A
Alex337
Guest
Cool, I asked you for a definition of the two sexes, I’m sorry I wasn’t clear. If it’s so easy though I’m sure you’ll be able to explain?
If it helps I’m a high school teacher, so I go to school quite often.
- Status
If it helps I’m a high school teacher, so I go to school quite often.
B
BroIgnatius
Guest
In Klinefelter Syndrome a person is always male.
J
JoyToTheWhirled
Guest
A woman is the female of the human species, the class which possess a female reproductive system and produce ova.
A man is the male of the human species, the class which possess a male reproductive system and produce sperm.
There is a small percentage of people who are ambiguous, and cannot straightforwardly be categorised as male or female, so we use the umbrella term intersex for the different presentations of this small percentage.
Wow. It’s easier to define a man and a woman than one might guess!
A man is the male of the human species, the class which possess a male reproductive system and produce sperm.
There is a small percentage of people who are ambiguous, and cannot straightforwardly be categorised as male or female, so we use the umbrella term intersex for the different presentations of this small percentage.
Wow. It’s easier to define a man and a woman than one might guess!
A
Alex337
Guest
Agreed. Provided one is happy to say three groups rather than only two. Though I would ask where women and women with non-functioning reproductive organs fit in? I know my grandmother didn’t produce ova due to a problematic cancer when she was young, though I suspect she was still female.
J
JoyToTheWhirled
Guest
Yep. Never had an issue with male, female and intersex. I’m presuming you meant to type men and women with non-functioning reproductive organs?
If you read my post again, please note the use of the ‘class’ denomination. A woman who does not have a functioning reproductive system, or has had it removed, is still ‘of the class’ of human that does. If the reproductive system is absent because of the ambiguities previously mentioned, then intersex may be the correct category. If the female reproductive system is missing because it has never been there and what is there is a male reproductive system, functioning or not, without the ambiguities mentioned, the person is a man. It really isn’t any more mysterious than that.
If you read my post again, please note the use of the ‘class’ denomination. A woman who does not have a functioning reproductive system, or has had it removed, is still ‘of the class’ of human that does. If the reproductive system is absent because of the ambiguities previously mentioned, then intersex may be the correct category. If the female reproductive system is missing because it has never been there and what is there is a male reproductive system, functioning or not, without the ambiguities mentioned, the person is a man. It really isn’t any more mysterious than that.
A
Alex337
Guest
Heh, yep. That’ll teach me for typing late at night 
B
BroIgnatius
Guest
However, there is no such thing as Intersex. There are over 6500 genetic differences between males and females. All people are either male or female. While there are “apparent” ambiguities in a very small number of people, those people still remain male or female. Check the 6500 genetic markers and you will find only male and female regardless of what other abnormalities may be present.
See my post 103
I don’t remember if I posted this video. While it is about transgenderism, the first part about genetics applies:
See my post 103
I don’t remember if I posted this video. While it is about transgenderism, the first part about genetics applies:
Last edited:
A
AlbertDerGrosse
Guest
Why do you continue to confuse intersex with transgenderism despite being told more than once the distinction?
B
BroIgnatius
Guest
I am making no such confusion. Actually read what I said for a change.
A
AlbertDerGrosse
Guest
I’ve read everything you’ve posted in this thread. In fact I entered this thread as a response to you if you recall. Despite everyone else taking great pains to stick to the actual intersexed condition, a condition that is 100% physiological and 0% psychological you continue to post anti-transgenderism videos and make silly comments about “52 genders”. You seem to be having trouble sticking to the topic.
J
JoyToTheWhirled
Guest
If you are not conflating transgender with intersex, why did you post a video about transgender ideology? I don’t really understand where you’re trying to pitch this.
Humans are sexually dimorphic, no question. The existence of statistical small anomalies doesn’t disprove that, it’s simply part of the fact that biology is often messy and non-uniform.
Are you actually suggesting that the very most important thing for someone who is intersex is to find out which sex they are, even when that is entirely unclear from their genetics and physiology? I’m not sure what you think the purpose would be.
Humans are sexually dimorphic, no question. The existence of statistical small anomalies doesn’t disprove that, it’s simply part of the fact that biology is often messy and non-uniform.
Are you actually suggesting that the very most important thing for someone who is intersex is to find out which sex they are, even when that is entirely unclear from their genetics and physiology? I’m not sure what you think the purpose would be.
B
BroIgnatius
Guest
Well, I cannot help it if you cant understand the points or the side-remarks. That is a sign of bias on your part.
Let me make is plain. Genetically there is only males and females. The is no genetic “intersex”. Does not exist.
I clearly stated that the video was about transgenderism, BUT THE FIRST PART about genetics applies.
Let me make is plain. Genetically there is only males and females. The is no genetic “intersex”. Does not exist.
I clearly stated that the video was about transgenderism, BUT THE FIRST PART about genetics applies.
Last edited:
B
BroIgnatius
Guest
Sheesh. I posted the video because the the first couple of minutes talking about genetics. I MADE THAT CLEAR. This is not rocket science.
Genetically, it is clear if one examines the 6500 genetic markers and not just a couple of them.
Genetically, it is clear if one examines the 6500 genetic markers and not just a couple of them.
Last edited:
A
AlbertDerGrosse
Guest
This is factually false as I and many others in this thread have aptly demonstrated over and over again. I’m tired of repeating myself. At this point you either lack the intellectual faculty to understand or you’re being deliberately obtuse. In either case it doesn’t change the fact that the intersex condition is real, whether you like it or not.
J
JoyToTheWhirled
Guest
I am trying to understand why you thought it applied, genuinely. From what you’ve clarified, it appears to be that as there are 6500 markers, you make the case that we could tot up the markers on the male side and the female side and then make a determination which side of the sex divide this very small selection of people fall on?
I’m not really sure it works like that, but ok.
It really is not helpful though, to muddy the waters with transgenderism. Intersex (as in the medically understood umbrella term for ambiguous sex conditions) is a physical, testable health issue. Transgenderism is essentially a mental health issue that is becoming more and more subjective as time goes on. I know that organizations representing those with Intersex conditions are not appreciative of mixing the two things together.
I’m not really sure it works like that, but ok.
It really is not helpful though, to muddy the waters with transgenderism. Intersex (as in the medically understood umbrella term for ambiguous sex conditions) is a physical, testable health issue. Transgenderism is essentially a mental health issue that is becoming more and more subjective as time goes on. I know that organizations representing those with Intersex conditions are not appreciative of mixing the two things together.
B
BroIgnatius
Guest
I am tired of repeating myself. Truth is not dependant on the majority. I have posted more than just opinion. I have posted a doctor on the genetics. I have posted Catholic Bioethis…
You are being deliberately obtuse by misrepresenting things I have said. There are only two sexes. The Church teaches that. Male and female is all there is. Those ambiguous cases are only apparent, not ontological, whether you like it or not. 6500 genetic markers will show everyone either make or female, again, whether you like it or not.
Enough said. I am moving over to a forum that is actually Catholic.
Last edited:
B
BroIgnatius
Guest
I am not now, nor have I ever “mixing the two things together”.
A
AlbertDerGrosse
Guest
I am the farthest thing from a philosophical relativist you’ll meet. I believe in real objective truth. It’s precisely because of my philosophical assumptions that I’m telling you that you are wrong. Not that I “disagree with your truth” or “hey, you have your truth and I have mine”, but that you are matter-of-fact wrong.
You are incorrect in saying that the intersexed condition does not exist. It does exist, and it exists precisely because biological sex is not some monocausal thing. It’s an emergent property of thousands of various molecular variables going on within the cell. Others and myself have given you a number of real world examples of how the biology of sex gets really messy due to sex being caused by multiple factors. If you can’t be bothered to take those examples and do a little bit of research to better inform your opinions then I’m not sure there’s much more any of us can do to help you. You’ll keep proof texting sources that aren’t even relevant to the discussion to bolster your opinion that is matter-of-fact wrong.
What you’ve done is dump links to things that are irrelevant to what we’re talking about, and you’ve done so to an audience that has at least one person who’s educated on the matter and who has profession experience with genetics.
We’re talking about a physiological/genetic phenomenon here. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that intersexed individuals feel their intersexed condition. That’s closer to gender dysphoria, a psychological phenomenon which characterizes the transgendered condition.
I don’t even have to meet a person to tell that they’re intersexed! Give me their karyotype and I can point to three sex chromosomes (or one in the case of Turner’s Syndrome). Let’s Sanger Sequence the actual DNA on those sex chromosomes for the presence (or absence) of sex specific genes. Let’s run an ELISA assay to see if those genes are actually being expressed (i.e. are even turned on). I can point to the exact locus on a person’s X-chromosome where the SRY gene was translocated using SDS-PAGE/Western blotting. These are real, observable phenomena.
A
AlbertDerGrosse
Guest
Not I, sir.
I was the very first person in this thread to make the distinction between ontological and biological sex. Post #21:
For goodness sake!
Nearly every single post of mine in this thread has been predicated on the fact that biological sex owes itself to many, many, many components. THERE IS NO SINGLE MOLECULAR SWITCH THAT MAKES A PERSON MALE OR FEMALE. Capiche?
It is therefore not at all surprising to me that the number of genes involved in sex determination is upwards to 6500. Now you likely thought this little factoid was a relevant silver bullet to my posting legacy in this thread, but that’s because you foolishly snipped it from a video that’s arguing against transgenderism thinking it’s somehow relevant to a conversation about being intersexed. Transgendered people, the vast majority of whom are not also intersexed, are either precisely male or precisely female, precisely because they are not intersexed! Pointing out the congruence of a transgendered person’s 6500 sex-related genes does absolutely nothing to demonstrate that the intersexed condition does not exist. You might as well use the genomes of people who do not have Type 1 Diabetes to prove that Type 1 Diabetes doesn’t exist because their HLA-DQA & HLA-DQB genes are invariant.
It’s a shame you’re leaving. I think this forum is one of the better religious ones out there given the size and diversity of its membership. We all could stand to learn a lot from each other and the various personal and professional perspectives we have to offer, but if you’re looking for a Catholic forum that serves as an echo chamber for those who wish to deny objective reality perhaps one run by the likes of Robert Sungenis will be more to your liking. I hear Catholic geocentrism is a thing again. In any case, good luck!
- Status