The sexes are only this:

Quintessence · May 16, 2019

Jonathan Bailey said:
In humanity, male means sperm-producing and female means egg-producing in strict terms of biology.

Let me throw a wrench in there for you - one of the same wrenches thrown at me during the workshop I attended.

If sex is defined solely in terms of gamete production, is a man who is castrated no longer male? Is a woman who is post-menopause or had a hysterectomy no longer female?

It's really not so black-and-white.

Jonathan Bailey · May 16, 2019

Quintessence said:
Let me throw a wrench in there for you - one of the same wrenches thrown at me during the workshop I attended.

If sex is defined solely in terms of gamete production, is a man who is castrated no longer male? Is a woman who is post-menopause or had a hysterectomy no longer female?

It's really not so black-and-white.

Perhaps, gamete production (along with having the specific gonad type to produce the specific gamete) is the sole sex-definer in nature then since medical procedures don't occur in nature.

A "woman" having had a hysterectomy, or a castrated "man", is just some living entity modified by an act of man. The person having had the hysterectomy may still exhibit cultural feminine traits (high voice, wearing a dress) and the person who is castrated may still continue to exhibit cultural masculine traits (wearing pants, deep voice).

The castrated person may still use the term MALE on "its" driver license and the person with the hysterectomy may still use the term FEMALE on "its" social security application form.

We might add that a MALE is a sperm-producer and has organs (sometimes defunct) for producing sperm called testicles or spermaries (in some species).

A FEMALE is an egg-producer and has organs (sometimes defunct) for producing eggs called ovaries.

A post-menopause woman still generally has ovaries, though defunct.

A prepubescent boy is still male though his testicles don't yet make sperm.
A prepubescent girl is still female though her ovaries don't yet make eggs.

Kangaroo Feathers · May 16, 2019

Jonathan Bailey said:
The direction I'm taking is to The Truth: male is a sperm-producer in nature and female is an egg-producer in nature, there's nothing more to say regarding what the binary animal sexes really are. People have really made sex a complicated issue using the human model "to try to define sex". Male and female don't always work in nature as man perceives his own species to be.

Why does it bother you so much what other people identify as?

Kangaroo Feathers · May 16, 2019

Jonathan Bailey said:
Perhaps, gamete production (along with having the specific gonad type to produce the specific gamete) is the sole sex-definer in nature then since medical procedures don't occur in nature.

A "woman" having had a hysterectomy, or a castrated "man", is just some living entity modified by an act of man. The person having had the hysterectomy may still exhibit cultural feminine traits (high voice, wearing a dress) and the person who is castrated may still continue to exhibit cultural masculine traits (wearing pants, deep voice).

The castrated person may still use the term MALE on "its" driver license and the person with the hysterectomy may still use the term FEMALE on "its" social security application form.

We might add that a MALE is a sperm-producer and has organs (sometimes defunct) for producing sperm called testicles or spermaries (in some species).

A FEMALE is an egg-producer and has organs (sometimes defunct) for producing eggs called ovaries.

A post-menopause woman still generally has ovaries, though defunct.

A prepubescent boy is still male though his testicles don't yet make sperm.
A prepubescent girl is still female though her ovaries don't yet make eggs.

Congratulations, you just disproved your own thesis.

Mindmaster · May 16, 2019

Jonathan Bailey said:
The direction I'm taking is to The Truth: male is a sperm-producer in nature and female is an egg-producer in nature, there's nothing more to say regarding what the binary animal sexes really are. People have really made sex a complicated issue using the human model "to try to define sex". Male and female don't always work in nature as man perceives his own species to be.

I consider perception and belief invalid tests, insofar as we're talking about reality. Perception only matters to the point where the result is not debatable. The "truth" is semi-malleable, that's the reason for all the gender identifications anyway. It's not so much the truth that matters, but the truth people are willing to accept.

Mindmaster · May 16, 2019

Liu said:
I think the OPs point was that gender identification and sex are two entirely different categories.

But I might be mistaken.

I would like to be able to claim that all those Facebookers are only referring to their gender identification and not conflating that with sex, but well...
(And even gender identification consists of several independent subcategories which many people are conflating.)

Admittedly, I think "gender identifications" are nonsense, but far be it from me to criticize people living that lifestyle -- ultimately, if what you're doing doesn't harm anyone I could give less than a single ****.

I think if someone is "transgender" so long as they're clear with that with any potential romantic involvements no harm is really done. A lot of the "ire" I think transgender people receive is in regard to the old fear of the "bait and switch", but I don't believe most transgender people are involved in that.

But, it's nearly impossible not to "conflate" gender identifications because they're mostly psychological in manifestation -- that very nature makes it very nebulous in the first place. It's hard to understand anything that isn't on a solid footing, hence my opinion of it in the first place. My opinion doesn't come from a place of hate, but that the identifications are based on something that has no proof -- therefore my analytical fail to take the faith argument. Though, I can see both sides...

shmogie · May 16, 2019

Left Coast said:
If you're referring to a trans woman, "every cell in his body" doesn't reflect she is a man. Her brain cells certainly don't:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/09540261.2015.1113163?scroll=top&needAccess=true

You think not ? What does the DNA of those cells say ?

shmogie · May 16, 2019

Jonathan Bailey said:
Mother Nature is the ultimate reality. Child-bearing is not exclusive to the female sex. A deep voice is not exclusive to the male sex.
Mother Nature did not "slice and dice" a male seahorse as "a woman".

I don't know about most or all, but many homosexual men don't pretend to be women. A pair of homosexual men are still two biological males meaning they are each strictly a sperm-producer. A pair of lesbians are two biological females meaning they are still each strictly an egg-producer. Sex in nature is not strictly about continuing the species: it is also about pleasure.

Child bearing is not exclusive to the female sex ? Really ?? Tell me about men who have borne children, please.

Sex in nature isn´t about continuing the species ? Darwin just flipped in his grave.

Quintessence · May 16, 2019

Jonathan Bailey said:
Perhaps, gamete production (along with having the specific gonad type to produce the specific gamete) is the sole sex-definer in nature then since medical procedures don't occur in nature.

A "woman" having had a hysterectomy, or a castrated "man", is just some living entity modified by an act of man. The person having had the hysterectomy may still exhibit cultural feminine traits (high voice, wearing a dress) and the person who is castrated may still continue to exhibit cultural masculine traits (wearing pants, deep voice).

The castrated person may still use the term MALE on "its" driver license and the person with the hysterectomy may still use the term FEMALE on "its" social security application form.

We might add that a MALE is a sperm-producer and has organs (sometimes defunct) for producing sperm called testicles or spermaries (in some species).

A FEMALE is an egg-producer and has organs (sometimes defunct) for producing eggs called ovaries.

A post-menopause woman still generally has ovaries, though defunct.

A prepubescent boy is still male though his testicles don't yet make sperm.
A prepubescent girl is still female though her ovaries don't yet make eggs.

We reach these conclusions because of a cultural norm, though, not because of the science. That's my point - or rather the point that was taught to me at this workshop. There is really no mandate other than cultural norms to consider a prebubescent human as male or female. Some children grow up identifying as neither, and only start viewing themselves in the dichotomy because that is how they are taught to think by their culture. Hi, by the way.

Jonathan Bailey · May 16, 2019

Kangaroo Feathers said:
Why does it bother you so much what other people identify as?

It doesn't bother me as to what people identify as. It bothers me when homosexual men and boys are stereotyped as sissies and called "girls" out of pure ignorance. My love for men doesn't make me a "female" (an egg producer). Getting a penis up my posterior doesn't impregnate me. I have no desire to get pregnant. Such idiots most likely got an F in sex ed.

Jonathan Bailey · May 16, 2019

Quintessence said:
We reach these conclusions because of a cultural norm, though, not because of the science. That's my point - or rather the point that was taught to me at this workshop. There is really no mandate other than cultural norms to consider a prebubescent human as male or female. Some children grow up identifying as neither, and only start viewing themselves in the dichotomy because that is how they are taught to think by their culture. Hi, by the way.

If a prepubescent human child has a penis, scrotum and testicles, the child is MALE and called a BOY. If the prepubescent human child has a vulva, the child is FEMALE and called a GIRL. What the child "thinks he or she is" in his or her own mind is a horse of another color. As a very small boy, I confess, I identified "sex" with mode of dress, deepness of voice, hairstyle and occupational roles. It took a few years for me to know that only men and boys had pensies. It took me a few more years to know that women and girls had something called a vagina. Peeking up the dresses (mumus) of my overweight mother and grandmother (who both went commando) under the table at age five I saw this round fatty thing covered with dark hair and didn't know what to make of it. I could observe no lip-like structure on the groins of these women. Only by first viewing Playboy at age 13 (when I thought storekeepers weren't looking in the magazine section) did I have a real glimpse of female genitalia up close when legs were spread eagle.They were slim and not obese like the adult women of my family. Since puberty I have been bi, aroused by both male and female off and on. I would look at girls but also think about boys while masturbating.

Left Coast · May 16, 2019

shmogie said:
You think not?

No, the people who do the actual neuroscience research on the topic think not.

What does the DNA of those cells say ?

Sigh. Tsk tsk. You didn't read the literature review I linked:

Some evidence exists for genetic factors in the development of gender identity and gender incongruence. The genetic background of gender incongruence is largely unidentified, but in twins, monozygotic (MZ) twin pairs show a higher concordance of gender incongruence than dizygotic (DZ) twin pairs (Heylens et al., 2012), suggesting genetic involvement in the development of gender incongruence. Several other studies looked into polymorphisms of sex steroid-related genes as possible candidates for a role in the development of gender incongruence (Bentz et al., 2008; Fernandez et al., 2014; Hare et al., 2009; Henningsson et al., 2005).

Jonathan Bailey · May 16, 2019

Mindmaster said:
I consider perception and belief invalid tests, insofar as we're talking about reality. Perception only matters to the point where the result is not debatable. The "truth" is semi-malleable, that's the reason for all the gender identifications anyway. It's not so much the truth that matters, but the truth people are willing to accept.

Maybe I should have said MALE is a sperm-producer upon SEXUAL MATURITY and FEMALE is an egg producer upon SEXUAL MATURITY.

But even at birth or hatching, males have gonads designed to produce sperm upon sexuality maturity and females have gonads designed to produce eggs upon sexual maturity. Both sexes don't produce their own respective gametes throughout their entire life cycles at least not in all binary animal species.

Liu · May 16, 2019

Mindmaster said:
I consider perception and belief invalid tests, insofar as we're talking about reality. Perception only matters to the point where the result is not debatable. The "truth" is semi-malleable, that's the reason for all the gender identifications anyway. It's not so much the truth that matters, but the truth people are willing to accept.

Regarding sex we are talking about physical reality.
Concerning gender, we are talking about social constructs (gender expression, i.e. the behaviors by which people mark their belonging to a gender group - if one's behavior in that regard differs from what society expects then one is queer) and subjective feelings caused possibly by different brain structure (i.e. whether one feels fine with one's sexual characteristics or not - if not one is transgender).

That seems to summarize it well enough for my purposes normally but pretty sure some people will disagree due to the partially subjective nature of these matters.

Kangaroo Feathers · May 17, 2019

Jonathan Bailey said:
It doesn't bother me as to what people identify as. It bothers me when homosexual men and boys are stereotyped as sissies and called "girls" out of pure ignorance. My love for men doesn't make me a "female" (an egg producer). Getting a penis up my posterior doesn't impregnate me. I have no desire to get pregnant. Such idiots most likely got an F in sex ed.

Ok. Well thats rather a new wrinkle on the argument.

Jonathan Bailey · May 17, 2019

Liu said:
Regarding sex we are talking about physical reality.
Concerning gender, we are talking about social constructs (gender expression, i.e. the behaviors by which people mark their belonging to a gender group - if one's behavior in that regard differs from what society expects then one is queer) and subjective feelings caused possibly by different brain structure (i.e. whether one feels fine with one's sexual characteristics or not - if not one is transgender).

That seems to summarize it well enough for my purposes normally but pretty sure some people will disagree due to the partially subjective nature of these matters.

The human race, society, should then just let nature take its course on sexual matters. Man for a long time has been going against the grain of nature. The pagans of ancient Europe were much more down-to-earth and natural. In cultures of antiquity, same-sex matings were quite the norm as opposite-sex matings. The newer monotheistic religions (a hemp-smoking guy named Abraham, a long-haired bearded hippie sandal-wearer Jesus Christ and a young camel jockey towel-wrapper named Mohammed comes along) de-normalized homosexual and bisexual relations. Homosexuals since ancient times have lost many rights and dignity. All those Abrahamic pastoral bible prophets were high on cannabis or opiates. Crazy hallucinations like hearing and seeing angels. "An a_s spoke to me" thus saith Balaam in Numbers.......the scribes were talking out their collective a_ses....what a trippy hash pipe dream!

shmogie · May 17, 2019

Left Coast said:
No, the people who do the actual neuroscience research on the topic think not.

Sigh. Tsk tsk. You didn't read the literature review I linked:

NO, I read it. Go back and look at the quality of the evidence, note the descriptive words used to describe it.

Irrelevant however.

The DNA of every cell reflects the birth sex of an individual, except in extremely rare cases.

So, if all a criminal investigator had of a murder victim were brain cells, She could absolutely determine the sex of the victim by the DNA in the cells.

It is always the same re research of sexual dysphoria. There is no homosexual gene.

Other attempts at determination are described as , could be, might, seems to, perhaps, etc.

People are free to live their lives however they chose. They could identify as a turnip, their right again.

As to trans gender folk, I think their very name, trans gender, says much. Gender is a social construct, it has nothing to do with scientific sex identification. They have not changed their sex. It cannot be done, regardless of surgeries, hormones, suppression drugs, etc.

Once again, their absolute right.

However, when I see a guy, in a mini skirt, who needs a shave, and has knotty, muscular legs, with huge feet, who walks like a man, I see a man.

I knew one fellow, who was married and had three kids, who did the transgender thing. He continued living with his wife. He didn't look like a woman, but he tried. When we visited, I would always ask him if he was a lesbian, and he would crack up. I gave him respect as all people deserve, and we had good conversations, yet I knew he wasn´t a woman. I never talked about that at all.

Left Coast · May 17, 2019

shmogie said:
NO, I read it. Go back and look at the quality of the evidence, note the descriptive words used to describe it.

Irrelevant however.

The DNA of every cell reflects the birth sex of an individual, except in extremely rare cases.

And the birth sex of an individual is not indicative of whether their brain is actually structured and functions in accordance with that sex. Thus it does not tell us whether the person is transgender, which is the whole point of the example.

So, if all a criminal investigator had of a murder victim were brain cells, She could absolutely determine the sex of the victim by the DNA in the cells.

Yes, we all know sex chromosomes, for the most part, indicate a biological sex. Every transgender person I've met understands this.

It is always the same re research of sexual dysphoria. There is no homosexual gene.

First of all, gender dysphoria and homosexuality are different things.
Second, no one is claiming either of those traits are caused by a single gene. The genetic causes of complex, nuanced psychological traits are, similarly, complex and nuanced. Add in the reality of epigenetics and the picture is even less black and white. Which is why the silly, reductive, "But what sex chromosomes do they have??" response misses the point so widely.

Other attempts at determination are described as , could be, might, seems to, perhaps, etc.

I know! It's almost like they're doing science, not declaring black and white dogma.

As to trans gender folk, I think their very name, trans gender, says much. Gender is a social construct, it has nothing to do with scientific sex identification. They have not changed their sex. It cannot be done, regardless of surgeries, hormones, suppression drugs, etc.

And no one thinks they're literally changing their biological sex. You're arguing against a strawman. They are changing their body and external appearance, to the extent possible/feasible, to match how their brain actually functions and is structured, within their cultural context that defines masculinity and femininity.

However, when I see a guy, in a mini skirt, who needs a shave, and has knotty, muscular legs, with huge feet, who walks like a man, I see a man.

And trans people who look like that are aware of that. They're not stupid. They are acutely aware of exactly how "passable" they are when they go out in public. There are limitations, especially based on how much money they have, to how much they can feasibly change their appearance.
So it's your choice, as a cis dude, how much of a d*** you're going to be to those people, by for example intentionally not using the name or pronouns they prefer, or voting in favor of laws that prevent them from using the public bathroom they want.

Jonathan Bailey · May 17, 2019

shmogie said:
NO, I read it. Go back and look at the quality of the evidence, note the descriptive words used to describe it.

Irrelevant however.

The DNA of every cell reflects the birth sex of an individual, except in extremely rare cases.

So, if all a criminal investigator had of a murder victim were brain cells, She could absolutely determine the sex of the victim by the DNA in the cells.

It is always the same re research of sexual dysphoria. There is no homosexual gene.

Other attempts at determination are described as , could be, might, seems to, perhaps, etc.

People are free to live their lives however they chose. They could identify as a turnip, their right again.

As to trans gender folk, I think their very name, trans gender, says much. Gender is a social construct, it has nothing to do with scientific sex identification. They have not changed their sex. It cannot be done, regardless of surgeries, hormones, suppression drugs, etc.

Once again, their absolute right.

However, when I see a guy, in a mini skirt, who needs a shave, and has knotty, muscular legs, with huge feet, who walks like a man, I see a man.

I knew one fellow, who was married and had three kids, who did the transgender thing. He continued living with his wife. He didn't look like a woman, but he tried. When we visited, I would always ask him if he was a lesbian, and he would crack up. I gave him respect as all people deserve, and we had good conversations, yet I knew he wasn´t a woman. I never talked about that at all.

There is no scientific known cause for homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality or asexuality. There is no absolute knowledge as how the human brain works with regard to sexual attraction. To me, it's more about how attractive or savory an individual PERSON is and less about whether the person is male or female. There are both beautiful men and women and ugly men and women. Arrogance, rudeness, crudeness, selfishness, obesity, old age, baldness, grayness, wrinkles, moles, tattoos, facial hair, piercing, baggy eyes, orange, purple, green or blue weird hair, grumpiness and bad manners is not pretty on either sex.

shmogie · May 17, 2019

Jonathan Bailey said:
There is no scientific known cause for homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality or asexuality. There is no absolute knowledge as how the human brain works with regard to sexual attraction. To me, it's more about how attractive or savory an individual PERSON is and less about whether the person is male or female. There are both beautiful men and women and ugly men and women. Arrogance, rudeness, crudeness, selfishness, obesity, old age, baldness, grayness, wrinkles, moles, tattoos, facial hair, piercing, baggy eyes, orange, purple, green or blue weird hair, grumpiness and bad manners is not pretty on either sex.

Actually there is a known cause for heterosexuality.

If you accept Darwin, evolution caused heterosexuality to propagate the species, it is the norm for the species, all else is aberrant from the standpoint of evolution. Yes, I am quite aware of some twisted evolutionist homosexual apologists who try go make their argument, it fails.

If you accept Judeo Christian theology, the cause is Gods creation of how he intended humans to be, for propagation of the species, and intimacy between a married man and woman.

In either case, I don care who you find attractive and what you do as a result, your life.

The sexes are only this:

Consults with Trees

Well-Known Member

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Consults with Trees

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

This Is Water

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

This Is Water

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member