• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Biologist explains biological sex

maquiscat said:
Since the issue of disagreement is gender, not biological sex, I fail to see the point.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Gender as referred to people is the same as sex.

The idea there is a distinction is an invented concept. Gender refers to functions of grammar in gendered languages, as applied to people it means sex. Any other definition is fraud invented by communists in the academy.
 
Folks should probably read the link before commenting
 
rocket88 said:
Biologist Explains Biological Sex

Remember, you're either one or the other!
Click to expand...
Did you even read that? It actually says there are at least 3 different variants on what determines your sex.

And gender is not the same as sex, hence the reason we have two different words.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
The problem, as I see it, is that some people are trying to use the word "gender", but have not given it a proper definition. What is the difference between gender and sex?

If you are a different "gender" does that effect which rest room you use? Does it effect which group you compete against in sports?

Why should I even care which "gender" you are?
 
roguenuke said:
Did you even read that? It actually says there are at least 3 different variants on what determines your sex.

And gender is not the same as sex, hence the reason we have two different words.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That was the point of what i was saying
 
maquiscat said:
Since the issue of disagreement is gender, not biological sex, I fail to see the point.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I disagree. The issue of disagreement is that there are a certain number of people can not distinguish gender and biological sex can be different.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Gender as referred to people is the same as sex.

The idea there is a distinction is an invented concept. Gender refers to functions of grammar in gendered languages, as applied to people it means sex. Any other definition is fraud invented by communists in the academy.
Click to expand...

When did biology become part of economic theory and political science? :lol:
 
maquiscat said:
Now that I have had a chance to read this, very interesting. An unless your one line is sarcasm, you obviously didn't read it. There is more complication than I ever knew.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I thought it was interesting too. I was being sarcastic for the record.
 
roguenuke said:
Did you even read that? It actually says there are at least 3 different variants on what determines your sex.

And gender is not the same as sex, hence the reason we have two different words.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Oh no! You must be wrong..."Communists" invented the word, it didnt exist before Marx :roll:

This is what the Catholic Cult has decided.
 
rocket88 said:
Biologist Explains Biological Sex

Remember, you're either one or the other!
Click to expand...

I wish I could quote some of that. THere is one section that explains well why 'developing adolescents' may be confused or have conflicting gender issues. Basically it says that their bodies arent yet producing enough hormones to produce clear signals.

Really interesting info. Very solid on the genetic angle.
 
I'm sorry to see that so few have participated in this thread...the OP link is very thought-provoking.

IMO, many people that would have responded negatively about such folks are unable to do so after reading it.
 
rocket88 said:
Biologist Explains Biological Sex

Remember, you're either one or the other!
Click to expand...

Yeah she's not really saying that biological sex is more complicated than it appears, she's saying genes are more complicated than they appear. Sex isn't in the chromosomes it's in the anatomy.

Think about it this way, if my dog had puppies how would I tell which puppies were male and which were female? I know I don't do a DNA spectrum analysis.
 
maquiscat said:
Since the issue of disagreement is gender, not biological sex, I fail to see the point.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The issue of disagreement is biological sex. The idea that gender and sex are two different things seems to change based on the argument.
 
maquiscat said:
Now that I have had a chance to read this, very interesting. An unless your one line is sarcasm, you obviously didn't read it. There is more complication than I ever knew.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I think his one line was tongue in cheek.
 
An interesting article recently on the topic of biological sex being complicated or a spectrum.

The Dangerous Denial of Sex - WSJ
Without paywall:
https://archive.is/puTGy

"In humans, as in most animals or plants, an organism’s biological sex corresponds to one of two distinct types of reproductive anatomy that develop for the production of small or large sex cells—sperm and eggs, respectively—and associated biological functions in sexual reproduction. In humans, reproductive anatomy is unambiguously male or female at birth more than 99.98% of the time. The evolutionary function of these two anatomies is to aid in reproduction via the fusion of sperm and ova. No third type of sex cell exists in humans, and therefore there is no sex “spectrum” or additional sexes beyond male and female. Sex is binary.
There is a difference, however, between the statements that there are only two sexes (true) and that everyone can be neatly categorized as either male or female (false). The existence of only two sexes does not mean sex is never ambiguous. But intersex individuals are extremely rare, and they are neither a third sex nor proof that sex is a “spectrum” or a “social construct.” Not everyone needs to be discretely assignable to one or the other sex in order for biological sex to be functionally binary. To assume otherwise—to confuse secondary sexual traits with biological sex itself—is a category error."

Mr. Wright is an evolutionary biologist at Penn State. Ms. Hilton is a developmental biologist at the University of Manchester.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I think his one line was tongue in cheek.
Click to expand...
It was. He said as much later in the thread.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
CLAX1911 said:
Yeah she's not really saying that biological sex is more complicated than it appears, she's saying genes are more complicated than they appear. Sex isn't in the chromosomes it's in the anatomy.

Think about it this way, if my dog had puppies how would I tell which puppies were male and which were female? I know I don't do a DNA spectrum analysis.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I believe she is saying that physical sex is not as cut and dry as many would like to believe it is. By noting that you can have variations as to the location of the SRY gene and that the chromosome combinations don't always result in what we expect, that there is no real absolute.

Granted, we tend to use the physical body, as our default on the casual level. When it comes down to it, it is a rare situation that we use genitals, chromosomes or genes to identify sex. We use preconceived notions of what a person with a penis or vagina is supposed to look like to judge sex. The worse is when people try to use those same preconceived notions to try to tell others how to be.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
Lursa said:
I wish I could quote some of that. THere is one section that explains well why 'developing adolescents' may be confused or have conflicting gender issues. Basically it says that their bodies arent yet producing enough hormones to produce clear signals.

Really interesting info. Very solid on the genetic angle.
Click to expand...
And her points don't even look at other possibilities, such as chimerism. I would really like to see some studies where they look at transgenders specifically with an eye towards Chimerism, presence or lack thereof of the SRY gene, and whether or not it has been activated. I have to wonder if these possible "rare" variations are not as rare as initially believed, because issues don't arise to necessitate looking into these possibilities. After all, if there hasn't been the one genetic test done on the one woman and her children for a completely unrelated issue, no one would have thought to look at the DNA in her vagina and compare it to the DNA in her mouth to see she had two different sets of DNA. How many XX people who happen to have the SRY gene do we have out there thinking they are XY, simply because no other issue has arisen to look at those chromosomes and genes?

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
ProgressPlease said:
An interesting article recently on the topic of biological sex being complicated or a spectrum.

The Dangerous Denial of Sex - WSJ
Without paywall:
https://archive.is/puTGy

"In humans, as in most animals or plants, an organism’s biological sex corresponds to one of two distinct types of reproductive anatomy that develop for the production of small or large sex cells—sperm and eggs, respectively—and associated biological functions in sexual reproduction. In humans, reproductive anatomy is unambiguously male or female at birth more than 99.98% of the time. The evolutionary function of these two anatomies is to aid in reproduction via the fusion of sperm and ova. No third type of sex cell exists in humans, and therefore there is no sex “spectrum” or additional sexes beyond male and female. Sex is binary.
There is a difference, however, between the statements that there are only two sexes (true) and that everyone can be neatly categorized as either male or female (false). The existence of only two sexes does not mean sex is never ambiguous. But intersex individuals are extremely rare, and they are neither a third sex nor proof that sex is a “spectrum” or a “social construct.” Not everyone needs to be discretely assignable to one or the other sex in order for biological sex to be functionally binary. To assume otherwise—to confuse secondary sexual traits with biological sex itself—is a category error."

Mr. Wright is an evolutionary biologist at Penn State. Ms. Hilton is a developmental biologist at the University of Manchester.
Click to expand...
I quite honestly think that there is little argument on the biological basis. The issue stems first from language use, especially since "gender" has undergone various lingual changes and additions recently, historically speaking. Then we have the issue of people believing that variations are more rare than maybe they actually are, without anyone actually looking into such.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
CLAX1911 said:
Yeah she's not really saying that biological sex is more complicated than it appears, she's saying genes are more complicated than they appear. Sex isn't in the chromosomes it's in the anatomy.

Think about it this way, if my dog had puppies how would I tell which puppies were male and which were female? I know I don't do a DNA spectrum analysis.
Click to expand...

When a dog figures out how to vocalize its gender, let us know. Seriously, you'll make a fortune.

Yes, that is the point. Genes are more complicated than you think. Genes which determine gender. They are much more complicated than "has a penis."
 
maquiscat said:
I disagree. I believe she is saying that physical sex is not as cut and dry as many would like to believe it is. By noting that you can have variations as to the location of the SRY gene and that the chromosome combinations don't always result in what we expect, that there is no real absolute.

Granted, we tend to use the physical body, as our default on the casual level. When it comes down to it, it is a rare situation that we use genitals, chromosomes or genes to identify sex. We use preconceived notions of what a person with a penis or vagina is supposed to look like to judge sex. The worse is when people try to use those same preconceived notions to try to tell others how to be.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I didn't read all of it but most of what she said had to do with chromosomes, not anatomy. And anatomy is pretty cut-and-dry.
 
rocket88 said:
When a dog figures out how to vocalize its gender, let us know. Seriously, you'll make a fortune.
Click to expand...
if gender is simply how you feel it isn't the slightest bit relevant to sex.
Yes, that is the point. Genes are more complicated than you think. Genes which determine gender. They are much more complicated than "has a penis."
Click to expand...
wait a minute genes determine gender?

dogs have genes why would a dog need to vocalize its gender, if it's genetic?

It's almost like in the first part of this post you're saying gender is what anyone says it is, and in the second part it's like you're saying it's genetic. That doesn't make much sense.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom