spongixonJoin Date: 2010-05-13
Post Count: 14753 |
Facts are biased ? D: |
|
|
You characterize my statement of fact as a "world view." There is a biological term for these anomalies, and such people are called ############### Scientifically, there are only three genders, one of which is created by an abnormality in the genes. ~Virgil~ |
|
|
|
Censored word : h3rm4phr0d1te
~Virgil~ |
|
|
Which subset of genes, if I may ask? There are male/female chromosomes, but I'm not sure these are the ones you're talking about. Especially since XY (male), XX (female), XXY (Klinefelter), XYY (XYY Syndrome), X (Turner Syndrome), and XXX (Trisomy X) have been observed in the human population.
Unless you're talking about phenotypes, which has to do with gene expression and indicates whether someone is morphologically female or male. Which then leads to problems explaining the machihembras, who are morphologically female (but genetically male) up until puberty, at which point they become morphologically male.
So...what set of genes are you talking about here? |
|
KelpoHitsJoin Date: 2016-07-13
Post Count: 6087 |
how'd u do it |
|
FrosteusJoin Date: 2013-12-21
Post Count: 13470 |
@spong
facts have no bias
ppl choosing to nitpick facts is what makes bias 'bias'
CNN is biased, they throw opinions and one sided facts, and even make up facts and report it all together as true facts
|
|
FrosteusJoin Date: 2013-12-21
Post Count: 13470 |
@laghits
explain to them 'gender identity' is mental disorder and go from there |
|
Ran502Join Date: 2012-01-29
Post Count: 1720 |
nice work
let the triggering continue
|
|
|
I identify as a dank meme so try to prove me wrong |
|
|
If an individual does not possess the genetic male configuration or genetic female configuration, but instead possesses a combination of the two, they are considered to be a h3rm4phr0d1te. H3m4phr0d1tism is a biological disorder, which would encompass all of the 'other configurations' you have mentioned.
The crux of the matter is that gender is defined by biology and not be interpretation. One is one's genes.
~Virgil~ |
|
|
Not quite, virgilStar. True human h3m4phr0d1tism occurs as due to a 46XX/46XY, 46XX/47XXY or 45X/XY mosaic or crossing over of the SRY gene from Y to X during meiosis of the gametes. Machihembras are considered pseudohemaphrodites.
As you can see, none of the other chromosomal abnormalities are not neatly labeled male, female, or the third option. |
|
|
Facts are bias, agreed.
x |
|
|
H3rm4phrod1te - a person or animal having both male and female S organs or other S'ual characteristics, either abnormally or (in the case of some organisms) as the natural condition.
It is not limited to only one set of abnormal characteristics as you say, but *any* abnormal genetic configurations whereby an individual possess characterisitcs of both genders. In the case of human genes, the cases you listed are abnormalities and hence they fit under this classification of gender.
This is not a complicated idea. Stop being a sophist.
~Virgil~ |
|
|
What source you using for your definition of the word? The biological definition is *restricted* only to those containing both male and female organs. It does not account for other abnormalities, such as those observed in Klinefelter or Turner Syndrome.
Do you know what genotypes are? How about phenotypes? If gender is a *genotype*, then you're forced to admit that more than two possible combinations of X and Y chromosomes correspond to more than two genders.
If you're referring to phenotypes, which have to do with *gene expression*, then I'll agree that there are only three observed phenotypes at any one moment. However, we will have to ask where machihembras fall in this discussion.
Speak clearly or don't speak at all, Virgilstar.
|
|
|
false is pooping on everyone
x |
|
|
My source is the Oxford dictionary, and the definition explicitly includes "other S'ual characteristics" and is not limited to organs. I have also stated in each of my posts gender is based on genes, and thus it is quite obvious that I have been referring to genotypes. The genetic configurations that do not fall within the natural male or female configurations are abnormalities, and hence all of the other X and Y chromosomal configurations you have mentioned fit under h3rm4aphr0d1te.
I have very clearly stated the facts. Do not mistake your own fallibility for mine.
~Virgil~ |
|
|
I don't know how to tell you this, but the Oxford English Dictionary definition does *not* include "other unusual or abnormal characteristics", but rather "usual characteristics" of the other gender. It says nothing for characteristics inherent in neither "gender".
As for your statement, you cannot have possibly been referring to genotypes since the genotype is the "genetic composition of an individual organism (Oxford)". If you were, then you'd admit that XX, XY, XXX, X, XYY, XXY, mosaics, etc are all different genotypes (by having different genetic material) and are thus different genders.
|
|
FrosteusJoin Date: 2013-12-21
Post Count: 13470 |
false, that is what we're saying
i was generalizing the argument
ur just being a smart alec .-. |
|
|
Not quite. If you're saying gender is the product of one's *genotype*, then you're forced to admit there are more than two genders.
If you're saying gender is the product of one's *phenotype*, then I agree that there are only three possible morphologies observed at any given time (male, female, and mixed).
This is where you guys have lost me. |
|
LoveydovyJoin Date: 2009-05-30
Post Count: 12397 |
WE AGREE WITH U FALSE OK DAMN
making my brain hurt with all your fancy talk bro... |
|
FrosteusJoin Date: 2013-12-21
Post Count: 13470 |
I just said that there are more than 2 genders and that I've generalized my argument,
this is where you admit that you skimmed over my replies
My point, is that people born as a male can't decide that they have 2 x chromosomes
i hope u read this cuz u've ignored me each time i acknowledged that genetics determine gender |
|
|
two dictionaries going at it
love you false |
|
|
The Oxford dictionary states exactly what I said it did. Here is the reversed link:
etidorhpamreh/noitinifed/moc.seiranoitciddrofxo.ne//:sptth
I most definitely was referring to genotype because I was explicitly referring to genes in every one of my posts and *not* the physical characteristics, which would be phenotype. And as I have said, all of the other configurations *are abnormalities* and since the Oxford dictionary accounts for "other S'ual characteristics" that exist "abnormally or (in the case of some organisms) as the natural condition" all of the other genetic compositions you mentioned fit under this definition.
Hence, there are only three genders, the third being an abnormality and a disorder. Your reluctance to accept science startles me, Falsewarrior.
~Virgil~
|
|
|
Oh, I see Frosteus. Okay then.
I do agree that people who are male and decide they might need to be morphologically female have a degree of body dysmorphia. I also have to point out that there are cases where an individual's "gender" doesn't match their "phenotype" (ie, they behave in a fashion more becoming of the opposite gender). |
|