[Pants-of-dog]

False equivalencies and you know this. Even with all the changes you can do with modern science, you cannot change your sex/gender. They are linked.

There are two genders and two sexes. If you don't fall into one of these then you have Gender Dysphoria, or some other mental illness causing you confusion. 99.97% of all people are either male or female. The exceptions do not change the rule.

If you want to believe this unscientific crap that has already been shown to be wrong in this thread, feel free.

Your argument is to ban medical treatments because of these unsupported pseudoscience claims.

In other words, you do not have a good reason.

[wat0n]

No, this is a stupid semantics debate.

If you are willfully ignoring how biological sex is determined and indicated by genetics, hormones, secondary characteristics, and other indicators in order to focus on some random indicator, then we can stop pretending this is a scientific discussion.

Feel free to use whatever indicators you want for sex. Please understand that I am not going to accept it as anything except t a social construct by conservatives that is based on a deliberate misunderstanding of science.

But if you insist:

DeFINItION
Sex is a multidimensional construct based on a cluster of anatomical and physiological traits that include external genitalia, secondary sex characteristics, gonads, chromosomes, and hormones. People with intersex traits, also known as people with differences in sex development (DSD), are people who are born with,
or naturally develop over time, sex traits that do not correspond to a single sex. An estimated 1.7 percent of people have an intersex trait. Biologically, intersex variations are highly heterogeneous, can involve any sex trait, and may not be apparent from an external examination.
…..

From the National Academy of Medicine.

https://nap.nationalacademies.org/resou ... Status.pdf

"Based on" is not the same as "defined by", particularly since the report deals with "sex assigned at birth" and not biological sex itself.

The only thing that defines, and determines, biological sex is the genotype. Even intersex conditions themselves would be detected at birth if karyotype was cheap enough to turn into into the standard way to assign sex at birth instead of the currently used visual criteria. Since this isn't standard procedure, genetic testing will be done later when the intersex person doesn't develop the traits one would expect based on sex assigned at birth, just to figure out what's going on since many people with intersex conditions can experience more than just a non-standard development of the sex linked traits.

And sex is quite obviously not a purely social construct either Ms Butler, indeed intersex conditions are also evidence of that themselves since they are either caused by genetic anomalies (most common causes) or environmental factors like in utero exposure to abnormal levels of testosterone or (arguably) some pesticides, which are less common but known to happen. What is a social construct is how the rest of society treats intersex people, be it in terms of choosing medical treatment (if any, many intersex people may reject being treated at all) or more broadly than that, not the intersex status itself.

I love this denialism of science when it doesn't suit your agenda, I will absolutely keep note of it.

[Godstud]

If you want to believe this unscientific crap that has already been shown to be wrong in this thread, feel free.

it's not unscientific, but you and others like to ignore science when it's inconvenient to your Woke ideology. You ignore the science that states otherwise. The definition provided by wat0n is one such thing.

Your argument is to ban medical treatments because of these unsupported pseudoscience claims.

No. My argument is to ban medical treatments to children because it is child abuse to drug and mutilate children who aren't mature enough to make decisions for themselves. You do it simply because you've been initiated into this perverse cult of Woke ideology who says that if you feel a certain way, it makes you that thing.

You promote child mutilation and drugging, all in the name of your Woke religion.

I love this denialism of science when it doesn't suit your agenda, I will absolutely keep note of it.

Quoted For Truth! He's a cultist.

[Pants-of-dog]

I am ignoring the semantics debate.

If people want to believe that genital shape is not a factor in determining sex because of a dictionary definition,, they can believe whatever they want.

This does not change the fact that external genitals, like hormones, are used to determine the sex of a person.

————-

My argument is to ban medical treatments to children because it is child abuse to drug and mutilate children who aren't mature enough to make decisions for themselves.

Do you want to ban all medical treatments for kids?

Yes or no?

[skinster]

Data from the world’s largest clinic for transgender youth over 11 years yield an estimated annual suicide rate of 13 per 100,000. This rate was 5.5 times greater than the overall suicide rate of adolescents of similar age, adjusting for sex composition. The estimate demonstrates the elevated risk of suicide among adolescents who identify as transgender, albeit without adjusting for accompanying psychological conditions such as autism. The proportion of individual patients who died by suicide was 0.03%, which is orders of magnitude smaller than the proportion of transgender adolescents who report attempting suicide when surveyed. The fact that deaths were so rare should provide some reassurance to transgender youth and their families, though of course this does not detract from the distress caused by self-harming behaviors that are non-fatal. It is irresponsible to exaggerate the prevalence of suicide. Aside from anything else, this trope might exacerbate the vulnerability of transgender adolescents. As the former lead psychologist at the Tavistock has warned, “when inaccurate data and alarmist opinion are conveyed very authoritatively to families we have to wonder what the impact would be on children’s understanding of the kind of person they are…and their likely fate”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 22-02287-7

Then provide an example of a science based argument for banning gender affirming care.

It was you who claimed the "science is clear" and now you're expecting me to prove your nonsense.

Examples of arguments for banning "gender affirming care" is it sterilises and mutilates children unnecessarily, that our sex is not open to change and so we should stop lying to children about this and destroying their lives. I can add much more, but you simply don't care about children aside from destroying their bodies in favour of this Frankenstein-esque cult that you're a part of, and you think that route is being kind when anyone with eyes outside of your cult can see it all for what it is.

Provide a study showing that allowing anorexics to starve themselves led to improved mental health outcomes.

We didn't allow anorexics to starve themselves. They were advised and treated against it.

My point which you purposely missed was people with anorexia usually have higher rates of suicidal ideation because they're mentally ill, just like people with gender dysphoria have higher rates of suicide because they are mentally ill, but we don't feed the delusions in one area, while people like you seek to in the other. And it's sick, sick, sick.

And again, you should stop talking about science when you're here promoting a gender religion which has no basis whatsoever in science, and in fact, denies a science we know as biology.

There seems to be no argument in this bit.

No argument, just stories of regret for going the "gender affirming care" route that people who promote today's medical scandal don't want to hear. Here are a bunch of men who thought getting surgery to imitate female genitalia would help their mental illnesses, who learned post-surgery that it doesn't, and worse, that it makes them feel even worse.

How are you defining sex?

Gonadal? Interior genitalia? Chromosomal? Hormonal? Secondary sexual characteristics? A combination of two or more of these five?

Biology uses all five for humans.

What nonsense. Sex in mammals is in ever cell of our body and is not open to change. Variations in chromosomes doesn't change that, nor does the same happen in increased/decreased hormones of one type or the other. Secondary sex characteristics of the opposite sex don't change their sex and people with "intersex" conditions have conditions that are sex-specific, i.e. males have different names for some of these conditions based on their sex and females have different names for these conditions that are based on their sex. For example, Klinefelter syndrome is an intersex condition that occurs in males and Androgen insensitivity syndrome is an intersex condition that occurs in females.

There is no such thing as "assigned sex at birth", our sex is observed, not assigned, and in very rare cases, of less than 1% of the human population, there is some ambiguity, but this ambiguity does not change the rule of the binary nature of human sex. And it is not open to change. All humans are either only ever male or female. And that cannot be changed no matter whatever you wish. I can eat all the testosterone, get doctors to put a fake pole-like dick made out of skin from my arm or thigh that has no sexual function like penises are meant to, and it will still not make me male no matter how much I wish to be one. Nothing can possibly make me a male. Humans cannot play god and change us from that what we started as, no matter how many hormones are pumped into us or surgery done. Sex is immutable.

Still, I'm not even sure why you're here trying to promote the idea that sex can be changed when usually trans activists make clear the difference in sex and gender, accepting one is what we are and the other is what's between our ears; how we identify. At least they can sound less insane than you do by making that claim because it can work, because gender ideology is about identity, not sex. The only way sex factors in here is how the gender identitarians seek to escape theirs. But you can't escape it. Women who get raped every minute in India today don't get to identify out of their sex before they're raped. Their rapists don't pop over and ask how they identify before raping them. Because our sex is obvious and it is real. And it's also why so many people who identify as trans seek to "pass" as they call it, as the opposite sex. When, it is rare that any ever can because humans understand sex not just from our eyes, but our instincts. For instance, my 5-year-old niece could tell the difference between a man in a dress and a woman in a dress. And she's a child...but I digress.

Sex is not open to change. Stop this nonsense because it's causing me second-hand embarrassment and I hate when that happens.

unscientific crap

pseudoscience claims.

A weird flex from someone who believes in gendered souls.

[wat0n]

I am ignoring the semantics debate.

If people want to believe that genital shape is not a factor in determining sex because of a dictionary definition,, they can believe whatever they want.

This does not change the fact that external genitals, like hormones, are used to determine the sex of a person.

Sure, but it also doesn't change the fact that deviations from the norm are seen as "conditions".

Sex determination at birth is only done the way it is because it's a cheap and practical way to determine biological sex.

Also, is gender-affirming care for cisgender minors OK? For example, if a teenage girl wants to get fake tits or a teenage boy wants to get dick enlargement surgery regardless of whether it is the best medical option, would you affirm and fund that from your taxes or through increased insurance premiums? Or this is something that should be left for medical professionals to decide?

[Pants-of-dog]

Data from the world’s largest clinic for transgender youth over 11 years yield an estimated annual suicide rate of 13 per 100,000. This rate was 5.5 times greater than the overall suicide rate of adolescents of similar age, adjusting for sex composition. The estimate demonstrates the elevated risk of suicide among adolescents who identify as transgender, albeit without adjusting for accompanying psychological conditions such as autism. The proportion of individual patients who died by suicide was 0.03%, which is orders of magnitude smaller than the proportion of transgender adolescents who report attempting suicide when surveyed. The fact that deaths were so rare should provide some reassurance to transgender youth and their families, though of course this does not detract from the distress caused by self-harming behaviors that are non-fatal. It is irresponsible to exaggerate the prevalence of suicide. Aside from anything else, this trope might exacerbate the vulnerability of transgender adolescents. As the former lead psychologist at the Tavistock has warned, “when inaccurate data and alarmist opinion are conveyed very authoritatively to families we have to wonder what the impact would be on children’s understanding of the kind of person they are…and their likely fate”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 22-02287-7

Then it is a good thing I referred to studies and not sources that exaggerate the findings of those studies.

It was you who claimed the "science is clear" and now you're expecting me to prove your nonsense.

The evidence supporting the claim that gender affirming medical care leads to better mental health outcomes has been presented. No other scientific evidence has been presented.

Consequently, the science seems clear in this thread.

Examples of arguments for banning "gender affirming care" is it sterilises and mutilates children unnecessarily,

This seems like a myth.

All the surgeons in Canada who will perform this surgery only operate on adults.

Where do you live that children are being operated on?

that our sex is not open to change

And yet people change it.

and so we should stop lying to children about this and destroying their lives.

I like to believe that you and others perpetuating these myths are not lying and that you are genuinely confused. Consequently, the negative effects of your beliefs on children are motivated by good intentions and not malice.

We didn't allow anorexics to starve themselves. They were advised and treated against it.

My point which you purposely missed was people with anorexia usually have higher rates of suicidal ideation because they're mentally ill, just like people with gender dysphoria have higher rates of suicide because they are mentally ill, but we don't feed the delusions in one area, while people like you seek to in the other. And it's sick, sick, sick.

So both groups have high levels of suicidal ideation, but for trans people, you advocate the treatment that results in higher levels of suicidal ideation.

What nonsense. Sex in mammals is in ever cell of our body and is not open to change. Variations in chromosomes doesn't change that,

Variations in chromosomes is exactly what changes the sex of individual cells in our body.

This is how we are able to determine that some people have both male and female cells in their body: by looking at the chromosomes in the cells.

nor does the same happen in increased/decreased hormones of one type or the other.

Again, people change their hormones to that of a different sex. I assume you mean they do not do it “naturally” as per the fallacy of @Godstud.

Secondary sex characteristics of the opposite sex don't change their sex and people with "intersex" conditions have conditions that are sex-specific, i.e. males have different names for some of these conditions based on their sex and females have different names for these conditions that are based on their sex. For example, Klinefelter syndrome is an intersex condition that occurs in males and Androgen insensitivity syndrome is an intersex condition that occurs in females.

You seem to be defining male and female solely by chromosomes.

There is no such thing as "assigned sex at birth", our sex is observed, not assigned,

How do you and @wat0n use chromosomes as the sole arbiter of sex, and then simultaneously claim that sex can be determined solely by looking at external genitalia?

This is a logical contradiction.

and in very rare cases, of less than 1% of the human population, there is some ambiguity, but this ambiguity does not change the rule of the binary nature of human sex. And it is not open to change. All humans are either only ever male or female.

At this point, I am fairly confident that you are not reading the evidence.

I even quoted the text disproving this claim.

And that cannot be changed no matter whatever you wish. I can eat all the testosterone, get doctors to put a fake pole-like dick made out of skin from my arm or thigh that has no sexual function like penises are meant to, and it will still not make me male no matter how much I wish to be one. Nothing can possibly make me a male. Humans cannot play god and change us from that what we started as, no matter how many hormones are pumped into us or surgery done. Sex is immutable.

Still, I'm not even sure why you're here trying to promote the idea that sex can be changed when usually trans activists make clear the difference in sex and gender, accepting one is what we are and the other is what's between our ears; how we identify. At least they can sound less insane than you do by making that claim because it can work, because gender ideology is about identity, not sex. The only way sex factors in here is how the gender identitarians seek to escape theirs. But you can't escape it. Women who get raped every minute in India today don't get to identify out of their sex before they're raped. Their rapists don't pop over and ask how they identify before raping them. Because our sex is obvious and it is real. And it's also why so many people who identify as trans seek to "pass" as they call it, as the opposite sex. When, it is rare that any ever can because humans understand sex not just from our eyes, but our instincts. For instance, my 5-year-old niece could tell the difference between a man in a dress and a woman in a dress. And she's a child...but I digress.

Sex is not open to change. Stop this nonsense because it's causing me second-hand embarrassment and I hate when that happens.

A weird flex from someone who believes in gendered souls.

Yes, people can determine sex of another without referring to genetics.

So arguing that sex is only genetics and therefore immutable cannot be correct.

[AFAIK]

Also, is gender-affirming care for cisgender minors OK?

Another good example of society's double standards. What is your response to this @Pants-of-dog?

[wat0n]

How do you and @wat0n use chromosomes as the sole arbiter of sex, and then simultaneously claim that sex can be determined solely by looking at external genitalia?

This is a logical contradiction.

Actually what I'm saying is that the correct way to do it is through karyotype testing, not looking at genitalia. Looking at genitalia is an imperfect way to do it, with an error rate of up to 1.7% (i.e. the percentage of population with intersex traits).

However, this error rate is low enough to be deemed a better option from a public health perspective than tests that can cost $100-$2000 every time in the US. Policy makers are willing to live with that error rate in exchange for saving on costs.

This is no different from what happens with the measurement of other health indicators. For example, the best way to measure bodyfat percentage is using DEXA scanning (basically, X-Rays) but it is far cheaper to use a caliper and some tables that can guide interpretation (the error rate of a correctly taken measurement is around 4%), and many doctors and trainers will just use that. A DEXA scan can cost $150 or more while you can buy calipers for as low as $0.42 per unit and use each caliper to measure your bodyfat at home as many times as you like.

[Pants-of-dog]

So external genitalia are used as indicators to determine sex and they are consistent with other indicators over 98% of the time.

[wat0n]

Sure. But it doesn't mean the 2% are somehow a socially constructed category or that it changes the biological aspects of sex.

The only thing it means is that the current ways to determine sex at birth are imperfect, but cheap.

One could make a logically and ethically valid case that the 2% error rate is unacceptable and that newborns should be tested genetically, and not just to check their X and Y chromosomes. But it will ultimately be about resource management, i.e. money.

[Pants-of-dog]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... rmination/

Now, the idea is that everyone is to ignore the above information when discussing the medical science of sexual fluidity, and simply decide chromosomes are the only “true” factor.

[wat0n]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... rmination/

Now, the idea is that everyone is to ignore the above information when discussing the medical science of sexual fluidity, and simply decide chromosomes are the only “true” factor.

Sure, it's specifically about having a normal SRY gene (which is normally in the Y-chromosome), with the consequences of deviations from this norm being shown in the infographic. Note these are considered to be genetic conditions and not the norm.

Also note that this does mean biological sex is a genetic category, the corresponding phenotypes only being associated with it as it is what one can expect based on the genotype. This chart dispels the notion that sex is socially constructed, what is socially constructed is not sex itself but how intersex people are treated and also gender.

All of this only serves to make an ethical case for the genetic testing of newborns or even during pregnancy, if you think the possibility of being intersex is life-defining enough for the intersex person as to warrant an early detection and routine genetic testing. I think that's what will happen when genetic testing becomes more affordable, which it will as the field progresses further.

[Pants-of-dog]

I am glad that we can now agree that we need to use a biologically valid definition of sex and not a social construct that arbitrarily ignores most of the sex indicators.

Note that the chart shows people with normal healthy SRY genes (i.e. genetically male) who present as female, as well as people who have other genetic differences.

Note that this chart does not even look at individuals with chimeric genes.

[wat0n]

Note that the chart shows people with normal healthy SRY genes (i.e. genetically male) who present as female, as well as people who have other genetic differences.

"Normal healthy SRY-genes" = SRY gene gets translocated to the X chromosome and inactivated.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes.

Thank you for clarification of how the claim (that some intersex people can have a "healthy and normal" SRY gene) is correct.

Therefore it is incorrect to argue that the presence of this gene is the sole arbiter.

Instead, it would be more correct to argue that this gene normally sets off a network of events that can then define sex if there are no significant deviations after that.

[wat0n]

...All of which are genetic in nature.

See? It's a purely biological process, not a socially constructed one. What is socially constructed is how we deal with this biological reality, from medical treatment (if any is warranted) to social and legal recognition.

[Pants-of-dog]

Hormones may be triggered by genes, but they are not genetic in nature.

Genitals are organs, not genes.

Eat cetera.

Therefore, we should abandon the social construct of sex as purely genetic.

[wat0n]

Hormones may be triggered by genes, but they are not genetic in nature.

Genitals are organs, not genes.

Eat cetera.

Therefore, we should abandon the social construct of sex as purely genetic.

Sure, you can always artificially synthesize hormones and maybe in the future even sexual organs. However, those would be medical interventions done to "fix" something "wrong" with the genes. This is just another form of gender-affirming care.

Again, this doesn't alter sex itself. The social construct is in deciding that intersex and gender dysphoria are "conditions" that need to be treated. There are plenty of deviations out of the genetic norm that we, as a society, choose not to treat and don't see as problematic at all.

Now, a more interesting question I posted earlier: Would you allow gender-affirming care to cisgender children? Like, I don't know, giving fake tits to a girl or penis enlargement surgery to a boy.

Would you fund it through taxation or require insurers to fund these procedures?

[skinster]

Then it is a good thing I referred to studies and not sources that exaggerate the findings of those studies.

All the studies in the world couldn't get me to support your pseudoscientific cult.

The evidence supporting the claim that gender affirming medical care leads to better mental health outcomes has been presented. No other scientific evidence has been presented.

There is no long-term evidence showing trans-identifying kids are happier when they get medicated and mutilated.

This seems like a myth.

The myth is that men can be women and women can be men, if they say so. As if any of us get to choose

All the surgeons in Canada who will perform this surgery only operate on adults.

Where do you live that children are being operated on?

They're given puberty blockers to children and teenagers and some children are getting mastectomies under the age of 18. Here's one story who got her breasts removed at 17:


Here's one who got the same at 13:


Here's one at 16:

And yet people change it.

They don't change their sex because it is not open to change.

I like to believe that you and others perpetuating these myths are not lying and that you are genuinely confused. Consequently, the negative effects of your beliefs on children are motivated by good intentions and not malice.

They are lying. You are lying. But you can't see it, because you're in a cult. And it's definitely not our side of the debate that's confused.

So both groups have high levels of suicidal ideation, but for trans people, you advocate the treatment that results in higher levels of suicidal ideation.

No, for both groups we tell them to accept their bodies as they are, without hurting them, either via starvation or taking experimental medication that sterilised them and surgery that mutilates them.

Variations in chromosomes is exactly what changes the sex of individual cells in our body.

This is how we are able to determine that some people have both male and female cells in their body: by looking at the chromosomes in the cells.

Something for you to read.

Again, people change their hormones to that of a different sex. I assume you mean they do not do it “naturally” as per the fallacy of @Godstud.

You can have the opposite/wrong sex hormones but that doesn't open you to change your sex. What the hell are you talking about?

Sex is not open to change. It's impossible to change it. With hormones, with surgeries or whatever amount of wishing that comes from your ilk.

You seem to be defining male and female solely by chromosomes.

No, I was pointing out that the minority of people you lot use as a sheild to defend your cult have sex-specific disorders which reinforce mine, nature and science's points about the sex binary, which again, is immutable.

How do you and @wat0n use chromosomes as the sole arbiter of sex, and then simultaneously claim that sex can be determined solely by looking at external genitalia?

This is a logical contradiction.

I didn't say X is the sole arbiter of whatever, that's you. It's you lot that try to use junk science and bring it chromosomes or hormones as if you have think any of this changes the fact that our sex is not open to change. A man performing female stereotypes, for example, will never have a baby, for example.

At this point, I am fairly confident that you are not reading the evidence.

You can bring whatever you like from the bought science to defend your position but people with DSDs do not change the rule of our species, the sex binary and how it's not open to change, even with hormones and mutilation.

Yes, people can determine sex of another without referring to genetics.

So arguing that sex is only genetics and therefore immutable cannot be correct.

I didn't say it's only about genetics, just dealing with your boring points. Sex is immutable. Stop lying to people that it is not because that's some psychotic shit going on.

And sex is a social construct according to you? Sex is a biological reality and preceded any ideas humans have had, you nutter. I can't believe you're making that claim.