thelawlorfaithful Posted January 24 Posted January 24 On 1/24/2025 at 6:09 AM, Sactowndog said: No but it hasn’t been expressed so you are physically a female. Going to be interesting when the Olympics rolls around and the Morrocan boxer shows up. It will also be quite challenging for anyone with Swyer Syndrome who have XY Chomozones but are physically female. you get these problems when people with a 5th grade understanding of science start making EO’s. Not only that but the first Dem admin will overturn it so you will have documents from changes all over the place. Morocco, Algeria, the IOC and the federal government, who can tell the difference? Hopefully sixth graders. 1 1 Quote
Sactowndog Posted January 24 Posted January 24 On 1/24/2025 at 11:40 AM, thelawlorfaithful said: Morocco, Algeria, the IOC and the federal government, who can tell the difference? Hopefully sixth graders. Tell that to the 500-1000 people in the U.S. sadly impacted by Swyers Syndrome who have been living as women but will now have the Federal Government mark their passport and drivers license as male. as if their life was not hard enough. That shit is what happens when you legislate via EO drafted by right wing ideologues. Quote
thelawlorfaithful Posted January 24 Posted January 24 On 1/24/2025 at 12:11 PM, Sactowndog said: Tell that to the 500-1000 people in the U.S. sadly impacted by Swyers Syndrome who have been living as women but will now have the Federal Government mark their passport and drivers license as male. as if their life was not hard enough. That shit is what happens when you legislate via EO drafted by right wing ideologues. Perhaps they’ll feel better knowing there is a crazy person out there willing to assign their medical condition to an athlete which she denies because it makes him feel better about digging a hole in his ignorance. 1 1 Quote
Sactowndog Posted January 24 Posted January 24 On 1/24/2025 at 1:03 PM, thelawlorfaithful said: Perhaps they’ll feel better knowing there is a crazy person out there willing to assign their medical condition to an athlete which she denies because it makes him feel better about digging a hole in his ignorance. Nice try. I knew you wouldn’t give a shit because that pretty much defines who you are. 1 Quote
RSF Posted January 24 Posted January 24 On 1/24/2025 at 3:03 PM, thelawlorfaithful said: Perhaps they’ll feel better knowing there is a crazy person out there willing to assign their medical condition to an athlete which she denies because it makes him feel better about digging a hole in his ignorance. In English, please... Quote
Sactowndog Posted January 24 Posted January 24 On 1/24/2025 at 1:08 PM, RSF said: In English, please... No need for me. I speak douche so I know to what he is referring. 1 Quote
thelawlorfaithful Posted January 24 Posted January 24 On 1/24/2025 at 1:08 PM, RSF said: In English, please... Go back to using the reaction button with the short bus kids. Quote
thelawlorfaithful Posted January 24 Posted January 24 On 1/24/2025 at 1:07 PM, Sactowndog said: Nice try. I knew you wouldn’t give a shit because that pretty much defines who you are. I care a lot about Moroccan boxers. I bring them up whenever it interests me. Quote
Sactowndog Posted January 26 Posted January 26 On 1/24/2025 at 1:20 PM, thelawlorfaithful said: I care a lot about Moroccan boxers. I bring them up whenever it interests me. More detail on the lack of clarity given Trumps 5th grade understanding of Biology ABOUT GENDER: Dr. Rebecca Helm, a biologist and an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina, Asheville US writes: Friendly neighborhood biologist here. I see a lot of people are talking about biological sexes and gender right now. Lots of folks make biological sex sex seem really simple. Well, since it’s so simple, let’s find the biological roots, shall we? Let’s talk about sex...[a thread] If you know a bit about biology you will probably say that biological sex is caused by chromosomes, XX and you’re female, XY and you’re male. This is “chromosomal sex” but is it “biological sex”? Well... Turns out there is only ONE GENE on the Y chromosome that really matters to sex. It’s called the SRY gene. During human embryonic development the SRY protein turns on male-associated genes. Having an SRY gene makes you “genetically male”. But is this “biological sex”? Sometimes that SRY gene pops off the Y chromosome and over to an X chromosome. Surprise! So now you’ve got an X with an SRY and a Y without an SRY. What does this mean? A Y with no SRY means physically you’re female, chromosomally you’re male (XY) and genetically you’re female (no SRY). An X with an SRY means you’re physically male, chromsomally female (XX) and genetically male (SRY). But biological sex is simple! There must be another answer... Sex-related genes ultimately turn on hormones in specifics areas on the body, and reception of those hormones by cells throughout the body. Is this the root of “biological sex”?? “Hormonal male” means you produce ‘normal’ levels of male-associated hormones. Except some percentage of females will have higher levels of ‘male’ hormones than some percentage of males. Ditto ditto ‘female’ hormones. And... ...if you’re developing, your body may not produce enough hormones for your genetic sex. Leading you to be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally non-binary, and physically non-binary. Well, except cells have something to say about this... Maybe cells are the answer to “biological sex”?? Right?? Cells have receptors that “hear” the signal from sex hormones. But sometimes those receptors don’t work. Like a mobile phone that’s on “do not disturb’. Call and cell, they will not answer. What does this all mean? It means you may be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally male/female/non-binary, with cells that may or may not hear the male/female/non-binary call, and all this leading to a body that can be male/non-binary/female. Try out some combinations for yourself. Notice how confusing it gets? Can you point to what the absolute cause of biological sex is? Is it fair to judge people by it? Of course you could try appealing to the numbers. “Most people are either male or female” you say. Except that as a biologist professor I will tell you... The reason I don’t have my students look at their own chromosome in class is because people could learn that their chromosomal sex doesn’t match their physical sex, and learning that in the middle of a 10-point assignment is JUST NOT THE TIME. Biological sex is complicated. Before you discriminate against someone on the basis of “biological sex” & identity, ask yourself: have you seen YOUR chromosomes? Do you know the genes of the people you love? The hormones of the people you work with? The state of their cells? Since the answer will obviously be no, please be kind, respect people’s right to tell you who they are, and remember that you don’t have all the answers. Again: biology is complicated. Kindness and respect don’t have to be. Note: Biological classifications exist. XX, XY, XXY XXYY and all manner of variation which is why sex isn't classified as binary. You can't have a binary classification system with more than two configurations even if two of those configurations are more common than others. Biology is a shitshow. Be kind to people. 2 Quote
thelawlorfaithful Posted January 26 Posted January 26 On 1/25/2025 at 9:28 PM, Sactowndog said: More detail on the lack of clarity given Trumps 5th grade understanding of Biology ABOUT GENDER: Dr. Rebecca Helm, a biologist and an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina, Asheville US writes: Friendly neighborhood biologist here. I see a lot of people are talking about biological sexes and gender right now. Lots of folks make biological sex sex seem really simple. Well, since it’s so simple, let’s find the biological roots, shall we? Let’s talk about sex...[a thread] If you know a bit about biology you will probably say that biological sex is caused by chromosomes, XX and you’re female, XY and you’re male. This is “chromosomal sex” but is it “biological sex”? Well... Turns out there is only ONE GENE on the Y chromosome that really matters to sex. It’s called the SRY gene. During human embryonic development the SRY protein turns on male-associated genes. Having an SRY gene makes you “genetically male”. But is this “biological sex”? Sometimes that SRY gene pops off the Y chromosome and over to an X chromosome. Surprise! So now you’ve got an X with an SRY and a Y without an SRY. What does this mean? A Y with no SRY means physically you’re female, chromosomally you’re male (XY) and genetically you’re female (no SRY). An X with an SRY means you’re physically male, chromsomally female (XX) and genetically male (SRY). But biological sex is simple! There must be another answer... Sex-related genes ultimately turn on hormones in specifics areas on the body, and reception of those hormones by cells throughout the body. Is this the root of “biological sex”?? “Hormonal male” means you produce ‘normal’ levels of male-associated hormones. Except some percentage of females will have higher levels of ‘male’ hormones than some percentage of males. Ditto ditto ‘female’ hormones. And... ...if you’re developing, your body may not produce enough hormones for your genetic sex. Leading you to be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally non-binary, and physically non-binary. Well, except cells have something to say about this... Maybe cells are the answer to “biological sex”?? Right?? Cells have receptors that “hear” the signal from sex hormones. But sometimes those receptors don’t work. Like a mobile phone that’s on “do not disturb’. Call and cell, they will not answer. What does this all mean? It means you may be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally male/female/non-binary, with cells that may or may not hear the male/female/non-binary call, and all this leading to a body that can be male/non-binary/female. Try out some combinations for yourself. Notice how confusing it gets? Can you point to what the absolute cause of biological sex is? Is it fair to judge people by it? Of course you could try appealing to the numbers. “Most people are either male or female” you say. Except that as a biologist professor I will tell you... The reason I don’t have my students look at their own chromosome in class is because people could learn that their chromosomal sex doesn’t match their physical sex, and learning that in the middle of a 10-point assignment is JUST NOT THE TIME. Biological sex is complicated. Before you discriminate against someone on the basis of “biological sex” & identity, ask yourself: have you seen YOUR chromosomes? Do you know the genes of the people you love? The hormones of the people you work with? The state of their cells? Since the answer will obviously be no, please be kind, respect people’s right to tell you who they are, and remember that you don’t have all the answers. Again: biology is complicated. Kindness and respect don’t have to be. Note: Biological classifications exist. XX, XY, XXY XXYY and all manner of variation which is why sex isn't classified as binary. You can't have a binary classification system with more than two configurations even if two of those configurations are more common than others. Biology is a shitshow. Be kind to people. You took the weekend to find someone to refute your claim we are all females at conception? Congrats. 1 Quote
Sactowndog Posted January 26 Posted January 26 On 1/26/2025 at 4:22 AM, thelawlorfaithful said: You took the weekend to find someone to refute your claim we are all females at conception? Congrats. Nice try I was talking developmentally which you knew. Maybe we should have a disingenuous button named after you. 1 Quote
SalinasSpartan Posted January 26 Posted January 26 On 1/26/2025 at 7:22 AM, Sactowndog said: Nice try I was talking developmentally which you knew. Maybe we should have a disingenuous button named after you. I think disingenuous is giving the comment too much credit. It was just dumb as fuck. Quote
Sactowndog Posted January 26 Posted January 26 On 1/26/2025 at 9:49 AM, SalinasSpartan said: I think disingenuous is giving the comment too much credit. It was just dumb as fuck. Nah he is disingenuous and not a very nice person but he is not stupid. Quote
renoskier Posted January 26 Posted January 26 On 1/24/2025 at 1:20 PM, thelawlorfaithful said: I care a lot about Moroccan boxers. I bring them up whenever it interests me. Quote
AztecAlien Posted January 26 Posted January 26 On 1/26/2025 at 10:52 AM, Sactowndog said: Nah he is disingenuous and not a very nice person but he is not stupid. Matthew 23:28. "So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness." Quote
SalinasSpartan Posted January 26 Posted January 26 On 1/26/2025 at 9:52 AM, Sactowndog said: Nah he is disingenuous and not a very nice person but he is not stupid. I said the comment was dumb. Quote
thelawlorfaithful Posted January 26 Posted January 26 On 1/26/2025 at 7:22 AM, Sactowndog said: Nice try I was talking developmentally which you knew. Maybe we should have a disingenuous button named after you. If you want to try and change the conversation whenever it goes against you then fine. But don’t pin that on others. They’re not at fault. Quote
InnZoneU Posted January 26 Posted January 26 On 1/26/2025 at 12:01 PM, retrofade said: Yeah Colombia is next. Along with Canada and Greenland and Panama. Right after we invade Mexico and wipe out their cartels. Quote
RSF Posted January 26 Posted January 26 On 1/26/2025 at 2:01 PM, retrofade said: The Chinese will be happy to buy the oil. That’ll show ‘em. 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.