[RD] LGBTQ news
- Thread starter bernie14
- Start date
A great part of it, but not all.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Contrary to you, I actually read papers by biologists and talk to biologists personally, and so your dismissal of this as "tales" or whatever hits rather flatly. That there are two sexes or more is something that's contested in biology, actually, you're right there; but actually not for the silly reason you're going about, ie rarity of variation (your discourse, infact, is more a social media thing quite outside what modern biology is figuring out atm, not the other way around). Number of sexes is contended not because of rarity of variations (there are many nonhuman species with recognized variation far beyond the rare variations we have on biological sex; rather crucial tiny minorities in biological variation, infact, such as social insects). Rather biologists are split on it mostly because gametes themselves are usually expressed very much as two sexes, in spite of any other variations of secondary characteristics, chromosones, genes, etc. This is what is mostly contested, biology has gotten over rarity; it's rather a discussion of whether there are two large majorities of sexes and several minor, or whether there are two expressions of gamete production, which is something that is expressed in spite of the multiple ways our sexes are otherwise wired; this is the major reason biologists differ on DSDs.
Here's a short video that supports you, but in the area that you're supposed to actually know about if you want to believe what you do. It's YouTube, but it's well sourced. I don't like the institution much, it believes postmodernism has infiltrated science, whatever that means, but the video is a good representation of the scientific side you want to support.
So keep your "social performance" and "media exposure" to yourself, please, since you're just mouthing Facebook comments about "rate [sic] genetic accidents", not what biologists actually discuss.
Last edited:
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,069
These is no shortage of people in the world denying plain reality. I guess those biologists you spoke to and know saw the light in the last couple of years, discovering more than two biological sexes in mankind? All the thousands of years of human history were wrong, and so was their own careers up to the mid 2010s? Kjnd of strange that such a fundamental thing would have been gotten wrong for so long?
Can you find one paper - one, that's enough - older than 2010 defending this view you are fond of? I'll be happy to discuss that one. Bit first you have to find one.
Do please keep in mind that what I wrote, and thus presumably what you were replying to, is about human sex biology. We are not discussing "nonhuman species".If you cannot find a history for this, if it just came um in very recent years, I must keep calling this a political fad. Not grounded on science at all. I do know stuff about the history of science how permeable it is to political fads. You would do well in fact to read one of the people to blame for this recent upheaval, Foucalut
Would you be a censor who can't handle even seeing another person saying something he doesn't personally agree with? I don't believe so, and you at least are not claiming that I'm literally "killing you" by disagreeing, that's some progress compared to certain other people around. So why the attempt at getting me to shut up about how this sudden change in views is due to political performance more than any scientific data changing theories? What new scientific data has become available in the past 20 years that justifies a change in views about biological sex in humans, can you point out?
If you do not like this topic here you don't have to read it, bother arguing or replying to me. But neither must I take you suggestion to "keep to myself" opinions that you happen to dislike. In a civilized world people can disagree, even on science as it evolves (or not). Do you want to be part of a civilized, tolerant and inquisitive society, or would rather live in a bubble?
The video is political talk, reinterpretation of old data to fit the performances demanded today from people managing their careers in an academic environment very sensitive to politics. Withing 10 years it will change again. If you do want to engage in discussion would rather argue based on papers that can be dissected and quoted from, only way to go anywhere with this. Otherwise we just have irreconcilable views about what's happening and that's it.
I'd also like to add that imo arguing about biologic sex in a LGBT thread is off-topic from it. Could be better done separated.
Linking biological sex to this (and it keeps coming up on the transgender topic specifically) is as silly as that old strategy of claiming that "gays must be accepted because they're born that way" , the search for the "gay gene" and all that silliness. It abated when gays were finally accepted and the need to put up phony, simplistic scientific claims disappeared. Gays would be, and have been accepted because they're like everyone else and just happen to prefer sexually people of the same sex. No need for scientific excuses or explanations to accept that.
Last edited:
Berzerker
Deity
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
These is no shortage of people in the world denying plain reality. I guess those biologists you spoke to and know saw the light in the last couple of years, discovering more than two biological sexes in mankind? All the thousands of years of human history were wrong, and so was their own careers up to the mid 2010s? Kjnd of strange that such a fundamental thing would have been gotten wrong for so long?
Can you find one paper - one, that's enough - older than 2010 defending this view you are fond of? I'll be happy to discuss that one. Bit first you have to find one.
I don't generally orient myself in dates beside orienting myself in responses to papers (that are naturally later). Some things from 1902 are relevant, some things have been disproven since, some things from 2015 are relevant, some things have been disproven since. I have a few sections from the ISNA database which hasn't been updated since 2008 (also some people find intersex pejorative, it's been eclipsed by DSD now), but I presume you find that biased, there's a plethora of DSD discussion from the 00's that recognize different biologically sexual makeups, but that's before researchers bit the bullet of reality and went "OK, this means sex assignment is actually complicated because it is" in the 10s. So yea, the roster of sources I have available from the 00's are mostly about "oh, DSD's are a thing, and they're actually prevalent", and then this and this that simply notes that atypicality simply exists in sexual development, ie not a clear declaration of a sex spectrum, but even if you'd give me that it's 2009/2007 so you won't care as it's a technical cutoff, and also it's not that relevant to the discussion in my eyes. So those are the articles I care to link, even if they don't declare a spectrum, while they declare clear atypicality, but... I don't agree with your premise. There's many things wrong with it...:
I cannot fathom how you don't understand that technology allows for investigation into how we're made. Some things can't be seen with the naked eye. The thousands of years argument is complete nonsense. Do you believe in atoms? I guess Democrit claimed they existed. Quarks? Like, you appeal to duration of belief, will you claim that sperm creates babies, settling inside the womb, then forming without an egg? That was quite popular back in the day. Should doctors wash their hands? We could also go full Galen. Human genome was charted in 2003. >_< Again, if you'd just bite the bullet and stick to the gametes instead of doing a bad Foucault reading, the thousands of years things would actually make sense. Speaking of,
If you cannot find a history for this, if it just came um in very recent years, I must keep calling this a political fad. Not grounded on science at all. I do know stuff about the history of science how permeable it is to political fads. You would do well in fact to read one of the people to blame for this recent upheaval, Foucalut
I've read Foucault, I like Foucault, and I'm also well acquainted with people that read and spout Foucault about areas they have no connection to and experience with. In this area, it'd go like
"Biology has found out there are more than two sexes."
"I've read Foucault, is a fad, because fads happened." Bad syllogism, but whatever.
"Have you read the articles?"
"No." and/or "Doesn't matter." (Latter is your position.)
No consideration as to how absolutely rigorous Foucault was with his historical research and numerous examples. The above exchange is beer talk level of Foucault, same is suggesting to read him in order to understand the political functions in science as a complete dismissal of something you don't want to understand. His claims were founded and aren't that concretely applicable prescriptively, at least not in the "it's just a fad man" way. Also ironic that you appeal to a humanist and say I'm screwing with biology.
Biologists believe certain things due to what they know. That's what I'm reproducing here. If you want to appeal to scientific reality, appeal to scientific reality. If you don't want to do that, for whatever reason you want, that's fine. If the biologists believe something else in 10 years, I'll believe them then. It's not that complicated.
Like, it's honestly clear that you're misusing Foucault to reaffirm a worldview you have independent of science. And if you want to do that, that's cool.
I'm not trying to censor you, you're free to continue your "sun will rise". It was you that was lowkey insulting about me posing on social media, while you were doing the sunrise nonsense, which is exactly the kind of social media nonsense you want to do away with. I feel I hit a nerve, ironically, since that's the part of my post you choose to answer with a long rant about things I've never said and that I have nothing to do with. My point was that if you want to avoid fads, don't reproduce a discourse that resembles a Facebook comment section.
I have no idea what you mean with saying the video is political talk. Not because I don't see the political aspects of it, but because it assumes a distinction between what is political and what isn't - from a position that has arbitrarily designated a point in time when science apparently wasn't political while refering to Foucault.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
- Messages
- 8,850
This rhetoric is disgusting. The language of "there are normal people and genetic aberrations" has been used (and still is used) to justify horrendous abuses of human rights and dignity. For Christ's sake, the same argument has been used against people like you and me to justify centuries of homophobia. Something I will never understand is how "LGB drop the T" people like you don't understand by how engaging in this rhetoric you are validating the arguments of the same people who would like nothing more than to see you and me in prison or dead. I don't think I can find a CFC-friendly way to explain how disgusting this rhetoric is.
These is no shortage of people in the world denying plain reality. I guess those biologists you spoke to and know saw the light in the last couple of years, discovering more than two biological sexes in mankind? All the thousands of years of human history were wrong, and so was their own careers up to the mid 2010s? Kjnd of strange that such a fundamental thing would have been gotten wrong for so long?
Can you find one paper - one, that's enough - older than 2010 defending this view you are fond of? I'll be happy to discuss that one. Bit first you have to find one.
If you cannot find a history for this, if it just came um in very recent years, I must keep calling this a political fad. Not grounded on science at all. I do know stuff about the history of science how permeable it is to political fads. You would do well in fact to read one of the people to blame for this recent upheaval, Foucalut
Yeah, scientists changing their minds on something that has been commonly accepted by society is utterly absurd. That's why I smoke 100 cigarettes a day, this "cancer" thing is just a political fad that will go away once Trump gets re-elected.
Classifying all of humanity into "male", "female" and "genetic abnormality" (and the horrifying actions justified by this logic) is entirely political. There is no platonic ideal of science that is untainted by politics. Maybe, just maybe, scientists are realising that we don't need to perform coercive surgeries
The Trans and Intersex struggles are tied together. But I'm sure you'd love to drop both T and I from the movement, so of course you want a different thread for it.
Okay. Why can't you just accept Trans and Intersex people for who they are then, instead of demanding "apolitical" (read: scientists who say things I like) papers verifying their existence?
Berzerker
Deity
there are no accidents in nature
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Alternatively, nature is all accidents, in which case the idea of accidents don't really apply.
So yes.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
- Messages
- 8,850
Go on Berzerker, tell us what you really want to say.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Update. So here's some perspective about group 1 (2 main sexes, several minor ones) and group 2 (variations don't count, gametes count), I just talked to a biologist I know.
He suggested that I've tried to acquaint myself with articles and views that were in the incredible minority. His perspective actually holds true for all the other biologists I've asked about this matter - I've never met or talked to a biologist in group 2. Only read articles with that perspective - it's apparently much more of a minority position than I thought. So at least I got smarter today. There is real consistency in group 1 - this is what research into biological sex has basically lead us to.
He suggested that I've tried to acquaint myself with articles and views that were in the incredible minority. His perspective actually holds true for all the other biologists I've asked about this matter - I've never met or talked to a biologist in group 2. Only read articles with that perspective - it's apparently much more of a minority position than I thought. So at least I got smarter today. There is real consistency in group 1 - this is what research into biological sex has basically lead us to.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,069
The reason I do not fall in with quick shifts about long-estabelished positions is because I've noticed many back-and-forth shifts. And it is pretty obvious the attention to biological ex and fumbling with definitions and terms is politically driven. Yes the long duration views does tell us something about how the world is and you don't just discard them in a coupleof years. That's pretty much the obvious indication of a fad.
Ok looking at those two papers:
The first paper lists a number of genetic defects (word from the paper) that lead to conditions where normal sexual development does not happen, and the medical options for dealing with that. Am I aware, have been aware for many years, prior to this fad, that in the past medics have tended to deal with this by taking the easiest surgical option (cutting off things, generally) as cosmetic surgery, and then attempting to force their chosen set on the child=? Yes I do. And it's a very good things that such practices are falling out of use. These are indeed cases that require careful attention for a long time, and avoiding setting a set immediately is arguably a good idea in many cases. It's complicated. And it's not new to me. What I said: that these are extremely rare cases in the overall population, is a fact.
The second is about what to call those extremely rare cases of disorders (quoting from the paper) in sexual development. Those have been known for centuries, scientifically accepted, there's just the problem of the many different names, badly defined, that arose. So there was a confusion of terminology, no news. And this paper proposes using an umbrella term "disorder of sex development". Want a bet that soon enough (if not already) the term "disorder" is considered offensive and a new term will be proposed to replace it?
This very paper demonstrates my complaint that the "science" of this is not changing on the facts, it's just changing on the politics of it. In this case it is a straight-up naming change. Does a nomenclature change changes the facts? No. The underlying reality to which the terms refers is the same. And unless we've already managed to screw up things with pollution to a point where disorders are rising, the rarity of it is the same.
The second paper, beyond the attempts at setting up new nomenclature, which in itself would be a good thing, lists the problems that have been well known and discussed at least since the 1980s. Increased awareness of these problems and a new consensus is indeed welcome. But is also acknowledges how useless this politics of renaming in itself would be:
What concerns me somewhat after reading this paper is that the old term "intersex" was rather more restricted in meaning than this catch-all for endocrine disorders that somehow affect aspects of sexual development. This may (if misinterpreted) extend the population covered. As the paper itself admits the usefulness, from a scientific point of view, of a generalist term. The cases have to be handled in their specificity! They conclude:
If I went looking for a paper to support my point I could hardly have chosen a better one. None of these were ground-breaking changes, the problems have been understood for a long time, and the shift towards not just assigning sex at birth in these cases is welcome.
All this does not mean that such problems apply to the people who do not suffer from any DSD. And there is where I draw the line, and complain that now some people are attempting to abuse this sound science to cast doubt on the existence of two biological sexes. You cannot have a disorder of sexual development of there is no order, as in normal development. That normal development results in either male or female in human biology. That is a fact, there is no third sex, or fourth or fifth.
For a comparison: someone born without legs is not a new variations of humans with two limbs, it's an unfortunate genetic problem. We do not embrace thalidomide as the harbinger of diversity in mankind, we banned it because it caused a disorder.
My reference to Foucault was because in his History of Madness he concentrated on how the medical establishments made up medical conditions, the most notorious case being hysteria, according to the social requirements of the time. Want to lock up women who do not behave according to the patriarchal order? Oh they're hysterical, lock them up as mad and throw away the key. Medicine is a science quite prone to fall into fads. That much Foucault got right.
If you want to talk about Foucault, I went through my phase of being impressed with him and reading his works, and the notes I could found of his classes and the College de France. The biopower thing impressed me, my anarchist side I guess... I even read some works by Deleuze (advice: don't) as a consequence of that infatuations. But the new wears off. Foucault was not that revolutionary. His history of sexuality in particular is a mish-mash text with bad scholarship and very un-french - not clear at all, he goes all over the place! He may have been a library rat, and the corpus of classical literature may be small, but the understanding of social history moved on from some of what he used as as basis for his reasoning. The big thing being that we can't draw many conclusions from classical the writings of elite personalities that were chosen for preservation for two millennia by generations of other elite personalities. But he tried to.
Foucault had an obsession with the politics of repression because he felt his own sexuality repressed, as you should know. And if you knew the history of gay life in 1960s and 70s France you would have a very good idea about how that influenced his politics, his work. He was very much a product of his time and as a historian is outdated. As a sociologist can only be well understood in the context of his time. But I digress. This we may discuss in another thread.
So please do not jump to conclusions. And I was not trying to insult you about posting in social media, whatever that may be nowadays.
Edit: @Angst it's good to read that most biologists there are sticking to the science. I keep hoping that the pathologist of US academia won't infect Europe. Job security has been better (sigh) but people in academia here are not as afraid, and compliant with the latest political fads, as they are there. So they stick to the evidence of two biological sexes, good.
Last edited:
One can try to legislate fairness with rules, but until the fans (those in sports who pay the money) actually accept the new rules and keep paying their money, the fairness doesn't overcome the pervious obstacles. I wonder how long it took to get 80% of the white baseball players and fans to accept Jackie Robinson as a great player.
Whatever male privileges I have had were all granted to me by others (mostly men) and until until all those men change their attitude or die, they will continue to grant it to others. If the goal is to make life more fair for those who are disadvantaged in some way, then you better define clearly what outcomes you desire and which aspects of life's unfairness you want to counteract. Mostly life is unfair for numerous reasons that we can and cannot control. Over time people have addressed specific unfair issues and fixed them (or tried to). Please post a list of your top five "life's unfair" issues that should be addressed. Then we will have something to talk about.
I reckon that could be a good thread, but it also may break the record for how long it takes to get closed
sendos
Immortal
Are there any news or statistics on the level of prejudice towards the LGBTQIA around the world (we would probably limit it to developed world for purposes of this question), whether it is decreasing each year or not? For those who identify as LGBTQIA, what are your personal experiences?
I found this, had some interesting numbers, I have no idea about its accuracy, it is not peer reviewed:
All countries (I am not sure I believe the peaks such as 1992):
Most improved, most worsened, most the same:
GenyaArikado
Judge of Love
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2011
- Messages
- 798
I mean i don't know if there are more than "two" sexes in humans but ultimately who gives a crap? If people feel bad in their sex assigned at birth, ler them change it. If people love people from their same gender, let them love. In what does that affect you?
Regarding trans and sports, the only way to know if trans men/women perform better or worse enough to make an statistical difference is letting them play
Regarding trans and sports, the only way to know if trans men/women perform better or worse enough to make an statistical difference is letting them play
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,069
Anyone who technical has to deal with human bodies?
Meaning the medical profession at large, and all related fields. Many therapies must be different depending on whether you're male or female. This cannot be dismissed, pretending that biological sex does not matter! It's bad science and bound to produce wrong, stupid results and ultimately failure. No one wins fights against reality.
I mean, it's the old Monty Python sketch, amazingly current. It went like this:
- I want to have a baby!
- you can't, you don't have a womb.
- you are repressing be!
- very well we'll agree that Rob has the right to have a baby, even though he can't have a baby. It will be symbolic of out struggle against oppression...
- (mumbling) his struggle against reality
You cannot make biology not matter. Whatever rights you decide to recognize.
Does this matters for sports? I don't give a damn about competitive sports. But for the people who do I can understand that biological sex differences are an issue. All the talk about hormone treatments, measurements, etc, are a desperate attempt to patch over that competitive problem. The only practical solution in fact is to ditch the worship of competitive sports. Good luck with that.
I think you may not be understanding how the medical profession is handling this. No one is pretending that whether someone has a womb does not affect their medical care. They also recognise that the patients experience of dealing with the doctor is of critical importance to their outcomes, and handling this appropriately has very real consequences. Therefore to do their job to the best of their ability they need to be aware of the best practices in terminology.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,069
I'm not concerned about the people who actually are having medical interventions on this. I was and am complaining about the idea that there are more than two biological sexes, or that sex should be disregarded when talking about medicine. Such ideas have been floated around. Amazing as it may seem.
Similar threads
