Redefining Language

[NowYou'rePlayingWithPower]

“They” would be the people who are both saying that this boxer is a man and also posting #tampontim

You were responding in regards to someone who was responding to me.
So, perhaps it was just my own issue with perception

Y'all have issues with twisting and warping things to fit your objectives of discrediting people who know what they're talking about.
That's very similar to the type of people that this thread is about. Why is that? Why the heavy investment in doing so? I assume that SR has some sort of identity/genetic disorder or has an affinity for those that do, but what's your end goal? To convince people that you know what you're talking about? It would be a lot more convincing if you knew what you were talking about.

 

[MadAsAHatter]

It's Oxford up until Sinauer. Many more authors, but those search engines are so pesky for some people

Pretty much all neuroscience/neurobiology textbooks say the same thing. The main difference between them is if it's a general overview or focuses on a specific subject. My neurobiology class back in college focused on animal behavior. I lost the textbook several years ago in a flood, but the title was something similar to Principles of Animal Neuroscience.

 

[NowYou'rePlayingWithPower]

Pretty much all neuroscience/neurobiology textbooks say the same thing. The main difference between them is if it's a general overview or focuses on a specific subject. My neurobiology class back in college focused on animal behavior. I lost the textbook several years ago in a flood, but the title was something similar to Principles of Animal Neuroscience.

I was more or less referring the the book for end results to the questions that are being asked from a disingenuous inquiry. I am of the opinion that someone doesn't need to get that far to understand, only that if you do get that far, than one should probably understand. I'm always open to new information that may or may not change my perception of an issue, but I am currently where I'm at. ?‍ Not trying to convince others when they can convince themself through further available understandings.

I think it's poor form to do the legwork for someone who seemingly will argue just for the sake of it, anyways. Not trying to convince anyone who is unwilling to grasp basic concepts simply out of emotion or fear or whatever is their driving factor to do so. I've already wasted enough time on that.

 

[Dan Gleesak]

You were responding in regards to someone who was responding to me.
So, perhaps it was just my own issue with perception

Y'all have issues with twisting and warping things to fit your objectives of discrediting people who know what they're talking about.
That's very similar to the type of people that this thread is about. Why is that? Why the heavy investment in doing so? I assume that SR has some sort of identity/genetic disorder or has an affinity for those that do, but what's your end goal? To convince people that you know what you're talking about? It would be a lot more convincing if you knew what you were talking about.

I have zero end goal. I don’t march for things and I don’t have any signs in my front yard.
I’m also not sure who “SR” is in this discussion.
I am just stating simple facts. Not to prove that I’m smart, but because that’s how I like to form my opinions.

Regarding this post, it’s a fact that there are people on this forum, who are dead set on this boxer being a man. As far as we all know this boxer was born with a vagina and still has one. Why else would her birth certificate say so, right?

So if someone thinks she’s a man I would assume they also think she should use the men’s bathroom.

That means there are instances where people who have female reproductive organs would be expected to use men’s bathrooms.

So if somebody understands that scenario is a possibility, it’s strange that they would make fun of a politician who pushed to have tampon in boys bathrooms.

 

[Bad Brain]

Pretty much all neuroscience/neurobiology textbooks say the same thing. The main difference between them is if it's a general overview or focuses on a specific subject. My neurobiology class back in college focused on animal behavior. I lost the textbook several years ago in a flood, but the title was something similar to Principles of Animal Neuroscience.

Since you’re familiar with it and I’m on the deck relaxing and drinking a la croix (lime) after mowing, do you agree with @NowYou'rePlayingWithPower that this book views classification of the human biological sexes as male, female and “null” (or “mutant”)?

 

[Bad Brain]

Regarding this post, it’s a fact that there are people on this forum, who are dead set on this boxer being a man.

My position is that she is probably a man, at least biologically, but also acknowledge a sports organization can implement whatever criteria they want. @NowYou'rePlayingWithPower doesn’t think she is a man — or a woman for that matter. I don’t think that’s a scientific position, but ya know, “neuroscience 2nd edition.”

 

[MadAsAHatter]

Since you’re familiar with it and I’m on the deck relaxing and drinking a la croix (lime) after mowing, do you agree with @NowYou'rePlayingWithPower that this book views classification of the human biological sexes as male, female and “null” (or “mutant”)?

Neuroscience is a different field of biology than what you're asking about. In general neuroscience/neurobiology addresses functions of the brain, its interactions with the nervous system, brain chemistry, neurotransmitters, etc. The textbook reference I provided is in line with that. It does have chapters that focus on hormonal influences, their effects in the nervous system, and how it relates to reproductive/sexual behaviors. It doesn't address mutants.

Your question lines up with the filed of genetics. In that regard, any abnormality in the genome would be a mutation. These changes or errors occur on the genetic level (DNA or RNA) usually during replication, mitosis or miosis. They can also be caused by damage to the DNA or RNA sequence. depending on the type of mutation it may or may not show physically. So anyone/anything that has a mutation in the genome would be considered a mutant. We're talking biology here, not Charles Xavior's X-Men.

 

[Bad Brain]

So anyone/anything that has a mutation in the genome would be considered a mutant. We're talking biology here, not Charles Xavior's X-Men.

And would this designation apply to the classification of biological sex? In other words, in a gonochoric species such as homo sapiens, would it be proper to classify an “intersex” human as a mutant, or are they still primarily either male or female?

 

[MadAsAHatter]

And would this designation apply to the classification of biological sex? In other words, in a gonochoric species such as homo sapiens, would it be proper to classify an “intersex” human as a mutant, or are they still primarily either male or female?

Depends on what you mean by proper. If you mean "politically correct" I'm no type of authority on the subject to make that designation. If you mean pure scientific classification, I've already answered that.

 

[Bad Brain]

Depends on what you mean by proper. If you mean "politically correct" I'm no type of authority on the subject to make that designation. If you mean pure scientific classification, I've already answered that.

Yes, I mean scientifically proper. Richard Dawkins just got in trouble for referring to her as a biological male due to XY chromosomes. Is he just being sloppy?

 

[Dan Gleesak]

My position is that she is probably a man, at least biologically, but also acknowledge a sports organization can implement whatever criteria they want. @NowYou'rePlayingWithPower doesn’t think she is a man — or a woman for that matter. I don’t think that’s a scientific position, but ya know, “neuroscience 2nd edition.”

I think it’s all very fascinating, especially as someone who thinks there is room for both biological sex and a sociological gender. When things like this happen and even “science” can’t clearly define the sex, it’s even more important for society to come to a consensus on what constitutes male or female. If there are scientifically blurred lines between male and female, is something like they/them which accurately refers to a person of unknown gender, actually appropriate and necessary?
It all makes for great political fodder, but it deepens my resolve that this is not a political issue, and more of a societal necessity

 

[MadAsAHatter]

Yes, I mean scientifically proper. Richard Dawkins just got in trouble for referring to her as a biological male due to XY chromosomes. Is he just being sloppy?

I really don't know what you're trying to get at other than asking contrived questions or wanting others to form your opinion for you. Go read some books on biology and genetics and make up your own mind.

 

[7704A]

This thread really took off!

Anyhow, been playing along at home and found two references that seem to have some bearing on the subject.

1) @NowYou'rePlayingWithPower's book: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3584490/
Another poster already posted the 2nd edition details and @NowYou'rePlayingWithPower confirmed them, I'm putting the 5th edition here since apparently "2" should have been "5" in the original post mentioning it.

2) I did a quick search on genetic criteria for male and females, and found this interesting book excerpt from the NIH: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9967/

Now I'm not a trained biologist and don't have time to become one, so I don't know how reliable of a source it is. Maybe others here can better speak to that.

---

Here's my web search for those who care: https://kagi.com/search?q=genetic+criteria+for+male+and+female&r=us&sh=_gBWF9IEql1BT9guzaFsww

That's all for now, back to the races!

 

[Bad Brain]

I really don't know what you're trying to get at other than asking contrived questions or wanting others to form your opinion for you. Go read some books on biology and genetics and make up your own mind.

It's clear that I’m asking if he is mistaken or sloppy in calling her a man because of XY chromosomes even if she has female genitalia. He is a preeminent biologist so I think it’s a reasonable question, hardly "contrived". I’m asking you because you have a background in the subject matter and I don't. I already have an opinion but dontchya think it's irrelevant?

 

[Floyd Eye]

I have no idea what it is. I do know that someone repeatedly saying, " Otherwise it wouldn't be on the birth certificate right" is merely a thinly disguised attempt to validate it boxing as a female in international competition, with no actual regard for truth or facts, simple as they may be.

The boxer could have cleared this up already. The fact that it hasn't is kinda telling don't you think ?

 

[Laputan Machine]

Ok, we are all in agreement that it's a dude with a vagina.

 

[JackBootedThug]

Stick pussy?

 

[Bad Brain]

Ok, we are all in agreement that it's a dude with a vagina.

Not exactly. Our resident scientists argue Imane is a mutant. Not an x-man mutant mind you (No special powers), but nonetheless still shouldn't be allowed to compete in women's or men's sports.

 

[Bad Brain]

2) I did a quick search on genetic criteria for male and females, and found this interesting book excerpt from the NIH: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9967/

Clearly Gilbert and Sunderland did not read "neuroscience 2nd edition"

 

[Dan Gleesak]

I have no idea what it is. I do know that someone repeatedly saying, " Otherwise it wouldn't be on the birth certificate right" is merely a thinly disguised attempt to validate it boxing as a female in international competition, with no actual regard for truth or facts, simple as they may be.

The boxer could have cleared this up already. The fact that it hasn't is kinda telling don't you think ?

The Olympic rules are very clear. If it says female on their birth certificate and passport, then they compete as a woman. That is what they use to distinguish between male and female.
So yea dude, what it says on her birth certificate is the epitome of validation for her to compete in these Olympics as a female