Are Social Justice Warriors denying science? Is either Sex or Gender fluid?

Consider a heresy which contradicts the Gleischshaltung of Political Correctness: Gender is NOT a social construct, and both Gender and Sex are in fact binary.

How is this possible? Some sceptics suggest that both gender and sex are determined by chromosome status: Males are XY and females are XX. End of story.

The truth is not so simple. From my understanding of Biology: the default setting for embryonic development is female. Female fetuses can become male if two events occur:

1 – The activation of the SRY gene (controlling events such as differentiation of gonads into testes/ovaries)

2 – Testosterone Receptors bind to appropriate levels of Bio-available testosterone in utero.

So far, we have described a Binary situation:

Where can Biochemistry proceed differently? (I do not imply that “pathology” occurs anywhere during this discourse)

Sometimes, there is a transfer of the SRY gene to the X chromosome from the Y – where XX karyotypes are now expressing male determining factor

There can also be a downturn in testosterone response in two crucial stages of embryonic development:

1 – The stage where cerebral hardwiring for sexual identity changes from the female default setting to male
2 – The different stage of embryonic development where cerebral hardwiring for sexual orientation changes from the default setting of attraction to males to attraction to females.

Of course, Hormone/Hormone Receptor status & SRY expression do not operate independently of each other. So, what about non-binary situations?

At birth, the genitalia can be ambiguous. Very rarely is the newborn a true hermaphrodite, but rather the genitals may not be well-formed or the baby may have characteristics of both sexes. The external sex organs may not match the internal sex organs or genetic sex.

Often (but not always) genital ambiguity corresponds with ambiguity in sexual identity and/or sexual orientation (resulting from hormone/hormone receptor status in utero). Nature is not binary under these circumstances: there can exist ambiguities in gender/sex status, in other words a continuum.

In other words: it is indeed possible to be a lesbian trapped in a man’s body: that is no joke! Meanwhile, some of the most feminine women on our planet are (Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome) AIS individuals with XY karyotypes, who do not respond to Testosterone. That said, hormone/receptor status is not always, all or nothing; some AIS individuals are “intermediate” in both Gender/Sex. Ben Barres (a famous transgender scientist who just recently succumbed to pancreatic cancer) is both a heroine and a role-model worthy of public adulation; another exception to the Biological rules cited above. She was cerebrally hard-wired to be male and not female despite her XY status.

The Biology cited above is not exhaustive but sufficient for our purposes.

OK OK, where does that leave us so far?

Everything described so far is decidedly binary and the gender-fluid exceptions to the rule are indeed real, but VERY RARE, far less than one percent of the population.

So, why are we currently witnessing a bumper-crop in gender-dysphoria in schools and campuses requiring a rethink in administration and teacher practice (not to mention a different set of washrooms in public buildings)?

I suggest, in politest terms possible, we are witnessing some public mass hysteria which is resulting in the horrible enabling of teenage angst and attention seeking, all with tragic results. I humbly admit I could be wrong on this, but I feel morally obliged to ask the question.

Many teens resort to self-injury/cutting, a sad condition (a result of teen angst) requiring intervention. Today, we now witness what I deem a similar phenomenon; i.e. pseudo-Gender Dysphoria (again, a result of teen angst). However, instead of intervention, conventional wisdom would male us codependents and enable teenage angst even to self-mutilation at an early age; all before frontal lobes are fully developed and hormones settle down. I am not saying gender-dysphoria is always unreal: I am suggesting there may be many false positives when diagnosing gender-dysphoria today.

Here in Canada, Kenneth Zucker, a renowned psychologist specializing in Sexology has taken a more conservative (and common sense) approach.

He counsels confused teens while encouraging them to wait. As a result, over 80% of these confused teens (after they calm down) discover they really were confused and 88% eventually reconcile with their birth gender. Meanwhile, a new BBC documentary, (Transgender Kids: Who Knows Best?) has highlighted Doctor Zucker’s success. Of course, Canada’s moral and intellectual superiors responded by shutting down the BBC documentary on Canadian Television, not to mention shutting down Dr. Zucker’s clinic. Political Correctness will brook no compromise!

OK, let’s bring this home:

Can Sex and/or Gender be nonbinary from a scientific point of view? Yes, continua exist, but only in very rare cases: we are probably talking far less than one percent of the population. Is Gender a “Social Construct” and can it be “fluid”? The jury seems still to be out on either question, but all indications so far are: “No” on both counts?

Do these answers really change anything at a fundamental level. Decidedly no! Everyone still MUST treat each other with respect, not to mention love and compassion (that includes you too SJWs)

That all said – Primum non nocere! “first, do no harm!” Perhaps we should revisit our mad rush to mutilate youngsters, and pay heed to Doctor Zucker. Current evidence indicates the subsequent depression of Transgenders results in a 40%+ suicide rate – an instance where the cure indeed is far worse than the “ailment”. Well maybe not. At the very least, we should pause to ask the question and proceed cautiously.

185 Replies to “Are Social Justice Warriors denying science? Is either Sex or Gender fluid?”

  1. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    TomMueller,

    Got it. Someone who argues emotionally rather than rationally.

  2. TomMueller
    Ignored
    says:

    newton:
    TomMueller,

    Got it. Someone who argues emotionally rather than rationally.

    You almost got it…

    SJWs embrace an incoherent ideological stance which has alternately been labeled as “Leftard” or as “Libtard”

    as yet another example:

    https://kek.gg/i/4mvLPx.jpg

  3. TomMueller
    Ignored
    says:

    newton:
    TomMueller,

    Got it. Someone who argues emotionally rather than rationally.

    Here is what I am talking about

  4. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    Tom Mueller:

    Gender Identity is NOT learned

    Agreed, if I understand you correctly.

    At the physiological level, there are discrete cell types, including male and female gametes. In general, and maybe absolutely for all I know, in humans, if one is capable of producing one kind of gamete, they are different from another human being able to produce another kind of gamete. There are cases, like women with hysterectomies — but the point stands is there are markers of discrete differences at the cellular and biochemical level.

    At issue is if someone’s psychology does not align with those discrete physiological markers, i.e. a guy feels like a girl trapped in a man’s body, he has the choice of trying to take steps to stop feeling like that.

    Some options for dealing with the situation are (not exhaustive):

    1. get society or his social circle to call him a label that agrees with his self perception — like that 55 year old-guy insisting he’s a six year old girl finding adoptive parents to take him under their roof.

    2. change his clothing and/or body

    3. try to get him to think of himself as a male in a male’s body

    The very mild question is whether it’s ethical or unethical to consider trying to treat the personal discomfort by finding ways to get him to think of himself as boy in a boy’s body. One treatment regimen already mentioned is to attempt to let time take its course and let him grow out of GD if possible. Is that wrong to try? I don’t think so.

    What sort of options should this guy take (the 55 year old man representing himself as a 6-year old girl), for example? But the first question to ask, does he have a problem to begin with, and does the problem need fixing?

  5. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    TomMueller: Here is what I am talking about

    I got it, nice source

  6. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova: Agreed, if I understand you correctly.

    At the physiological level, there are discrete cell types, including male and female gametes.In general, and maybe absolutely for all I know, in humans, if one is capable of producing one kind of gamete, they are different from another human being able to produce another kind of gamete.There are cases, like women with hysterectomies — but the point stands is there are markers of discrete differences at the cellular and biochemical level.

    At issue is if someone’s psychology does not align with those discrete physiological markers, i.e. a guy feels like a girl trapped in a man’s body, he has the choice of trying to take steps to stop feeling like that.

    Some options for dealing with the situation are (not exhaustive):

    1.get society or his social circle to call him a label that agrees with his self perception — like that 55 year old-guy insisting he’s a six year old girl finding adoptive parents to take him under their roof.

    2.change his clothing and/or body

    3. try to get him to think of himself as a male in a male’s body

    The very mild question is whether it’s ethical or unethical to consider trying to treat the personal discomfort by finding ways to get him to think of himself as boy in a boy’s body.One treatment regimen already mentioned is to attempt to let time take its course and let him grow out of GD if possible.Is that wrong to try?I don’t think so.

    What sort of options should this guy take (the 55 year old man representing himself as a 6-year old girl), for example?But the first question to ask, does he have a problem to begin with, and does the problem need fixing?

    Perhaps we should put them in some kind of camp to get their minds right.

  7. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    TomMueller: You almost got it…

    SJWs embrace an incoherent ideological stance which has alternately been labeled as “Leftard” or as “Libtard”

    as yet another example:

    https://kek.gg/i/4mvLPx.jpg

    No I got it from the beginning, just gave you the benefit of the doubt, libertarian too,right?

  8. TomMueller
    Ignored
    says:

    newton: No I got it from the beginning, just gave you the benefit of the doubt, libertarian too,right?

    Not sure what “Libertarian” even means…

    Seems to be a catchall phrase of the Left, just like “Communist” was of the Right during Macarthy years

    I am a “Common-Sense-Extremist”

  9. TomMueller
    Ignored
    says:

    newton: No I got it from the beginning, just gave you the benefit of the doubt, libertarian too,right?

    Milton Friedman appears to be a patron saint of American Libertarians…

    I like a lot of what Friedman said, because I identify with Hayek and Austrian economics and oppose Keyensian lunacy in all its forms

    That said: Friedman departed from common sense far too often! For example, deprofessionalizing Medical Doctors and letting the free market sort out good medicine vs bad is lunacy, and if that is also Libertarian, then I cannot be Libertarian

  10. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac,

    If you think that I’m struggling with this issue, maybe you can help me…
    Evolution led to people who have gender issues and according to the rule of thumb of population genetics most, if not all of these people, should be eliminated by natural selection as they are less fit because they can’t or are less likely to produce…

    So, why is there such an increase of youths with gender issues as many studies have shown? 27 % of youths are experiencing some gender issues…
    Is natural selection impotent? Why is it not doing its job?

    If you are clueless, maybe Joe F can help you with his speculative proof ….

    There you go. It only took about 5 posts to get from some vague hints to actually articulating something addressable.

    I think your basic point is: how can natural selection be a thing if there exist phenomena that should not exist if natural selection was powerful enough to eliminate them? And of course the answer would be: natural selection is not powerful enough to eliminate every expectation. For example:

    I know a transgender individual who transitioned from male to female, and who had a son/daughter who ALSO transitioned in the same way. Now one could invoke environment, but one should not dismiss genetics. The father evidently had a child as a male before deciding to adopt a female persona and physique, but equally, there is a very good chance that his genetic proclivity towards female identity was passed on to that child before his transition. And this points to one way a population may retain a proportion of apparently ‘anti-selection’ traits in the arena of non-dichotomous sexuality. The dichotomy is false.

  11. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Allan Miller:
    J-Mac,

    There you go. It only took about 5 posts to get from some vague hints to actually articulating something addressable.

    I think your basic point is: how can natural selection be a thing if there exist phenomena that should not exist if natural selection was powerful enough to eliminate them? And of course the answer would be: natural selection is not powerful enough to eliminate every expectation. For example:

    I know a transgender individual who transitioned from male to female, and who had a son/daughter who ALSO transitioned in the same way. Now one could invoke environment, but one should not dismiss genetics. The father evidently had a child as a male before deciding to adopt a female persona and physique, but equally, there is a very good chance that his genetic proclivity towards female identity was passed on to that child before his transition. And this points to one way a population may retain a proportion of apparently ‘anti-selection’ traits in the arena of non-dichotomous sexuality. The dichotomy is false.

    You can’t be serious?!
    Do you really expect me to accept this nonsense because you couldn’t come up with anything else?

  12. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac,

    You can’t be serious?!
    Do you really expect me to accept this nonsense because you couldn’t come up with anything else?

    No, not because I couldn’t come up with anything else, but because there is a significant factor, if you could control your knee-jerk reflex for a moment. The thing to note is that the gender-challenged parent had a child.

  13. petrushka
    Ignored
    says:

    I know very little about transgender. I know of a person. On another forum who is a male female chimera, and who underwent surgery after fathering children. I think this condition is rare, but who knows? I didn’t know it exists until a decade or so ago.

    I worked with a gay man who had been married and had children. I know of another example in my extended social circle. It was pretty tough on the wives.

    I’m rather dubious about jumping to conclusions about children based on their social inclinations. On the other hand, children born with ambiguous genitalia were usually assigned a sex as infants, and sometimes that didn’t work out well.

  14. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    Yes, the big problem round here is people who haven’t even the inkling of an idea as to what natural selection really means. Even though one might say it, over and over and over. It is the #1 card in the Creationist armoury (to mix metaphors): me no understand selection. Explain it again, me no understand. Where’s phoodoo?

  15. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Allan Miller:
    Yes, the big problem round here is people who haven’t even the inkling of an idea as to what natural selection really means. Even though one might say it, over and over and over. It is the #1 card in the Creationist armoury (to mix metaphors): me no understand selection. Explain it again, me no understand. Where’s phoodoo?

    Unless natural selection can figure out how to evolve female reproductive organs in males and male reproductive organs in females, we are on the way to the meltdown as species and without any further mutations…deleterious or not…

    So, natural selection had better cooperate or it will be proven impotent again…

  16. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac,

    Unless natural selection can figure out how to evolve female reproductive organs in males and male reproductive organs in females, we are on the way to the meltdown as species and without any further mutation…deleterious or not…
    So, natural selection had better cooperate or it will be proven impotent again…

    If you think the presence of a fraction of gender ambiguity in a population must inevitably lead to that ambiguity becoming the norm, you are probably irredemiably misinformed.

  17. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Allan Miller:
    J-Mac,

    No, not because I couldn’t come up with anything else, but because there is a significant factor, if you could control your knee-jerk reflex for a moment. The thing to note is that the gender-challenged parent had a child.

    What are you talking about?!

  18. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    Here’s what you’re saying, J-Mac: unless the selection against a trait is total, it will become fixed.

  19. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Allan Miller:
    J-Mac,

    If you think the presence of a fraction of gender ambiguity in a population must inevitably lead to that ambiguity becoming the norm, you are probably irredemiably misinformed.

    If statistics are correct from among youths in California, 27% gender related issues is not a fraction…. my good buddy works in a large lab were straight people without gender related issue are no longer the majority… while this is not the rule it shows some new trend…

  20. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac,

    What are you talking about?!

    What I am talking about is in the blockquote immediately prior to that effusion. If gender-ambiguous individuals can have children, then gender ambiguity can persist at non-zero frequency in a population, even if selection favours non-ambiguous individuals more strongly.

  21. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac,

    So what? [eta – 27% is a fraction!]

  22. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Allan Miller:
    J-Mac,

    So what? [eta – 27% is a fraction!]

    What % of those can have children with the same sex partner?

  23. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Allan Miller:
    J-Mac,

    So what? [eta – 27% is a fraction!]

    27% is not a fraction you described! Its over a quarter and if this trend continues will evolution keep up with evolving the reproductive organs?
    OMG! What am I talking about… you’ve said evolution can’t evolve the opposite sex organs… you called me names when I suggested that… remember?

  24. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Allan Miller:
    Here’s what you’re saying, J-Mac: unless the selection against a trait is total, it will become fixed.

    And you are saying..

  25. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: What % of those can have children with the same sex partner?

    None, obviously. But you can probably work out a means for them having children nonetheless.

    Here are the competing contentions:

    Me: Gender ambiguity or homosexuality can exist at a nonzero fraction in the population because individuals can still have children by the ‘normal’ route – just not so many, and hence (for obvious reasons) this will never fix.

    J-Mac (I’m guessing here): God creates a fraction of gender ambiguous or homosexual individuals for some reason.

    If that’s a misrepresentation, feel free to offer your actual explanation for these individuals.

  26. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac,

    And you are saying..

    That selection against is not total.

  27. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac,

    27% is not a fraction you described! Its over a quarter

    Which is a bloody fraction!

    and if this trend continues

    Is it changing?

    will evolution keep up with evolving the reproductive organs?

    It will never get to the stage where it becomes 100%. Surely you can see why?

    OMG! What am I talking about… you’ve said evolution can’t evolve the opposite sex organs… you called me names when I suggested that… remember?

    Refresh my memory. What names?

  28. phoodoo
    Ignored
    says:

    Allan Miller: just not so many, and hence (for obvious reasons) this will never fix.

    What do you mean by fixed Allan?

  29. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    phoodoo: What do you mean by fixed Allan?

    Whatever is necessary …

  30. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    phoodoo,

    What do you mean by fixed Allan?

    I mean getting to, or at least approaching, 100% frequency.

  31. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Allan Miller: OMG! What am I talking about… you’ve said evolution can’t evolve the opposite sex organs… you called me names when I suggested that… remember?
    Refresh my memory. What names?

    Check out your famous OP on evolution of sex where you were recommending people not understanding it to go back to school… look like you have gone back to school… lol

  32. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Allan Miller: I mean getting to, or at least approaching, 100% frequency.

    What could, or should be, the evolutionary prediction, if any?

  33. phoodoo
    Ignored
    says:

    Allan Miller: phoodoo,

    What do you mean by fixed Allan?

    I mean getting to, or at least approaching, 100% frequency.

    How many genes are 100% frequency? I have no idea how you will know if they are “approaching” 100%

    You seem to be leaving a whole lot of genes out that aren’t “fixed” then, because most aren’t 100%.

  34. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: 27% is not a fraction you described! Its over a quarter and if this trend continues will evolution keep up with evolving the reproductive organs?
    OMG! What am I talking about… you’ve said evolution can’t evolve the opposite sex organs… you called me names when I suggested that… remember?

    The study that provided that number concerning how others preceive not how one perceives his gender identity. Unless we learn our gender identity through others perception, and Tom has already dismissed learned gender identity as a confused notion.

  35. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    Alan Fox: Uncut and still walking twelve years after being told I’d be in a wheel chair without surgery.

    I’m so glad to hear you are still walking! We’re all aging….

    Some of our companions and foes on the net are no longer with us: John Davison, Gil Dodgen, Richard Hoppe. I was sad and troubled last night when I just learned of the news about Richard Hoppe. I hope you and I hang on for a few more years! Cheers.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.