I'm sorry, but please let's just stop the "it's a distraction from Epstein files" talk. An illegal war against a country of 90 million that is disrupting the global oil supply is actually a big deal! It should be getting a lot of attention right now.
Btw great thread. Don't want my comment to be seen as criticism.
Oof. I mean I'd love a multiracial working class coalition too. But in order to be multiracial it cannot include Nazis or racists!
According to the mad king, Iran has already "apologized and surrendered". But also we are going to keep bombing them "until they surrender...or completely collapse."
😐️
This is honestly one of the most anti-Jewish things I’ve ever seen from the United States government.
Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I am willing to make
Exactly.
Interesting. I had assumed that the estimates were based on random(ish) samples. If they are based on reports from individuals or doctors then that could lead to an underestimate for the reasons you indicate.
Which are what? Just restate them here please, because I don't see them earlier in the thread.
Okay, assuming I'm just inept at reading, please restate what makes a person male or female, in your view.
Again, you seem unable/unwilling to state what makes a person male or female. You have said it's not chromosomes or gamete production. So what is it?
The fact that some intersex people are "unambiguous males" as you say has no bearing on whether or not ALL people are "unambiguous" males or females.
And yes, I'll happily concede I'm no expert on intersex conditions. Im a sociologist who's interested in social categories and categorization. My knowledge of intersex people is mainly about how they are categorized and treated by societies not the underlying physical conditions.
What do "male specific" and "female specific" refer to? You've said it's not chromosomes. What is the physical basis for this distinction?
(I do agree that 1.7% is an over-estimate, but that's beside the point imo.)
I apologize if I've misunderstood you. It's not clear to me what exactly you think is fixed from 'conception'. If not chromosomes, then what exactly do you imagine is determined at conception and persists regardless of bodily changes?
Because you keep saying that sex is something that's fixed from the time of 'conception'. Likewise you seem to believe that all intersex individuals are really just male or female. That's why I've inferred that you may think that sex categories are based solely on chromosomes.
It seems like you're reducing "sex" to chromosomes. Do I understand you correctly?
I encourage you to re-read the definitions and consider how they are tautological. They essentially say someone is a specific sex because they belong to that sex at the time of conception. They never say how one can tell which sex a person belongs to.
No, but I don't have time to argue all day with people I don't even know.
Oh I'm sure the Iranian people will love that. /S
There are a lot of legitimate questions to ask about Israel's role in lobbying the US to fight this war in Iran, and also a lot of antisemitic conspiracies about the "Zionist-occupied government" going around. I wrote about sorting through those fuzzy lines here: www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...
Sorry, I just don't have any more time today to argue with you. Thanks for your time.
Im asking you if your own view is that people's legally recognized sex should be based solely on their chromosomes.
You seem to be claiming that all intersex people really are deep down just male or female. Assuming that is true, do you really think people with androgen insensitivity syndrome should be forced to live as a man even if they have a vagina?
I'm suggesting that the absence of a singular, defining criterion shows the flaw with the White House's view. They are trying to claim sex is an "immutable biological classification" yet can't name a single criterion that is met by all men or all women.
Chromosomal testing, hormonal testing, genital examination, etc. are different ways of testing for different sex characteristics. They aren't all testing the same thing, but rather different correlated things. Your Covid-19 analogy doesn't work.
You proposed a method - chromosomal testing - that isn't directly related to the White House's definitions. Maybe "belong to" could be interpreted as "has an XX or XY chromosome" but that's not what it actually says.
Right, XX vs. XY aren't even the full range of chromosomal variations, just the most typical ones.
It says sex is an "immutable biological classification" of "male and female", but does not state what exactly divides humans into these two categories. It just presumes it's obvious. If you think that's a workable definition, then we just have very different ideas of what 'workable' means.
Right, the definitions don't actually provide any criterion for determining a specific embryos' "sex". They just presuppose that it's obvious.
