U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 10-29-2018, 10:08 AM
 
Location: San Antonio/Houston
33,645 posts, read 51,854,627 times
Reputation: 83144

Advertisements

Just want to remind you all that the theme of this thread is What are the scientific definitions of "man" and "woman"?
Please go back on topic.

 
Old 10-29-2018, 12:48 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
10,085 posts, read 4,161,649 times
Reputation: 6371
When people misrepresent science in a science forum it needs to be addressed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasBard79 View Post
Science also said prior to 1860 that Meteorites weren't real... and the National Science Foundation (rather, one of it's predecessors) had to admit it was that badly stupid about it.
This is not accurate.

A physicist named Ernst Chladni had published a book in 1794 suggesting that meteorites came from space. Chladni was hesitant to publish, writes Marvin, because he knew that he was “gainsaying 2,000 years of wisdom, inherited from Aristotle and confirmed by Isaac Newton, that no small bodies exist in space beyond the Moon.”

Ernst Chladni

It's not that they did not think meteorites were real...they had no understanding that they came from outer space...they thought they were from volcanoes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasBard79 View Post
Science also said in the 1940's (and in certain circles still does) that people who are Jews are genetically deficient. 2 million died for that bull****, and prior to that the Germans euthanized nearly 80% of their "Mentally Ill" population after they forcibly drugged their political dissidents in the early 1930's.
This is not accurate.

Scientific racism (sometimes referred to as race biology, racial biology, or race realism) is the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority. Historically, scientific racist ideas received credence in the scientific community but are no longer considered scientific.

Scientific racism

What people do with science has nothing to do with what science is. Science is an entire exercise in discovering what is objectively true utilizing the Scientific Method.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasBard79 View Post
Science yes created computers, but computers sent to Africa, China, and India and are not properly recycled sit on the ground and release toxins into the air, causing God knows how many air problems.
Once again, what people do with science and technological innovations has nothing to do with what science is. Science is not responsible for how people behave. Science is a body of knowledge...it's not a living breathing human. Humans are the one's who use science to do evil or good in the world. Science is the tool not the culprit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasBard79 View Post
Science also created CFC's - blamed for a long time for Ozone depletion.
CFCs were developed as ideal gases used as refrigerants for refrigerators.

Because of their special characteristics, inflammability and non-toxicity to human beings, CFCs were massively produced and consumed, particularly in developed countries, after the 1960's.

It was not until 1974 that the mechanism of ozone depletion was discovered to be CFC's.

History of Chlorofluorocarbons
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasBard79 View Post
Care to bring up the Cold Fusion fiasco and other totally false ideas within the last few decades?
Again this is not a very accurate statement. Only 2 scientist's were involved.
Quote:
In 1989 Martin Fleischmann (then one of the world's leading electrochemists) and Stanley Pons reported that their apparatus had produced anomalous heat ("excess heat") of a magnitude they asserted would defy explanation except in terms of nuclear processes.

Many scientists tried to replicate the experiment with the few details available. Hopes faded due to the large number of negative replications, the withdrawal of many reported positive replications, the discovery of flaws and sources of experimental error in the original experiment, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts. By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead, and cold fusion subsequently gained a reputation as pathological science.
Source: Cold Fusion
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasBard79 View Post
Science, particularly INDUSTRIAL Science on EVERY LEVEL does nothing for moral arguments.
Again this is not accurate.

What modern humans in Western society think of with respect to right and wrong, is very different from was thought of 400 years ago, before the development of science. It's not a coincidence that the Age of Enlightenment occurred at the same time science began to flourish.

On the other hand the Catholic Church is more concerned about preventing contraception than about preventing the rape of children. It's more concerned about preventing gay marriage than genocide.

Scientists are indeed concerned about the natural world and the misery and destruction humans are causing that's hurting the rest of the Animal and Plant Kingdoms.

World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasBard79 View Post
Actually Science RARELY overturns Philosophy.
I think you need to step into the 21st Century. Philosophy does not generate knowledge. Science generates knowledge.

Philosophy is incapable of addressing the truly fundamental questions about our existence. If you have not noticed, Science is making Philosophy obsolete.

At one time Philosophy was merged with Science. Philosophy is merely a reflection on the knoweldge that we learn, but it does not generate knowledge.

The knowledge about how the Universe works comes from Science.

The Philosophers can talk about it and think about all they want and maybe even add insight, but at the end of the day they don't generate knowledge.

In this sense, once Philosophy became divorced from Science...i.e. once Philosophy separated out on it's own, Science became Natural Science and Philosophy remained Philosophy. At this point Philosophy started becoming marginalized and it's been more and more marginalized ever since.

Of course Philosophers are not thrilled with this fact, but it's just a fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasBard79 View Post
One more thing - the Chromosome guys have got me convinced.
Great so let's steer this discussion back to the topic. Of course if it were not for these scientific discoveries we would still be in the Dark Ages with respect to sexual development disorders.

The Y chromosome mechanism of sex determination means that the Y chromosome uniquely carries an important gene (or genes) that sets the switch toward male sexual differentiation. The product of this gene is called testis-determining factor, and the corresponding hypothesized gene is the testis-determining factor gene or TDF.

The TDF gene was discovered by scientists studying rare so-called sex reversal individuals; that is, males who are XX (instead of XY) and females who are XY (instead of XX).

In the XX males, a small fragment near the tip of the small arm of the Y chromosome has broken off during the production of gametes and attached to one of the X chromosomes. This translocation results in XX males --> individuals who have XX sex chromosomes but appear male.

The XY females have deletions of the same region of the Y chromosome.

These findings suggested that the TDF gene is in that small segment of the Y chromosome. The SRY gene is found on the Y chromosome.

Several lines of evidence indicate that the SRY gene is the testis-determining gene.

First, in mice the SRY gene expressed only at the time and place expected for the testis-determining factor, that is, in the undifferentiated genital regions of the embryo just before the formation of the testis.

Second, when a 14-kb fragment of DNA containing the SRY gene is introduced into XX mouse embryos via micro-injection, the transgenic mice produced are males with normal testis differentiation and subsequent normal male secondary sexual development. In other words, SRY alone is sufficient to cause a full phenotypic sex reversal in an XX chromosomal female mouse.

Third, there are rare XY human females who, instead of having lost a section of the Y chromosome, instead have a simple mutation in the SRY gene.

SRY encodes a transcription factor that specifics development of the gonad into a testis. The testes produce the masculiznizing steroid hormone testosterone. If the SRY gene is absent, the gonad develops into an ovary by default. Ovaries produce the feminizing steroid hormone estrogen.



Sex-linked traits | Biomolecules | MCAT | Khan Academy

Last edited by Matadora; 10-29-2018 at 01:12 PM..
 
Old 10-29-2018, 02:08 PM
 
Location: Old Hippie Heaven
16,266 posts, read 7,125,741 times
Reputation: 9255
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasBard79 View Post
Yeah well, did computers change your chromosomes or your physical anatomy at birth? No. Actually drugs are more likely to do that - and drugs didn't really exist like they do now until 1794. Related, but not entirely the point. Actually drugs and birth defects are a nasty problem which people just don't confront deadbeat moms about. Their uterus is fertile ground for scientific research materials... and they get Welfare for their troubles.

Science also said prior to 1860 that Meteorites weren't real... and the National Science Foundation (rather, one of it's predecessors) had to admit it was that badly stupid about it.

Science also said in the 1940's (and in certain circles still does) that people who are Jews are genetically deficient. 2 million died for that bull****, and prior to that the Germans euthanized nearly 80% of their "Mentally Ill" population after they forcibly drugged their political dissidents in the early 1930's.

Science also created pesticides, which cause horrible tumors in animals and human beings. The related to drugs field of Toxicology should be of consideration.

Science yes created computers, but computers sent to Africa, China, and India and are not properly recycled sit on the ground and release toxins into the air, causing God knows how many air problems.

Science also created CFC's - blamed for a long time for Ozone depletion.

Incidently - Science, Computers, and Industrial automation has created sex robots. Want to ***** about gender roles? If you don't value being a man or a woman, or a human being, then you can be replaced for that too with a programmable android which once AI gets good enough will be able to act out anything you desire! See a porno you like? Program your woman to do it for you... just like MDMA and Hypnotics can! The difference is she isn't a biological person, so what's the big deal? Will we demand humans follow suit in order to be valued... or are you already doing that? Maybe you already are by demanding people conform to abstracts.

Care to bring up the Cold Fusion fiasco and other totally false ideas within the last few decades?

I did VERY WELL in Science Class... I just don't have the pom-poms that tell every child to be a Scientist since I have watched how Science has a good, AND a bad side. No honest criticism of any topic is valid without admitting to shot-comings. Actually, I spent 6 years in the computer industry refurbishing, recycling, and working with Computer repairs. Blue collar by many standards, but it IS a Computer Science field regardless and the standards and experience it requires are no less difficult than low level medical degrees such as the LVN and the pay is almost the same on average. I am more aware than you know of how science has changed lives in the last 40 years, and how technology is now on every level being integrated into our homes and bodies. You can say "I know science". I have WORKED in Science and it's Industrial application. I WILL NOT argue that Science is a requirement for modern life. But it should not become your Religious philosophy.

Science, particularly INDUSTRIAL Science on EVERY LEVEL does nothing for moral arguments. It only demonstrates what can be created and accomplished, what can be produced, bought, and sold. You have to separate out what can be produced, and what is right and wrong to avoid all these great Fiascos of Science. Not even bringing them into classrooms is half the reason we're in such a mess! If I went into a Catholic Church and they minimized or ignored a pedophile priest, clearly they weren't taking any moral responsibility for what happened. When Science as philosophy ignores it's own failings, it's at best no better than the Religions it claims superiority to.

Actually Science RARELY overturns Philosophy. If it ever could, people would quit having wars, get some laboratory grade MDMA and CBD, and screw until everyone passes out in a field like the Ancient Greeks did 3,000 years before MDMA was developed by Science (1912). Heaven to many people, right? Until some kind of bacteria breaks out, or an uninhibited idiot sticks it in a Monkey like what happened in Bangladesh. Now we have AIDS because of that crap and people would rather die than consider the moral implications of putting it where it doesn't belong, or how often. Well, more power to those idiots. Actually the Atheist point of view would offer Darwin Awards for that level of stupidity.

If you were a Science teacher, I would pull my child out. Fluid identity is a massive reason people are all screwed up right now. But fluid identities are easily taken advantage of by manipulative people and I would NEVER suggest a child or any human being be treated that way.

One more thing - the Chromosome guys have got me convinced.
Um, OK.

Most of your post has nothing to do with science. Scientists are hardly infallible, but modern science is one heck of a lot better at producing facts and improving actual lives than any religion or philosophy has ever been.

In regard to your assertion that science has rarely overturned philosophy, that depends on whose philosophy you're talking about. Philosophers whose ideas are based on the actions and attitudes of deities are not much in demand these days. As for morality, anthropology does have some interesting things to say about the biological derivation of human morality.

I did used to help teach science, when I was a biology grad student. If you had been my student - well, let's just say I would have recommended a lot of remedial study on your part.

"Now we have AIDS because of that crap and people would rather die than consider the moral implications of putting it where it doesn't belong, or how often. Well, more power to those idiots. Actually the Atheist point of view would offer Darwin Awards for that level of stupidity." You evidence little understanding of AIDs. Or human sexuality. Or evolution. Or atheists - of whom I am one.

Last edited by jacqueg; 10-29-2018 at 03:02 PM..
 
Old 10-30-2018, 03:48 PM
 
15,762 posts, read 13,191,044 times
Reputation: 19651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
In Humans:
A genital operation or hormone therapy does not change the sex of our species.

As I stated earlier that sex is determined via the existence of a Y chromosome or the absence of the Y chromosome.

In humans and other placental mammals, the Y chromosome mechanism of sex determination occurs, in which the Y chromosome determines the sex of an individual.

Individuals with a Y chromosome are genetically male and individuals without a Y chromosome are genetically female.

SRY gene

Check out the drop down in the above link for Health Conditions Related to Genetic Changes to view the disorders that occur in people who have more than one X or Y chromosome.

These disorders are why science defines sex based on having one Y chromosome to be male or to be missing the Y chromosome to be female.

The problems found in Klinefelter individuals indicate that one X and one Y chromosome are needed for normal development in males.

No amount of genital operations and hormone therapy will change a person's inherited sex determining chromosome.
No, you are choosing to define sex solely based on genetics. Women who have androgen insensitivity syndrome are still women or female despite having an XY genotype. Science acknowledges that you can define sex in different ways the same way you can have multiple definitions for "species".
 
Old 10-30-2018, 05:31 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
3,084 posts, read 1,040,161 times
Reputation: 3942
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
No, you are choosing to define sex solely based on genetics.
Which is the accurate scientific basis for making the distinction. To quote something I heard somewhere, "it's not a choice."

Quote:
Women who have androgen insensitivity syndrome are still women or female despite having an XY genotype.
The literature largely disagrees with you; that such bearers of genetic abnormality resemble women in some physical characteristics does not make them women. (That they very likely choose to identify as female is not scientific, which is the specific question here, not a general discussion of gender identity.)
 
Old 10-30-2018, 06:30 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
10,085 posts, read 4,161,649 times
Reputation: 6371
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
No, you are choosing to define sex solely based on genetics.
Take it up with science. That' how science defines gender and there is a very valid scientific reason for doing so.

In placental mammals, the presence of a Y chromosome determines gender.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
Women who have androgen insensitivity syndrome are still women or female despite having an XY genotype. Science acknowledges that you can define sex in different ways the same way you can have multiple definitions for "species".
Show me some credible science links that support this claim.
 
Old 10-30-2018, 07:35 PM
Status: "Illegal Mob = Challenging Tradition? REALLY??" (set 3 days ago)
 
Location: Dallas, TX
2,977 posts, read 1,752,953 times
Reputation: 2903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markus86 View Post
I have tried finding hard scientific definitions of the two sexes, but I just end up finding flimsy speculations about "gender fluidity" without any actual science behind it.
So all wishful thinking and personal feelings aside, what are the objective definitions of "man" and "woman"?

My understanding so far is that men are individuals with a penis, XY-chromosomes and testicles, whereas women are individuals with a vagina, XX-chromosomes, a uterus and an ovary.
Are there any other definitions?
This comment assumes two things: (1) Scientific equals outer anatomical/reproductive and nothing more. (2) Gender fluidity is not scientifically valid in any circumstances. I disagree with both notions.


1. Science itself, and in this case, the biological sciences, recognizes that the neurology of TG/TS people is objectively different. Brain scans reveal their brain patterns are more congruent with what is overwhelmingly found in the other birth sex than their own birth sex. That's why medical science currently distinguishes between sex (anatomical) and gender (self-identity).


2. The said brain scans are strong evidence that gender fluidity is indeed a real thing. It's certainly unscientific to disregard strong evidence simply because that strong evidence suggests the traditional, conventional definitions of what a healthy person is. This isn't much different from the old 20th century debates about homosexuality, and look at where the scientific community and mainstream society stands on this issue these days. If this is true for homosexuality, then why can't it be true for gender fluidity?
 
Old 10-30-2018, 08:03 PM
 
Location: Westwood, MA
3,474 posts, read 4,362,492 times
Reputation: 4477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
Take it up with science. That' how science defines gender and there is a very valid scientific reason for doing so.

In placental mammals, the presence of a Y chromosome determines gender.
Show me some credible science links that support this claim.
Sex describes physical characteristics while gender describes societal roles. Humans have both sex and gender, animals typically do not have gender.

Sex can be defined in a number of ways; the particular choice depends on the purpose of the definition. In most cases these definitions are all consistent with each other. The most fundamental definition is based on the size of the gametes. Males have small, motile gametes while females have larger, immobile ones. There is genetic sex, which is the chromosomal differences you describe. This is naturally less fundamental; not all sexual species use the Y chromosome. There are also a host of sex-specific features, often related to successful reproduction. These are things like the penis and vagina, the testes and uterus, as well as thing like large antlers in deer.

As I said before, these are usually consistent with each other. Most men produce sperm, have a single Y chromosome, and have a penis. Most women produce eggs, have two X chromosomes, and have a vagina. If you read a paper and it says the drug was tested on a man, you have a good idea which features he will have.

Not everyone fits neatly into these categories, however. Some people are totally infertile. Some people have an a Y chromosome and vagina. These people are typically classified as intersex. Its not generally scientific to make a strict distinction if none exists, so definitive classification beyond that is a societal question, not a scientific one. Historically, genetic testing was not possible (or even really known), so sex-specific traits were used.
 
Old 10-30-2018, 08:03 PM
Status: "Concerned" (set 8 days ago)
 
Location: San Antonio, Texas
37 posts, read 8,244 times
Reputation: 80
Matadora, what you know often depends on who you ask. I haven't been in school in years. But I was always fair minded and I'm going to look hard into much of what you presented. I'll stick by the Morals of Chess by Ben Franklin as long as the other forum members do the same.
 
Old 10-30-2018, 08:06 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
10,085 posts, read 4,161,649 times
Reputation: 6371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil75230 View Post
1. Science itself, and in this case, the biological sciences, recognizes that the neurology of TG/TS people is objectively different. Brain scans reveal their brain patterns are more congruent with what is overwhelmingly found in the other birth sex than their own birth sex. That's why medical science currently distinguishes between sex (anatomical) and gender (self-identity).
It's the field of neuropsychology studies that deals with transsexualism.

Quote:
Abstract

Transsexualism refers to a condition or belief which results in gender dysphoria in individuals and makes them insist that their biological gender is different from their psychological and experienced gender. Although the etiology of gender dysphoria (or transsexualism) is still unknown, different neuroimaging studies show that structural and functional changes of the brain result from this sexual incongruence.
Transsexualism: A Different Viewpoint to Brain Changes

Neuroplasticity is a property of our brains so these findings are not that surprising.

However gender is determined genetically regardless of what a person thinks they are.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top