Scientific American Claims It Is "Misinformation" That There Are Just Two Sexes
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 1, 2024 22:12
VIEWED: 1026
PAGE 3 of 3
If you're using fertility to define a sex, that automatically excludes the prepubescent , the elderly, and about 10% of reproductive -age individuals who are chromosomally normal but infertile for other reasons. Which excludes 50-70% of individuals.
I'm not saying there is "a" "new" sex. You're misinterpreting my meaning. I think it's appropriate to define males as chromosomally XY, females as chromosomally XX, AND whose internal and external gonads match each other and their karyotypes.
nd that works .... 99% of the time.
BUT there are instances where this doesn't work.
If we INSIST on jamming people into one category or the other, FWIW the presence of a Y chromosome confers (some) male characteristics, even if accompanied by extra X chromosomes or fragments. The absence of Y chromosome confers female characteristics even with supernumary X chromosomes or fragments. AFA people who are developmentally scrambled*, they are usually raised as whatever it is that they look like externally, no matter what their genes or internal gonads are, and most choose to continue to live that way.
*i.e. looks female at birth but really has undescended testicles and a very small penis.
But I would certainly make a MEDICAL decision for sex reassignment for those intersex individuals who feel misclassified at birth, bc there are PHYSICAL reasons for that.
Not for "psychological" reasons.
For people who feel constrained by biology into a sex role ... well, that's their problem, not ours.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Why SECOND'S posts are brainless: "I clocked how much time: no more than 10 minutes per day. With cut-and-paste (Ctrl C and Ctrl V) and AI, none of this takes much time."
Or, any verification or thought.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
BTW, I'd like to make a philosophical point:
When we say a word, we have some sort of idealized vision of what it means, and we envision that nature adheres to our definitions. In reality, things often occur on a spectrum and rather than being sharp-edged and brightly defined, the edges are blurred.
So, setting aside the contentious words "human" and "male" and "female"...
Try defining the word "cup".
You THINK you know what it means. Until you realize you don't.
If you play along with me and give me your definition, I'll show you that is so.
Define "cup":
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Why SECOND'S posts are brainless: "I clocked how much time: no more than 10 minutes per day. With cut-and-paste (Ctrl C and Ctrl V) and AI, none of this takes much time."
Or, any verification or thought.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Don't you know anything about biology and fertilization??
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:If they are incapable of reproducing, that seems a poor definition of a new sex. Most offspring require a capable male along with a capable female.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The most common scrambles are Turner Syndrome and Klinefelter's Syndrome. Of those, mst are infertile but some aren't.
Those that do reproduce, does the anomaly produce in the offspring?
It's like any other genetic disease.
Chromosomes occur in 23 pairs in human cells, except in eggs and sperm. Eggs and sperm each contain only one set of chromosomes, and it's a 50/50 shot which chromosomes an egg or sperm inherits. It could contain a defective chromosome, or they could be all good.
It isn't until an egg fuses with a sperm to produce a full set of 23 pairs that development begins.
But again, one of those chromosomes could be defective. If defective, child inherits the defect.
So it's possible that child inherits this particular defect, but not a certainty. Roll of the dice, I suppose.
Given that people with scrambled sex chromosomes are USUALLY infertile, the likelihood of inheritance is low, but still there.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Why SECOND'S posts are brainless: "I clocked how much time: no more than 10 minutes per day. With cut-and-paste (Ctrl C and Ctrl V) and AI, none of this takes much time."
Or, any verification or thought.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
If you're using fertility to define a sex, that automatically excludes the prepubescent , the elderly, and about 10% of reproductive -age individuals who are chromosomally normal but infertile for other reasons. Which excludes 50-70% of individuals.
I'm not saying there is "a" "new" sex. You're misinterpreting my meaning. I think it's appropriate to define males as chromosomally XY, females as chromosomally XX, AND whose internal and external gonads match each other and their karyotypes.
nd that works .... 99% of the time.
BUT there are instances where this doesn't work.
If we INSIST on jamming people into one category or the other, FWIW the presence of a Y chromosome confers (some) male characteristics, even if accompanied by extra X chromosomes or fragments. The absence of Y chromosome confers female characteristics even with supernumary X chromosomes or fragments. AFA people who are developmentally scrambled*, they are usually raised as whatever it is that they look like externally, no matter what their genes or internal gonads are, and most choose to continue to live that way.
*i.e. looks female at birth but really has undescended testicles and a very small penis.
But I would certainly make a MEDICAL decision for sex reassignment for those intersex individuals who feel misclassified at birth, bc there are PHYSICAL reasons for that.
Not for "psychological" reasons.
For people who feel constrained by biology into a sex role ... well, that's their problem, not ours.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Why SECOND'S posts are brainless: "I clocked how much time: no more than 10 minutes per day. With cut-and-paste (Ctrl C and Ctrl V) and AI, none of this takes much time."
Or, any verification or thought.
In the animal kingdom, these genetic defects are left to die on their own, or in some cases are even killed and eaten by their own kind. Not just because they are weak and a burden to the herd, but as a survival mechanism for the future development of the species.
Maybe we'll luck out as a species...
We're the only one that has done everything possible to reverse survival of the fittest, no matter what the cost in the end is.
We'll probably all be too retarded to destroy the planet eventually.
Unfortunately though, now that I think about it, all the doomsday devices necessary to see that through have already been made. It's kind of terrifying thinking about a future where everybody is in middling double-digit IQs. It's kind of like apes having a big shiny red button that ends the world when they inevitability press it.
--------------------------------------------------
Political correctness is just tyranny, with a smiley face.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It would be interesting to see what the prevalence of sex ... or even other ... genetic defects occur in mammals and birds. I don't think Ive ever seen a study.
But there's one gene that's often selected AGAINST, and that's the male gene, the Y chromosome.
Among mammals and birds, the rate limiting step for reproduction is with the female. Males can reproduce in a few seconds. Female mammals have to go thru gestation and (for mammals) nursing. So there's a high species survival value on having as many females survive as possible.
Males? Maybe not so much. One thing to look at is the female/ male ratio of various species. It tells us a lot about that species' reproductive strategy.
The one thing that can save males from superfluousness is if they significantly and regularly contribute to the survival of the young. That happens among many birds, where female AND male gather food for the young. It also happens among humans, because human babies, like baby birds, have prodigious demands that can only be satisfied by multiple adults.
What happens to "excess" males in many other species is that they're gotten rid of thru competiton, where most mature males are driven out of the herd/ pride/ crowd, away from prime feeding grounds and protection, where they live a short existence either by themselves or in fractious bachelor groups.
Anyway, if we'regojngvto look at sex chromosomes and which one(s) are favored by evolution, we should look at males and females as well.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Why SECOND'S posts are brainless: "I clocked how much time: no more than 10 minutes per day. With cut-and-paste (Ctrl C and Ctrl V) and AI, none of this takes much time."
Or, any verification or thought.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
It would be interesting to see what the prevalence of sex ... or even other ... genetic defects occur in mammals and birds. I don't think Ive ever seen a study.
But there's one gene that's often selected AGAINST, and that's the male gene, the Y chromosome.
Among mammals and birds, the rate limiting step for reproduction is with the female. Males can reproduce in a few seconds. Female mammals have to go thru gestation and (for mammals) nursing. So there's a high species survival value on having as many females survive as possible.
Males? Maybe not so much. One thing to look at is the female/ male ratio of various species. It tells us a lot about that species' reproductive strategy.
The one thing that can save males from superfluousness is if they significantly and regularly contribute to the survival of the young. That happens among many birds, where female AND male gather food for the young. It also happens among humans, because human babies, like baby birds, have prodigious demands that can only be satisfied by multiple adults.
What happens to "excess" males in many other species is that they're gotten rid of thru competiton, where most mature males are driven out of the herd/ pride/ crowd, away from prime feeding grounds and protection, where they live a short existence either by themselves or in fractious bachelor groups.
Anyway, if we'regojngvto look at sex chromosomes and which one(s) are favored by evolution, we should look at males and females as well.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Why SECOND'S posts are brainless: "I clocked how much time: no more than 10 minutes per day. With cut-and-paste (Ctrl C and Ctrl V) and AI, none of this takes much time."
Or, any verification or thought.
At a population of over 8 Billion, we're all superfluous.
Women... Human Women... become a treasured commodity in bad times such as war or plague. When EVERYTHING was scary back in the days before we figured out how to build good shelter and before we figured out agriculture, this was certainly the truth.
In a society where we're not only teaching young women not to have kids at our schools, but actively supplying them with the means to prevent pregnancy and abort the children, often without their parents even being aware their daughters are sexually active, women do not have that special status and are little more than weaker and prettier men with tits.
Not only that, but we are likely the only animal on the planet with the ability to logic and reason and do things contrary to any instinctual urges for survival.
I do understand what you're saying and where you're trying to go with it. It just simply doesn't apply to humankind in 2024. It did for most of the history of humanity, and I suspect it will again in the future at some point. But if and when it happens again, it's going to be because times have gotten much, much, much worse than they are now.
ETA: Here's a good, recent article about the above...
Births dropped in 2023, ending pandemic baby boom
https://www.axios.com/2024/04/25/us-births-drop-2023
We were never in any real danger from Covid, and there wasn't a time during it all where we weren't pumping out far more babies than were dying of Covid, BUT, with all the irresponsible reporting on the issue from the Legacy Media for 2 years, there was a vast sense of unease during that time. That appears to have been enough for a mini-boom in baby births in the US.
But now we're at a replacement rate of 1.62 per woman during 2023. The lowest point in nearly a century.
We're all superfluous with 8 Billion of us on the planet.
--------------------------------------------------
Political correctness is just tyranny, with a smiley face.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We're not superfluous. That's that anti-human outlook that the elites have planted in your brain. It makes you discount all humans, some more than others, as being not worthy of care. In your mind, "they" are vermin and a threat to your standard of living. Same attitude how the elites view YOU, along with the rest of the 8 billion superfluous human vermin.
Many in the western world apply that thinking to themselves too. Guilty for eating, guilty for breathing. Think Greta Thunberg.
Trust me, the elites have cynically implanted that in OTHER people so those others will voluntarily reduce their standard of living, submit to the yoke, reduce the number of their births. The elites don't apply that to THEMSELVES, of course, since they are so much MORE than everyone else!
*****
At the same time, I'm not one of those LaRouche people who think that the world has infinite carying capacity. It doesn't.
Where I balk is at the "solutions" that the elite propose. There is alwasybthe underlying assumption that whatever is proposed won't hurt them, or will actually benefit them.
So when it is (quietly) suggested that "we" should rid ourselves of at least a billion people, the unstated assumption is that the poorest will go bc "they" are the problem. They are NOT the problem. Their resource use barely registers as a blip.
Flip that on its head: let's start with the richest billion. As a thought experiment, it's very revealing of people's attitudes to themselves, the rich, and the poor. Many people will be more resistant, for one rationalization or another, to killing the wealthy. We often find we subconsciously revere the wealthy, just as we were trained. ("Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous", anyone?)
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Why SECOND'S posts are brainless: "I clocked how much time: no more than 10 minutes per day. With cut-and-paste (Ctrl C and Ctrl V) and AI, none of this takes much time."
Or, any verification or thought.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME