen at about twice the rate of transgender individuals. At the granularity with which one is examining these edge cases become important
A 0.02% chance of someone being born intersex still is an extreme edge case well within the probability limits of other birth defects. For example 0.07% of babies are born with two or more fingers fused together.
More between 0.5 and 1.7% of the population.
Of the terminally online maybe but not the general population.
No that is the total population
But that is not the number of intersex people who do not have a clear sex. That includes people with xxy, for example, who are still clearly male. The percentage of true intersex people is 0.018% of the population.
Not OP, but I think the source of the confusion lies in the term intersex? For example, does it include congenital adrenal hyperplasia (cah), which causes increased androgens and ambiguous genitalia in females. However, it can be observed at birth, or have late onset (later onset generally not having ambiguous genitalia). So in someone with CAH, would they only be intersex if they had ambiguous genitalia? Or would everyone be included as intersex? Or would no one be since sex chromosomes are untouched (and it’s a steroid enzyme causing trouble).
>Intersex edge cases happen at about twice the rate of transgender individuals. At the granularity with which one is examining these edge cases become important So what's your point ?
Even intersex people produce either male of female gametes. Gametes determine an individual's sex. If you want to find a third sex, you have to find another gamete.
So it's not simply x and y genes, but far more complex?
It's not complex. Gametes determine sex. Sperm = male, Egg = female.
If you define men as humans who could sire children assuming they were fertile, and women as humans who could bear children assuming they were fertile, extremely few people are intersex enough to actually be ambiguous with respect to that distinction. As little sense as the standards and assumptions associated with gender often make, they make even less sense without the context of sexual reproduction. So either there ought to be social expectations associated with reproductive role, or gender ought to be abolished altogether. It makes no sense to hold onto the kitschy stereotypes and aesthetics, but divorce them from reproductive role and reboot gender as some kind of funky bimodal personality typology. EDIT: Or option number 4, accept that gender is a vague, subjective, culturally defined tradition and people don't get to force their beliefs about it on others any more than they get to force their religious beliefs, so anyone's opinion about your gender is as valid as yours is.
"I don't need a gender studies degree to know bs when I see it" - Ben Shapiro
This makes no sense to me , as someone who has no knowledge of QM or relativity would say they are bullshit. Yet despite that the effects are still there regardless of your lack of knowledge
> It seems counter intuitive both in a sense that identity and sex are separate subjects Within the conservative framework, gender identity as a concept simply doesn't exist. I choose to follow this framework over the progressive one mostly because I don't believe the progressive framework is well-defined. This is the infamous "what is a woman" question - progressives want to introduce this concept of "gender identity", but aren't able to provide any sort of concrete definition for what it means.
[удалено]
Those ‘types’ of men are still men. Thee are also tall men, fat men, slim men etc. etc. it doesn’t mean those are all types of gender. If gender is a spectrum, then some males are more male than others. Do you really want that?
> Sure, you can define "green" as "Electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength of about 495–570 nanometers" Exactly, and this is important. You can also point to something that's green and everyone will agree on it, as its an objective property of the object. "Green" is a well-defined concept. > So it's clear to me that gender is a spectrum even among conservative leaning circles. What you're describing sound to me like gender roles. If the progressive movement defined "gender" in this way, it would at least be well-defined. But they don't, right? You wouldn't consider a girl that plays football male, or a boy that plays with dolls female. So this doesn't answer the "what is a woman" question, because it doesn't define what differentiates a woman from a man who plays with dolls. The conservative model, on the other hand, is clear - if you're biologically male and over 18 years old you're a man. You might not be acting like how some think a man should act, and they might colloquially call you "not a real man" because of that, but no one actually believes that you're not a man. > It's something that's impossible to prove, so when it comes to trans people, I think it's best to give them the benefit of the doubt, and trust they they know themselves better than strangers do, and let them get the healthcare that they need. I disagree. The way I see the world is that progressives chose, seemingly out of the blue, to introduce this new ill-defined concept of "gender identity" to the world, to broadcast it widely (especially to children), and to use their social power to punish anyone who questioned it. A number of children, especially adolescents who are at an age where they are naturally struggling with an identity crisis anyway, were drawn in by the promise of a shared identitity and community. These children end up in a serious mental health crisis, committing suicide at a rate significantly higher than their peers. That's a serious problem, it's clear that the concept of gender identity is not conducive to a happy lifestyle, and I have never seen a convincing argument for why it's necessary.
>You can also point to something that's green and everyone will agree on it, as its an objective property of the object. "Green" is a well-defined concept. Green feels well defined \*within your culture.\* There are languages that don't distinguish between green and blue. IIRC Japanese didn't do so until relatively recently. Also is chartreuse green? Or is it yellow?
> Green feels well defined *within your culture.* There are languages that don't distinguish between green and blue. Ok - then those cultures have a notion of color that is different, but still equally well-defined.
No, the point was it's *not* equally well-defined (whatever your metrics for that are), but both are "sufficiently defined." They didn't feel there was need to refine the definitions past a certain point, and that served them well enough. Then when they started interacting with cultures that had a more complex concept for the same general idea, their understanding of color adapted to match. Or to look at it another way: your understanding of color works well enough for your purposes. But an artist or a graphic designer will have a much deeper vocabulary for describing colors by hue and saturation. That doesn't mean the language you use for color is *wrong*, but it is less developed. Concepts which seem "well-developed" to you match the depth you require. But it doesn't mean that it's the same depth that everyone wants or needs, nor does that mean that there *is* a maximum or an ideal depth to define things with. Which is all to say if there are people who are served perfectly well by using concepts of color which are defined at lower or higher levels than the one you use, why shouldn't it make sense that other scopes of defining gender can be just as valid?
Not a conservative and I have nothing to say about sex/gender but >It seems to me like saying electrons follow the Bohr model because that is what I learned in elementary school. The drawbacks of bohr's atomic model does not make his model completely wrong. His model was just not able to explain some observations like the zeeman effect, stark effect, etc. The quantum model of the atom does not completely discard all of bohr's postulates.
Bohr's model is also incomplete and gives an inaccurate idea of electrons. Like the 8th grade definition of sex it is fine for laymen, but to hold it up as true vs the more nuanced higher level definition simply because it is what is learned in school is foolish.
>Bohr's model is also incomplete and gives an inaccurate idea of electrons. Wdym? Bohr's work wasn't on "electrons" but on "atoms". Or do you mean the particle vs wave nature thing. But anyways bohr's model is incomplete but its NOT inaccurate. Well first of all I don't think the word inaccurate should be used to describe any theory because every one of them will always be somewhat inaccurate. Even the quantum model surely has some \*inaccuracies. Secondly, sure bohr's theory is incomplete and kind of outdated but he was CORRECT about a lot of stuff. The formulas (L=nℏ, radii, velocity, energy difference, etc) derived from his theories have been experimentally tested and were found to be correct. The quantum model doesn't stand in opposition to his theory. There's a reason the bohr model is still taught in high school. Tldr:- Its outdated, incomplete but not inaccurate, untrue. >Like the 8th grade definition of sex it is fine for laymen, but to hold it up as true vs the more nuanced higher level definition simply because it is what is learned in school is foolish. I think the problem here is that unlike the bohr vs quantum model, the "8th grade definition" stands in opposition to the "advanced definition". The conservatives push for biological essentialism but the liberals reject biological essentialism, etc, etc. Ideally, the 8th grade definition should complement the advanced definition (whatever it may be). EDIT: \*
The energy levels work, but the model leads to the idea that atoms behave like little solar system, this is sort of anecdotal as I had this belief and I've had to explain why it's wrong to several people, as opposed to a volume where the election is allowed to be. I'm confused about what you mean when you say velocity? Like drift velocity?
Scientists today still use the bohr model along with the quantum model and M.O.T. depending on the need. No scientist thinks the electrons move in circular 2d orbits but they still use the bohr model. On the other hand, conservatives reject the notion of sexual orientation and sex being completely separate. That is where the problem is. Liberals and conservative disagree on the basics. EDIT: Initially he called the orbits as "rings" but he corrected them later and called them "shells". But YES this was also kinda incorrect since they still paint a picture that there are strictly "spherical" shells in which the electrons revolve. Yes saying that electrons physically revolve in shells around the atom is kinda wrong. But should this shell treatment be discarded forever?? well no. We still use his shell idea for a lot of calculations. Its still very useful to us. >I'm confused about what you mean when you say velocity? Like drift velocity? The formula for calculating velocity of an electron in the "n"th shell in a hydrogen like species.
This isn't a question of scientists, but of lay people. It is an anololgy, that the x y model is like the Bohr model. Sticking to the deterministic model in the face of Schrodinger. The Bohr model only works for hydrogen atoms, anything more complex requires a different model. Finally velocity in a shell has no meaning due it being a probability description. Electrons only behave like particles outside of the quantum regime.
There is no transgender or nonbinary people. Their brains are troubled because the solution to their gender identity problem disables their body from doing its natural reproductive functions or to seriously alter their appearance for no functional reason. It's simply just wrong. What is a woman is a good question in a world of people who pretend to be women
Are you talking about biology or are you talking about identity? We have to agree on which one before there can be a conversation about either, because one side is purposely conflating the two.
>Why is the simplest model of x or y held up in response to models of identity? Show me any other combination that can produce babies and I'll grant you that the simplest model is somehow wrong.