Redefining Language

  • Thread starter Thread starter NowYou'rePlayingWithPower
  • Start date Start date
Guy at work we call Tick. Cuz he’s tighter than a tick pussy.
 
MadAsAHatter said:
I'm not 100% sure what you're saying here. I don't think there a big rabbit hole to go down as the article tries to suggest. There so much more to the genetic code that has noting to do with sex. Sex is just a tiny part of the whole.
Click to expand...
What I’m trying to say is that since the genes associated with biological sex play a significant part in effectuating biological sex, perhaps they should be included in the criteria for assessing biological sex, no? Have all these genes and their relationships to biological sex been definitively mapped? It sounds like we're just scratching the surface. And given that men's and women's sports are a basic but generally effective means of creating a fair competitive environment, wouldn't the same logic suggest we might further classify competitions according to various genetic traits? People are able to run faster, hold their breath longer, and are stronger because of genetic predispositions which have been cultivated and promoted by training. No amount of training will create an olympic athlete out of most people. This last point was conceived in response to the idea that each "mutant" (intersexed person) should have their own category in which to fairly compete. Which I found ridiculous by the way, as is perhaps the idea of categorizing competitions according to genetic traits. But, in boxing for example, we do have weight classes. :unsure:
 
Ok, you're talking about sex linked traits.
No, that would not work out for assigning biological sex.
The only gene responsible for a fetus developing into a male is SRY and located on only the Y chromosome.
Other sex linked traits do not determine sex including ones that are either X or Y specific. Such as the gene that causes webbed toes (Y-linked) or the gene for blood clotting (X linked). Even Y-linked traits related to reproduction; like the gene responsible for the sperm production do not determine sex. Absence or malfunction would be a mutation of that specific trait, not a mutation of the person's sex.

I don't think that logic fully holds up for classifying competitions based on traits. First that seems too close to equity of outcome so everyone come in first place out of fairness no matter their skill level or how they achieved it. Second is there are already classifications based on performance that will naturally separate people into levels. You have beginner, amateur, minor, pro, olympic, etc. leagues. You move up to the highest league/level you can achieve regardless if hard work or natural skill brought you there.
 
12.5k replies,31k hearts, nobody gives a crap.Rats pissing on cotton make more noise.
 
acceptance said:
You’re not a fan of Neil Degrasse Tyson?!
Click to expand...
I was just noting that basically the number of people listening to him on that post do not make up a significant number to matter especially considering he's supposed to be some super knowledgeable science guy. Cult member and outraged attention only.
 
VonBonfire said:
I was just noting that basically the number of people listening to him on that post do not make up a significant number to matter especially considering he's supposed to be some super knowledgeable science guy. Cult member and outraged attention only.
Click to expand...
He strikes me as a doof. I remember hearing him on NPR decades ago. I had no clue what he was talking about (Black holes and something crazy). I admit it sounded impressive to a layman.
 
acceptance said:
He strikes me as a doof. I remember hearing him on NPR decades ago. I had no clue what he was talking about (Black holes and something crazy). I admit it sounded impressive to a layman.
Click to expand...
The put him on NPR for the same reason they promoted Obama to president. He's a clean, articulate black man.
 
1724028873339.gif


Mind numbing lunacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top