The Gender Debate

Ancalagon

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
15,968
and if it is born with both?
It is intersex, but likely still has the chromosomes indicating it belongs to one sex.

I don't know why intersexed individuals are used as "proof" of gender theory. Unrelated, if you ask me.
 

satanboy

Psychonaut seven
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
97,814
It is intersex, but likely still has the chromosomes indicating it belongs to one sex.

I don't know why intersexed individuals are used as "proof" of gender theory. Unrelated, if you ask me.
I don't give a sh|t about gender. Was just posing a question.
 

Urist

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2015
Messages
2,327
Like caster? apparently she has a fanny as well as tiny nuts, and chose to be a woman, so she's a woman.
 

Urist

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2015
Messages
2,327
Maybe the criteria should be a womb? and we stop fixating on genitals? any biology people here?
 

Claymore

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
7,537
Because your liberalism is what causes you to believe nonsense like sex is on a spectrum. It isn't. Sex is male or female.
I'm not sure what liberalism even is, unless it's respecting people for who they are rather than trying to force them into predefined boxes.

Take a look at this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10943/
"Clearly, then, genotypic sex, phenotypic sex, and gender are not always aligned."

Maybe you feel you're better qualified to argue the topic though?

Next thing you'll tell me women are physically as strong as men.
Sure, they can be. 10 years ago, my sister was stronger than most men. The world does not deal in absolutes.
 

Ancalagon

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
15,968
I'm not sure what liberalism even is, unless it's respecting people for who they are rather than trying to force them into predefined boxes.

Take a look at this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10943/
"Clearly, then, genotypic sex, phenotypic sex, and gender are not always aligned."

Maybe you feel you're better qualified to argue the topic though?
Can't comment on genotypic or phenotypic sex, but I hope their comment on gender doesn't surprise you. Did you think a scientist would say anything else in today's political climate?

Scientists have had their careers ruined for less than disagreeing with the official narrative on gender.

Sure, they can be. 10 years ago, my sister was stronger than most men. The world does not deal in absolutes.
Okay, let's put this in specifics, since a single anecdote (your strong sister) is meaningless.

Is the average female human weaker than, as strong as, or stronger than, the average male human?

Is the average female human slower than, as fast as, or faster than, the average male human?

I must remind you to pay attention to the keyword "average" here. You will be tempted to tell me about that one girl you know that was stronger than any man you ever met - but that is hardly the average.

So, on average, which sex is faster and stronger?

AND one more thing - this has nothing to do with value. Whichever sex is slower and weaker, it is not implied in any way that their lives or their work are of less value. Simply the fact of which is slower and weaker. No value judgment at all.
 

Claymore

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
7,537
Can't comment on genotypic or phenotypic sex, but I hope their comment on gender doesn't surprise you. Did you think a scientist would say anything else in today's political climate?

Scientists have had their careers ruined for less than disagreeing with the official narrative on gender.
Shame. Maybe you should write some scientific articles with your own point of view?

AND one more thing - this has nothing to do with value. Whichever sex is slower and weaker, it is not implied in any way that their lives or their work are of less value. Simply the fact of which is slower and weaker. No value judgment at all.
You made it a value judgement by asking which was stronger. Thing is, people are individuals, not averages. There's no value in saying "men are stronger on average than women", because we don't compare averages, we compare individuals.
 

Ancalagon

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
15,968
You made it a value judgement by asking which was stronger. Thing is, people are individuals, not averages. There's no value in saying "men are stronger on average than women", because we don't compare averages, we compare individuals.
You didn't answer the question, as I knew you would.

Physically stronger, not mentally. Which is physically stronger?

If you think that being physically stronger makes you a better person than a physically weaker person, then you are even more troubled than I thought. So, its not a value judgement.

Who is physically stronger, on average?
 

Arksun

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
1,500
There's no value in saying "men are stronger on average than women", because we don't compare averages, we compare individuals.
If there's no value in saying that, then why is sports divided between men and women? If women were forced to compete against men in the Olympic games, they may as well not even show up.
 

diapason

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
1,447
You made it a value judgement by asking which was stronger.
No. That's not a value judgement. Just like saying that on average men are taller is not a value judgement. It's just a biological FACT. The sexes are different whether it suits someone's PC opinions, or not.

Regards.

A female.
 

Emjay

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
8,314
There's no value in saying "men are stronger on average than women", because we don't compare averages, we compare individuals.
Yes - there is. Women's sports would not exist if this were the case.
 

Claymore

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
7,537
You didn't answer the question, as I knew you would.

Physically stronger, not mentally. Which is physically stronger?

If you think that being physically stronger makes you a better person than a physically weaker person, then you are even more troubled than I thought. So, its not a value judgement.

Who is physically stronger, on average?
Men are stronger, on average. But "on average" still tells you nothing about an individual.

You think I'm troubled? :p
 

Puk

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2013
Messages
156
Um. No. There's a wide range of biological combinations of gender, ranging from physical to hormonal to genetic.
Citation? Penis, testes, scrotum, no uterus, eggs or phallopian tubes = male = XY chromosomes on last pair. Vagina, uterus, phallopian tubes, no penis, scrotum or testes = female = XX chromosomes on last pair. That's genotypical. If someome cuts of his willy, gets his moobs upgraded and paints his face, he (may have) successfully changed his phenotype (how he looks like). That's artificial manipulation of the expression of genes. Genotypically, Margaret is still Mark, unfortunately. ONLY. TWO. GENDERS. (And don't come with that BS that gender is different than sex - they're synonyms).
 

Puk

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2013
Messages
156
People always get this mixed up. There are two biological sexes. Always have been, always will be. Your biological sex does not and cannot change, whatever you do. Sex can be male or female.

There is such a thing as gender, distinct from sex. However, sex predicts gender with something like 99.9% accuracy. There is a HUGE relationship between the two that the liberals do not want to admit.

In any case, gender refers to your role in society, which we term man or woman. For 99.9% of people, your gender is the same as your sex, so we can use man interchangeably with male, and woman interchangeably with female.

Are there really cases where people are the wrong gender? Liberal science says yes, but you can bet that they will not fund any studies to prove or disprove this. If they do, it will be biased. Imagine the conclusions that a Christian Conservative College will come to about gender, or the conclusions that a Liberal arts women's college will come to about gender. Completely predictable.

Also it is interesting to note that gender theory started out as being feminist doctrine, before they later "found" evidence to prove the theory.
Yep. That's the difference between "social sciences" and real science. Social and "science" don't belong in the same sentence.
 

Ancalagon

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
15,968
Citation? Penis, testes, scrotum, no uterus, eggs or phallopian tubes = male = XY chromosomes on last pair. Vagina, uterus, phallopian tubes, no penis, scrotum or testes = female = XX chromosomes on last pair. That's genotypical. If someome cuts of his willy, gets his moobs upgraded and paints his face, he (may have) successfully changed his phenotype (how he looks like). That's artificial manipulation of the expression of genes. Genotypically, Margaret is still Mark, unfortunately. ONLY. TWO. GENDERS. (And don't come with that BS that gender is different than sex - they're synonyms).
Two biological sexes, but infinite genders because gender is a made up term.
 

Claymore

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
7,537
Citation? Penis, testes, scrotum, no uterus, eggs or phallopian tubes = male = XY chromosomes on last pair. Vagina, uterus, phallopian tubes, no penis, scrotum or testes = female = XX chromosomes on last pair. That's genotypical. If someome cuts of his willy, gets his moobs upgraded and paints his face, he (may have) successfully changed his phenotype (how he looks like). That's artificial manipulation of the expression of genes. Genotypically, Margaret is still Mark, unfortunately. ONLY. TWO. GENDERS. (And don't come with that BS that gender is different than sex - they're synonyms).
Take a look at this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10943/
 

quovadis

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
3,217
Citation? Penis, testes, scrotum, no uterus, eggs or phallopian tubes = male = XY chromosomes on last pair. Vagina, uterus, phallopian tubes, no penis, scrotum or testes = female = XX chromosomes on last pair. That's genotypical. If someome cuts of his willy, gets his moobs upgraded and paints his face, he (may have) successfully changed his phenotype (how he looks like). That's artificial manipulation of the expression of genes. Genotypically, Margaret is still Mark, unfortunately. ONLY. TWO. GENDERS. (And don't come with that BS that gender is different than sex - they're synonyms).
I'll just throw in Mosaicism to complicate your argument.
 
Top