I saw on Piers Morgan's Good Morning Britain that there are now 100 recognized genders.
Is this 101 or is it already in the hundred?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/celebrity/mark-ronson-identifies-as-sapiosexual/ar-AAHwZnA?ocid=spartanntp
Quote from: Simon W;1104843100 recognized genders.
Did you see any claim that sapiosexual is a gender?
It appears to be identified as a sexual preference. There are differences between gender and sexual preference. You can be female and be attracted to women; you would be a female lesbian. Lesbian is not, by itself, a gender.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1105080Did you see any claim that sapiosexual is a gender?
It appears to be identified as a sexual preference. There are differences between gender and sexual preference. You can be female and be attracted to women; you would be a female lesbian. Lesbian is not, by itself, a gender.
There are only 2 genders, stop denying science.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1105099There are only 2 genders, stop denying science.
Where did you see that I made a claim that there were more than two genders?
What science are you speaking to that denies the existence of additional genders? In science it is possible for a species to lack gender, are you trying to say that all of those creatures are either male or female?
How are you defining gender in such a way that cultures that recognize a third (or more) genders don't exist?
When I talk about gender, I usually mean the social-constructs about accepted roles in society. Female is a sex; female people are typically expected to act in feminine ways; if someone does not, they are outside of gender norms. If someone was born as a female, but acts in stereotypically male ways, she may be 'gender non-conforming'. She may even claim male as her gender (because it matches her role in society) while it may not match her physical sex.
So since you say 2 genders is consistent with 'science', bring it on. Where are your links?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1105139Where did you see that I made a claim that there were more than two genders?
What science are you speaking to that denies the existence of additional genders? In science it is possible for a species to lack gender, are you trying to say that all of those creatures are either male or female?
How are you defining gender in such a way that cultures that recognize a third (or more) genders don't exist?
When I talk about gender, I usually mean the social-constructs about accepted roles in society. Female is a sex; female people are typically expected to act in feminine ways; if someone does not, they are outside of gender norms. If someone was born as a female, but acts in stereotypically male ways, she may be 'gender non-conforming'. She may even claim male as her gender (because it matches her role in society) while it may not match her physical sex.
So since you say 2 genders is consistent with 'science', bring it on. Where are your links?
Might be time to take a break from posting.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1105139Where did you see that I made a claim that there were more than two genders?
What science are you speaking to that denies the existence of additional genders? In science it is possible for a species to lack gender, are you trying to say that all of those creatures are either male or female?
How are you defining gender in such a way that cultures that recognize a third (or more) genders don't exist?
When I talk about gender, I usually mean the social-constructs about accepted roles in society. Female is a sex; female people are typically expected to act in feminine ways; if someone does not, they are outside of gender norms. If someone was born as a female, but acts in stereotypically male ways, she may be 'gender non-conforming'. She may even claim male as her gender (because it matches her role in society) while it may not match her physical sex.
So since you say 2 genders is consistent with 'science', bring it on. Where are your links?
Oh! were you talking about species other than human? LOL
"Cultures that recognize X" isn't part of the scientific definition of gender.
You are talking about postmodernist BS, I know. Acting in a way different than the bulk of males doesn't make you part of a third gender.
Female (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female)
Woman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman)
Male (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male)
Man (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man)
Quote from: Brad;1105146Might be time to take a break from posting.
Or getting high on his own farts.
deadDMwalking is correct that the OP link has nothing to do with gender. "Sapiosexual" isn't pitched as a description of a gender, but rather of sexual attraction. It's grouped with "homosexual" and "bisexual". (It also seems like wordplay rather than a real categorization.)
If the point is to talk about different genders instead -- that's social science and/or semantics, not biology. While there are exceptions, the majority of transgender people and transgender advocates are perfectly well aware of biological sexual differences -- often more aware than the general population. They know perfectly both hormonal and physiological features that typically differ.
Wearing a dress vs pants, and/or wearing makeup and/or using "she/her" vs "he/him" pronouns are not determined by biology. They are social practices. Those are the things that are being argued here, not biological sex differences. If you want to make an argument against particular social practices, then do it in those terms.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1105150Oh! were you talking about species other than human? LOL
"Cultures that recognize X" isn't part of the scientific definition of gender.
You are talking about postmodernist BS, I know. Acting in a way different than the bulk of males doesn't make you part of a third gender.
Female (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female)
Woman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman)
Male (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male)
Man (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man)
You've mentioned that English is not your first language. Let me give you the benefit of the doubt and not assume that you're being obtuse.
QuoteIn general terms, "sex" refers to the biological differences between males and females, such as the genitalia and genetic differences. "Gender" is more difficult to define, but it can refer to the role of a male or female in society, known as a gender role, or an individual's concept of themselves, or gender identity.
Source (https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232363.php)
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1105193You've mentioned that English is not your first language. Let me give you the benefit of the doubt and not assume that you're being obtuse.
Source (https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232363.php)
From your source "Sometimes, a person's genetically assigned sex does not line up with their gender identity. These individuals might refer to themselves as transgender, non-binary, or gender-nonconforming."
Anybody that claims that "a person's genetically assigned sex" is a thing is an idiot. Assignment means intent and an action too, the doctor doesn't assign you shit, it looks at your genitals and recognizes that you're one of the only two sexes/genders.
Transgender isn't a gender it's a person who transitioned from one to the other.
Non-Binary is either BS or your whole "there are more than 2 genders" is BS (And the same goes for transgender).
Gender-nonconforming is just another way to say butch, tomboy, effeminate, etc. So not a gender.
As for the rest is just more postmodernist BS. Again from your source "Historically, the terms "sex" and "gender" have been used interchangeably, but their uses are becoming increasingly distinct, and it is important to understand the differences between the two." Yes, their uses are becoming increasingly distinct, mainly because of ideologues who deny science and have gotten way too much time without being called out because they are the new Spanish Inquisition.
Also that people use one term to mean X doesn't mean the scientific definition for X changes. Which is why to define woman you say it's the human female, which is how it has always been.
Now go try and find some more semantic games to try and sell me your neo-lyzenkoist BS.
You're insisting that gender means sex, and it doesn't.
The full Season 8 of Call the Midwife was just released to Netflix. One of the episodes (probably 4) deals with a young woman who is about to get married, but is concerned because she has never had her period. Lo and behold, she was identified as female at birth because she presented with female genitalia. The reason that she hadn't had her period is that she had internal testes.
So she was 'female' per her birth certificate, had been raised and identified as a girl, but was, genetically, male.
Now, that's not a common situation - apparently about 1:1500 births the genitalia is vague enough that an expert is required - but that's not nothing, either. If everyone in the United States in that position were a country, it'd have a population greater than Samoa.
There is a lot of science that says (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/health/transgender-trump-biology.html) that gender is not the same as sex. All squares are rectangles; not all rectangles are squares.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1105216You're insisting that gender means sex, and it doesn't.
The full Season 8 of Call the Midwife was just released to Netflix. One of the episodes (probably 4) deals with a young woman who is about to get married, but is concerned because she has never had her period. Lo and behold, she was identified as female at birth because she presented with female genitalia. The reason that she hadn't had her period is that she had internal testes.
So she was 'female' per her birth certificate, had been raised and identified as a girl, but was, genetically, male.
Now, that's not a common situation - apparently about 1:1500 births the genitalia is vague enough that an expert is required - but that's not nothing, either. If everyone in the United States in that position were a country, it'd have a population greater than Samoa.
There is a lot of science that says (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/health/transgender-trump-biology.html) that gender is not the same as sex. All squares are rectangles; not all rectangles are squares.
Yeah, because the less than 0.001% of people who are born with some kind of sexual problem is what defines all of the species. You're a disingenuous twat. There was only one case that I know of where the gender/sex was assigned, one twin had his penis destroyed because of a botched circumcision, the doctor told the parents to raise hiom as a girl and performed the operations to give him a vagina and remove the testes. Lo and behold he committed suicide.
She was a woman/female because we don't do chromosome checks on babies (supposing this really happened), and the individual had a very, very rare condition, so lets throw away all science.
What is your science? Demons promoting giving children life changing and threatening hormonal treatments? You cite a NYT article (who have zero credibility left) and the title is : "Anatomy Does Not Determine Gender, Experts Say"
Pro tip, any time you see a headline like that? It's trash 99.99% of the time.
You want to redefine Gender as something other than a different word for sex, then you need a scientific definition and it can't be done by fucking gender studies ideologues.
1 in 1500 is pretty close to nothing it's exactly 0.000666667 of births. but you go ahead thinking something so rare should redefine science. Dolt!
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1105226Yeah, because the less than 0.001% of people who are born with some kind of sexual problem is what defines all of the species.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1105226You want to redefine Gender as something other than a different word for sex, then you need a scientific definition and it can't be done by fucking gender studies ideologues.
1 in 1500 is pretty close to nothing it's exactly 0.000666667 of births. but you go ahead thinking something so rare should redefine science. Dolt!
You're mixing your terms there. First you said 0.001%, but 1 in 1500 is 0.0667%. People who are intersex are less common than people who are transgender -- but both of them are rare. Recent estimates are that transgender people in the U.S. are 1 in 260, or 0.38% (ref) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6532673/).
No one disagrees that sex and gender are highly bimodal. The vast majority of people are neither transgender nor intersex. The issue is how we handle the exceptions. You say that intersex people have a "sexual problem", but that's putting your dogma ahead of the science in a circular fashion. They are rare, but whether it's a problem or not is an open issue. Among intersex people, there are many who are opposed to the common practice of doing genital surgery on babies, who are unable to consent.
As for scientific definitions of sex and gender, below is from the Journal of Applied Physiology,
QuoteIn summary, it is appropriate to use the term sex when referring to the biology of human and animal subjects, and the term gender is reserved for reference to the self-identity and/or social representation of an individual. Although certainly there will be those who do not feel that this specificity of terms is necessary in physiology, on the whole this approach will reduce wordiness in publications and allow for simpler integration of discussion on human biology. Outside of physiology, many social scientists draw on biological and psychological data to better understand the human condition and explain human behavior in a more comprehensive way. Because of this, it seems valid to argue that a consensus for using sex and gender in a standard context, as outlined by the IOM, needs to be implemented in physiology to provide consistency and alleviate confusion within as well as outside this discipline.
Source: https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysiol.00376.2005
Quote from: jhkim;1105234You're mixing your terms there. First you said 0.001%, but 1 in 1500 is 0.0667%. People who are intersex are less common than people who are transgender -- but both of them are rare. Recent estimates are that transgender people in the U.S. are 1 in 260, or 0.38% (ref) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6532673/).
No one disagrees that sex and gender are highly bimodal. The vast majority of people are neither transgender nor intersex. The issue is how we handle the exceptions. You say that intersex people have a "sexual problem", but that's putting your dogma ahead of the science in a circular fashion. They are rare, but whether it's a problem or not is an open issue. Among intersex people, there are many who are opposed to the common practice of doing genital surgery on babies, who are unable to consent.
As for scientific definitions of sex and gender, below is from the Journal of Applied Physiology,
Source: https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysiol.00376.2005
A paper, from 14 years ago, ARGUING to stop using gender and sex interchangeably with 35 citations in 14 years. Pretty influential I bet.
Edited to answer the rest of your comment:
Yeah I had the math wrong, sue me.
You don't like the word problem? Should I use the medical term? Syndrome, there are several, for instance Turner's Syndrome, women born with only one X chromosome, you wanna go tell them that some weird cult has defined them as not women?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1105139Where did you see that I made a claim that there were more than two genders?
What science are you speaking to that denies the existence of additional genders? In science it is possible for a species to lack gender, are you trying to say that all of those creatures are either male or female?
How are you defining gender in such a way that cultures that recognize a third (or more) genders don't exist?
When I talk about gender, I usually mean the social-constructs about accepted roles in society. Female is a sex; female people are typically expected to act in feminine ways; if someone does not, they are outside of gender norms. If someone was born as a female, but acts in stereotypically male ways, she may be 'gender non-conforming'. She may even claim male as her gender (because it matches her role in society) while it may not match her physical sex.
So since you say 2 genders is consistent with 'science', bring it on. Where are your links?
Obviously, you can not say any of the things you say with a straight face.
(pun intended)
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1105216You're insisting that gender means sex, and it doesn't.
The full Season 8 of Call the Midwife was just released to Netflix. One of the episodes (probably 4) deals with a young woman who is about to get married, but is concerned because she has never had her period. Lo and behold, she was identified as female at birth because she presented with female genitalia. The reason that she hadn't had her period is that she had internal testes.
So she was 'female' per her birth certificate, had been raised and identified as a girl, but was, genetically, male.
Now, that's not a common situation - apparently about 1:1500 births the genitalia is vague enough that an expert is required - but that's not nothing, either. If everyone in the United States in that position were a country, it'd have a population greater than Samoa.
There is a lot of science that says (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/health/transgender-trump-biology.html) that gender is not the same as sex. All squares are rectangles; not all rectangles are squares.
The abnormal cannot be used to redefine normal. Genetic defects are a very tragic thing, but they are no reason to throw reason out the window.
Quote from: jhkim;1105234The vast majority of people are (removed fictional term) not intersex. The issue is how we handle the exceptions. You say that intersex people have a "sexual problem", but that's putting your dogma ahead of the science in a circular fashion. They are rare, but whether it's a problem or not is an open issue. Among intersex people, there are many who are opposed to the common practice of doing genital surgery on babies, who are unable to consent.
Intersex is a tragic genetic defect and we should be doing research to try to find out how to prevent it the same as other birth defects. We should not be doing genital surgery on babies. Mutilation doesn't help anyone.
Quote from: Crimhthan;1105254The abnormal cannot be used to redefine normal. Genetic defects are a very tragic thing, but they are no reason to throw reason out the window.
Exactly. Humans have two genders and an extremely small fraction of humans suffer genetic defects.
The "transgender" fad is a transvestite fetish on overdrive. There is no surgery that can change your gender (or sex, or whatever you want to call it) and society acting otherwise is just laughable idiocy that will lead to more, not less, suicide among transvestites. Making believe men can become women (or vice versa) is a terrible lie to tell vulnerable people.
Society depends on everyone being tolerant of each other, but accepting and promoting mental illness is insanity.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1105080Did you see any claim that sapiosexual is a gender?
Did you see me claim that it was?
https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Biological+sex
Sex... also called gender
The closest thing medically to anything beyond two genders is gender identity
https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/gender+identity
Quote from: jhkim;1105234You're mixing your terms there. First you said 0.001%, but 1 in 1500 is 0.0667%. People who are intersex are less common than people who are transgender -- but both of them are rare. Recent estimates are that transgender people in the U.S. are 1 in 260, or 0.38% (ref) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6532673/).
No one disagrees that sex and gender are highly bimodal. The vast majority of people are neither transgender nor intersex. The issue is how we handle the exceptions. You say that intersex people have a "sexual problem", but that's putting your dogma ahead of the science in a circular fashion. They are rare, but whether it's a problem or not is an open issue. Among intersex people, there are many who are opposed to the common practice of doing genital surgery on babies, who are unable to consent.
As for scientific definitions of sex and gender, below is from the Journal of Applied Physiology,
Source: https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysiol.00376.2005
I would note that the increase in transgenderism could be due to multiple factors... most likely the trendy nature of the associated victim status that that confers. Because, this psychological disorder is by definition self reported. There is, as far as I am aware, presently NO other way to identify transgenderism medically or biologically, only psychologically.
Quote from: shuddemell;1105292I would note that the increase in transgenderism could be due to multiple factors... most likely the trendy nature of the associated victim status that that confers. Because, this psychological disorder is by definition self reported. There is, as far as I am aware, presently NO other way to identify transgenderism medically or biologically, only psychologically.
Yes, very sick mentally ill people are being taken advantage of by predators and those predators attempting to force the rest of us to join them in exploiting those who desperately need help. These predators especially like to prey on innocent children and will seize on any aspect of childhood behavior to support a claim of transgenderism. The fact that a small child might want to play with toys geared for the opposite sex is not evidence of anything and should not be used to pigeonhole a child and ruin their life. If children are left to themselves to play without being micromanaged by adults we would all be a lot better off.
For instance, when I was a small child on the playground, all children played on the various playground equipment, the monkey bars/jungle gym, the slides, swings and several other items. We built snow forts and had snowball fights and both boys and girls played in those games. We didn't say that because a girl liked snowball fights it meant she was really supposed to be a boy, or that a boy that liked the swings was really supposed to be a girl. One thing all of these things had in common was competition, all of us always tried to out do each other.
Sapiosexual???
What bullshit. It's called bi-sexual.
Unless this clown is using "sapiosexual" to defend his sexual interest in smart children, then its just yet another push for legitimizing pedophilia.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1105409Sapiosexual???
What bullshit. It's called bi-sexual.
Unless this clown is using "sapiosexual" to defend his sexual interest in smart children, then its just yet another push for legitimizing pedophilia.
Sapiosexual actually refers to a sexual attraction to high intelligence.
Crimhthan, that is exactly my experience as well. We all played together without any real thought of sexuality until puberty hit at least...
Quote from: shuddemell;1105414Crimhthan, that is exactly my experience as well. We all played together without any real thought of sexuality until puberty hit at least...
Cooties were a big deal in 2nd grade. That's also when a lot of people played House.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1105139When I talk about gender, I usually mean the social-constructs about accepted roles in society.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1105226You want to redefine Gender as something other than a different word for sex, then you need a scientific definition and it can't be done by fucking gender studies ideologues.
Or alternatively, gender is, or was originally (and not so long ago), a linguistic construct that had nothing necessarily to do with either biological sex, OR socially-constructed sex roles.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1105193You've mentioned that English is not your first language. Let me give you the benefit of the doubt and not assume that you're being obtuse.
Source (https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232363.php)
This is the reason why I have more-or-less given up on "gender" and prefer to talk about biological sex. Gender was always a bit wishy-washy anyway, but all the talk about gender in the media has now led many students to completely mix them up. I also blame some (just a few I hope) "scholars" who believe that biological sex does not exist.
Quote from: shuddemell;1105413Sapiosexual actually refers to a sexual attraction to high intelligence.
So this clown is masturbating to Stephen Hawkings interviews on YouTube? Blowing his load on photos of Einstein and Madame Curie?
Or is this the newest bar pickup line?
Hey babe, I'm totally hot for your intelligence!Or maybe this "sapiosexual" bullshit morphs next week into how smart children should be "empowered" to make their own sexual choices? Finally the D&D nerds in junior high can get some! My goodness, how
smart are some little kids!
Color me unimpressed.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1105503So this clown is masturbating to Stephen Hawkings interviews on YouTube? Blowing his load on photos of Einstein and Madame Curie?
Or is this the newest bar pickup line? Hey babe, I'm totally hot for your intelligence!
Or maybe this "sapiosexual" bullshit morphs next week into how smart children should be "empowered" to make their own sexual choices? Finally the D&D nerds in junior high can get some! My goodness, how smart are some little kids!
Color me unimpressed.
Ew. I'm guessing (and hoping) it refers to none of the crude caricatures you just drew.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1105503So this clown is masturbating to Stephen Hawkings interviews on YouTube? Blowing his load on photos of Einstein and Madame Curie?
Or is this the newest bar pickup line? Hey babe, I'm totally hot for your intelligence!
Or maybe this "sapiosexual" bullshit morphs next week into how smart children should be "empowered" to make their own sexual choices? Finally the D&D nerds in junior high can get some! My goodness, how smart are some little kids!
Color me unimpressed.
It certainly as hell isn't a gender identity. The term as I have heard it used is just for people who prioritize intelligence as an attractant. I do, but I don't need a special term like "sapiosexual" to describe that. We used to say "she has a nice personality or she's a smart girl" and that was the end of it. Trying to turn that into a gender is madness. I think, primarily, it stems from people who are empty on the inside and need external "specialness" to emotionally get through the day. The level of "sensitivity" today in people is so remarkable as it was contrary to everything I was taught or have learned throughout life. Being weak, either physically, intellectually, or emotionally was never a positive trait in the world I grew up in and now that it has become mainstream. It is painfully obvious why early generations are basically disgusted by such fragility. This great country would have never been born if our young men and women had been this fragile, nor would we have survived the civil war, WWI or WWII had this been the mindset of our forefathers. This is exactly the same sort of indulgent decadence that destroyed the Roman Empire, and if we don't stop that tide it will destroy America. I weep for the future.
It reminds me of the old chestnut... "Hard men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times, hard times create hard men."
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1105099There are only 2 genders, stop denying science.
3 Stop denying medical science. I know two hermaphrotides.
Quote from: jhkim;1105234You're mixing your terms there. First you said 0.001%, but 1 in 1500 is 0.0667%. People who are intersex are less common than people who are transgender -- but both of them are rare. Recent estimates are that transgender people in the U.S. are 1 in 260, or 0.38% (ref) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6532673/).
No one disagrees that sex and gender are highly bimodal. The vast majority of people are neither transgender nor intersex. The issue is how we handle the exceptions. You say that intersex people have a "sexual problem", but that's putting your dogma ahead of the science in a circular fashion. They are rare, but whether it's a problem or not is an open issue. Among intersex people, there are many who are opposed to the common practice of doing genital surgery on babies, who are unable to consent.
As for scientific definitions of sex and gender, below is from the Journal of Applied Physiology,
Source: https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysiol.00376.2005
For not even being a full half percent, they certainly are a noisy bunch.
Quote from: Omega;11062183 Stop denying medical science. I know two hermaphrotides.
Hate to mention it... NO, hermaphroditism isn't a gender, it is a genetic defect.
Quote from: shuddemell;1106351Hate to mention it... NO, hermaphroditism isn't a gender, it is a genetic defect.
Insensitive prick! :p
Quote from: Omega;11062183 Stop denying medical science. I know two hermaphrotides.
Lets see, where to start? How about some definitions?
Hermaphrodite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite) Organism that produces both male and female gametes. You sure you know two human hermaphrodites?
Because True Hermaphrodites (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_hermaphroditism) are 0.0012% or 1 in every 83,000 births (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_hermaphroditism#Prevalence)
And a birth defect, or genetic anomaly isn't a new gender, unless you're saying that women born 0X aren't women.
So, given the rarity of this anomaly either you're lying or are the luckiest guy and should go buy super lotto.