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 Yesterday, 08:42 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
10,085 posts, read 4,161,649 times
Reputation: 6371

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
You asked for sources. They contradict your opinion. You ignored them. That is bad science.
I did not see you post any sources that contradicted the science I posted. I did not post opinions...I only posted what's found in the literature and in my current post grad genetics text books.

You merely quote mined from this review paper to try and support your beliefs. The abstract alone has nothing to do with supporting your claims and contradicting anything I've posted.
Quote:
Abstract
This review paper highlights important diagnostic and therapeutic concerns for girls with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS). CAIS is an androgen receptor defect disorder associated with vaginal and uterine agenesis in women with a 46,XY karyotype. The major clinical issues surrounding this syndrome include timing of gonadectomy, hormone replacement, vaginal dilation, and attention to psychological issues.
Quote mining anything is very poor way to try and make a point as it leaves out the context and true intent of the writers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
No, you are choosing to define sex solely based on genetics.
It's not me who's choosing to do this. It's how science does it...and it makes perfect sense as to why science does it this way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
Women who have androgen insensitivity syndrome are still women or female despite having an XY genotype.
Genetically they are males. I think you are getting confused between genotype and phenotype as well as normal sexual development vs. sexual development disorders.
Quote:
Androgen insensitivity syndrome is a condition that affects sexual development before birth and during puberty. People with this condition are genetically male, with one X chromosome and one Y chromosome in each cell. Because their bodies are unable to respond to certain male sex hormones (called androgens), they may have mostly female external sex characteristics or signs of both male and female sexual development.
Androgen insensitivity syndrome
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
Science acknowledges that you can define sex in different ways the same way you can have multiple definitions for "species".
I've not found anything that supports science acknowledging that you can define the sex of our species in more than one way. I only know of one way in which species is defined in science. Do you have any examples to support what you mean? There is no need to put quotation marks around the word species. Species is also a well defined term in science. Since species is the basic unit of classification and a taxonomic rank I think it would make things a huge mess in science if the basic unit of classification can be switched around.

Perhaps you mean gender can be defined in more than one way. I mentioned earlier that when I am speaking about gender I am doing so from the biological point of view rather an the social point of view.

Gender taxonomy
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
The point is there is a genotypic definition and a phenotypic definition. Some people meet one definition and not the other.
This is correct and there is no rule in science that states a person's genotype must mirror its's phenotype. An organism's genotype is a major (the largest by far for morphology) influencing factor in the development of its phenotype, but it is not the only one. Even two organisms with identical genotypes normally differ in their phenotypes.

Perhaps reading through this might help clear up your confusions. Genotype–phenotype distinction
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
Oh, and you don’t speak for “science”.
Correct I speak about the science that's currently established.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
And you utterly and completely ignored the fact that published, peer reviewed scientists consider genetically male but anatomically female people with complete AIS to be WOMEN.
I don't recall seeing that paper. Are you referring to the quote mined parts of that paper?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
It is hypocritical at best to pretend you are interested in research and then ignore it. Academic dishonest is a no no.
I suggest you take that up with the person who's doing this.

Last edited by Matadora; Yesterday at 08:52 PM..

 
Old Yesterday, 09:44 PM
 
48,973 posts, read 39,428,364 times
Reputation: 30627
What a bizarre thread. By straight scientific standard, all mammals as well as many other species have a male and female member based upon their physical structure.

Humans are unique, with the technology and civilization to artificially change that for various reasons (which I have zero issue with) but if you're talking straight science then yes there are firm definitions.

I would also add that in the animal kingdom there are many many other examples of a wide variety of non-reproductive sex crossing gender and even special lines so that also tanks many of the "unnatural" claims.

I wish everyone the best, I personally don't care what you do to others, yourself or how you interact with the world as long as it's consensual.
 
Old Today, 01:03 AM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
10,085 posts, read 4,161,649 times
Reputation: 6371
This site gives a very good summary of the disorders of sexual development.

Disorders of Sex Development
 
Old Today, 06:40 AM
 
Location: Westwood, MA
3,474 posts, read 4,360,408 times
Reputation: 4477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
What exactly did I contradict?

All you posted was a political sounding editorial. I did not see a huge consensus of scientists claiming what you are trying to sell.
You completely missed the point of my posting the article (in Nature). It was cited as evidence that scientists disagree with your definition of gender. Those were scientists, writing in a scientific journal. That it was an opinion isn't important. Even whether they are right or wrong isn't important. It's merely evidence that their view is pervasive enough to warrant inclusion in a journal with an impact factor of 40.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
Stop trying to politicize science.

Mine is no such thing. In fact I stand by well established science vs. going with opinions.
What is there to be convinced of? A political leaning editorial?
There is no authoritative voice in science. There's only evidence from the research that's being conducted.

Sex chromosome evolution: historical insights and future perspectives

I suggest you take your emotional baggage and deal with it and stop attacking me over the science that I've posted to describe how sex is determined in humans.
I'm not sure why you I've got "emotional baggage". I disagree with you about how sex is defined by scientists. You keep talking about how "sex is determined" in humans, which I agree with you about. And how exactly am I "attacking you"? Disagreeing with you isn't an attack. Saying someone has "emotional baggage" is an attack.

Another poster included numerous references from peer-reviewed journals where individuals with a "Y" chromosome are referred to as women. You keep speaking "for science" when actual scientists (who publish on these matters in peer-reviewed journals) disagree with you. This isn't an argument about science, it's an argument about the language scientists use. The community standards are that someone can be "genetically male" and still be female.

It would be great if this did not have to be politicized, but it has been. When you make the claim that science defines gender by chromosomes that will be used by politicians to force people to do things they don't want to do.
 
Old Today, 12:28 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
10,085 posts, read 4,161,649 times
Reputation: 6371
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrandom View Post
You completely missed the point of my posting the article (in Nature). It was cited as evidence that scientists disagree with your definition of gender.
First of all I did not miss the point of the editorial that you posted nor is it merely my opinion. What I understand and expressed is based on empirical evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrandom View Post
Those were scientists, writing in a scientific journal. That it was an opinion isn't important. Even whether they are right or wrong isn't important. It's merely evidence that their view is pervasive enough to warrant inclusion in a journal with an impact factor of 40.
Do you know what an editorial is? An editorial article written by or on behalf of an editor that gives an opinion on a topical issue.

Editorials in medical journals are short essays that express the views of the authors, often regarding a research or review article published in the same issue. Editorials provide perspective on how the current article fits with other information on the same topic.

I could care less what the editors views or opinions are. I stand by science and fully understand why science determines our species sex based on the presence or absence of the Y chromosome.

Do you even understand why scientist base our species sex on the Y chromosome sex determination pathway?

Take look at this list of sex chromosome disorders.

Sex chromosome disorders

Do you notice that most of the disorders are due to having an extra X chromosome? Does it now make sense why the Y chromosome sex determination is used in science vs the X chromosome sex determination?

Only two disorders are due having no Y Chromosome as seen in the XX gonadal dysgenesis (that affects both male and female), and the XX male syndrome, which is a RARE congenital condition where an individual with a female genotype has phenotypically male characteristics that can vary between cases. In 90% of these individuals the syndrome is caused by unequal crossing over between X and Y chromosomes during meiosis in the father, and results in the X chromosome containing the SRY gene, as opposed to the Y chromosome where it is normally found.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrandom View Post
I disagree with you about how sex is defined by scientists.
I don't really care just as I don't really care about the misinformed opinions of climate change deniers who don't like what climate scientist data shows. Or Evolution deniers who can't fathom the reality of all the supporting evidence for Evolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrandom View Post
Another poster included numerous references from peer-reviewed journals where individuals with a "Y" chromosome are referred to as women.
This is a rare disorder in which the genotype does not match the phenotype. 1 in 80,000 births result in the rare syndrome. This is not a normal condition and the people affect are raised as females even though they have undeveloped, residual gonadal tissue called streak gonads.

People with Swyer syndrome are typically raised as girls and have a female gender identity. Because they do not have functional ovaries, affected individuals usually begin hormone replacement therapy during adolescence to induce menstruation and development of female secondary sex characteristics such as breast enlargement and uterine growth. Hormone replacement therapy also helps reduce the risk of reduced bone density (osteopenia and osteoporosis). Women with this disorder do not produce eggs (ova), but they may be able to become pregnant with a donated egg or embryo.

Swyer syndrome usually affects only sexual development; such cases are called isolated Swyer syndrome. However, depending on the genetic cause, Swyer syndrome may also occur along with health conditions such as nerve problems (neuropathy) or as part of a syndrome such as campomelic dysplasia, which causes severe skeletal abnormalities.

Just think how these people with this syndrome developed before the etiology was discovered and treated with hormone therapy.

Here is a person who posted on Reddit about being born with this condition. They even refer to them-self as being born genetically male but physiologically looks female.

I Am A young woman with Swyer syndrome (also called XY gonadal dysgenesis). AMA

In genetics genotype typically determines phenotype but in the case of RARE genetic disorders this does not apply.

These folks have a sex disorder which is why they failed to develop normally into a male or female. It's not their fault in the least! You can't blame these folks for their condition. I can't help it that I have blue eyes based on my genes and they can't help that they have a sex development disorder based on their genes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrandom View Post
You keep speaking "for science" when actual scientists (who publish on these matters in peer-reviewed journals) disagree with you.
Actually what I'm discussing is what the literature states across many areas of sex development research.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrandom View Post
This isn't an argument about science, it's an argument about the language scientists use.
I don't think it's about either. I think it's a refusal on your part to understand that these sex disorders are viewed differently with respect to scientifically vs. socially.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrandom View Post
The community standards are that someone can be "genetically male" and still be female.
Medical research science standards state that a person who is genetically male but is phenotypcially female has a sex development disorder called Swyer Syndrome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrandom View Post
It would be great if this did not have to be politicized, but it has been. When you make the claim that science defines gender by chromosomes that will be used by politicians to force people to do things they don't want to do.
What is being forced on people?

I think the best way to address this growing social issue about gender "fluidity" is to add karyotyping to the list of newborn screening tests. This would early identify the sex disorder profile for the RARE sex disorders. This could then be added as a footnote on the birth certificate. Jane Eoe was diagnosed as having Swyer Syndrome based on chromosome testing, which found one X chromosome and one Y chromosome in each cell. This results in a male genotype, but a female phenotypically.

I personally think every child born should have their genes sequenced as well as their chromosomes karyotyped. However I can see this resulting in a mad war with the insurance industry claiming pre-existing conditions.!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrandom View Post
Saying someone has "emotional baggage" is an attack.
It was not intended as such. You appeared with each post to grow more and more defensive and huffy puffy. It seemed to me that you were becoming emotionally charged when there really is no need to be.

Last edited by Matadora; Today at 01:56 PM..
 
Old Today, 10:19 PM
 
Location: San Antonio/Houston
33,644 posts, read 51,854,627 times
Reputation: 83144
Seventy-five posts, most of them off topic and no agreement.
Time to close.
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