This use of the anomalous and extremely rare disorders of sexual development by the tweeter is reprehensible gaslighting. (Gaslight being the 1943 film with Ingrid Bergman, where her husband convinces her she's going mad because he does exactly what this "teacher" does, starting when the lights come on every evening) I know from hearing pseudo-science terms emitted by my former husband and his "sexologist" groomers in 1995, that the entire field is littered with fake, meaningless terms, such as "true life test, heterosexual transsexual, homosexual transsexual" &etc, until the cows come home. Who cares what clownfish do? Their patterns prove nothing for humans. It is the same story for history--they clomp around the ancient world, finding "transgendered" historic figures. The "sexologist" who diagnosed my ex in the initial 1993 appointment literally wrote in a sworn affidavit that "transsexualism" has existed since antiquity. The Romans were all running around in those robes, after all. Here's a moment of zen: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/gh7WEon3AaE
Appreciate your succinct and clear rebuttal! That thread uses just enough (misapplied) science to make it appear rational. However the long rant about non-human species, including the zillion-sexed fungi, is the first tip-off. Why bring those up at all if you know the issue is H. sapiens? To set the stage for dropping a few tidbits about DSDs without providing any context or the necessary further descriptions. Gah!
Thanks Colin. I appreciate that you have to balance what and when to provide for paying subscribers vs making it free. If too much is free, people won't pay to subscribe. I bet there are many paying subscribers like me who want to get these papers out in the public square as much as possible and will continue to subscribe no matter what.
Her combination of half-right biology and pure gobbledygook is impressive. I liked the implicit invocation of the gender-soul at the end.
Speaking of gender-souls...
Colin, as a biologist, can you tell me how the gender-soul communicates with the body? Is it sort of like how Descartes thought the pineal gland was where the soul lived, or am I being too simple-minded? And does the soul only communicate with the body or is it also vice-effing-versa?
A lot of the comments you said were true I learned in an introductory genetics class 25 years ago. Then, the one page devoted to what makes someone or something male or female had nothing to do with ideology, and interesting examples in different species were just a way of seeing how vast the world was.
1) The various issues in the variety of animal species have little to do with human sexuality. Spending a lot of time discussing fruit-fly sexuality is not helpful in human sexuality.
2) Humans with DSD, intersex, etc are errors of development. They have nothing to do with human sexuality. They are not different sexes, they are simply errors of the creation-of-human process or the developmental process.
The overriding point is that although there may be some challenge in finding an entirely biological definition of gender, it is not insurmountable. And it is difficult to arrive at an entirely physical definition for just about anything. How about, if you have the sry gene you are male, else female. Simple, and should cover all cases. Way easier than defining White Person, and yet that one is taken as immutable. And here is a word for them: "biophobes". Slightly redefined from dictionary definition. Why are they so afraid of a little biology?? Hmmmm?? "I am no bigot, but you are a biophobic boob." How is that for come back.
This use of the anomalous and extremely rare disorders of sexual development by the tweeter is reprehensible gaslighting. (Gaslight being the 1943 film with Ingrid Bergman, where her husband convinces her she's going mad because he does exactly what this "teacher" does, starting when the lights come on every evening) I know from hearing pseudo-science terms emitted by my former husband and his "sexologist" groomers in 1995, that the entire field is littered with fake, meaningless terms, such as "true life test, heterosexual transsexual, homosexual transsexual" &etc, until the cows come home. Who cares what clownfish do? Their patterns prove nothing for humans. It is the same story for history--they clomp around the ancient world, finding "transgendered" historic figures. The "sexologist" who diagnosed my ex in the initial 1993 appointment literally wrote in a sworn affidavit that "transsexualism" has existed since antiquity. The Romans were all running around in those robes, after all. Here's a moment of zen: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/gh7WEon3AaE
Appreciate your succinct and clear rebuttal! That thread uses just enough (misapplied) science to make it appear rational. However the long rant about non-human species, including the zillion-sexed fungi, is the first tip-off. Why bring those up at all if you know the issue is H. sapiens? To set the stage for dropping a few tidbits about DSDs without providing any context or the necessary further descriptions. Gah!
Thanks Colin. I appreciate that you have to balance what and when to provide for paying subscribers vs making it free. If too much is free, people won't pay to subscribe. I bet there are many paying subscribers like me who want to get these papers out in the public square as much as possible and will continue to subscribe no matter what.
Her combination of half-right biology and pure gobbledygook is impressive. I liked the implicit invocation of the gender-soul at the end.
Speaking of gender-souls...
Colin, as a biologist, can you tell me how the gender-soul communicates with the body? Is it sort of like how Descartes thought the pineal gland was where the soul lived, or am I being too simple-minded? And does the soul only communicate with the body or is it also vice-effing-versa?
A lot of the comments you said were true I learned in an introductory genetics class 25 years ago. Then, the one page devoted to what makes someone or something male or female had nothing to do with ideology, and interesting examples in different species were just a way of seeing how vast the world was.
Several responses:
1) The various issues in the variety of animal species have little to do with human sexuality. Spending a lot of time discussing fruit-fly sexuality is not helpful in human sexuality.
2) Humans with DSD, intersex, etc are errors of development. They have nothing to do with human sexuality. They are not different sexes, they are simply errors of the creation-of-human process or the developmental process.
The overriding point is that although there may be some challenge in finding an entirely biological definition of gender, it is not insurmountable. And it is difficult to arrive at an entirely physical definition for just about anything. How about, if you have the sry gene you are male, else female. Simple, and should cover all cases. Way easier than defining White Person, and yet that one is taken as immutable. And here is a word for them: "biophobes". Slightly redefined from dictionary definition. Why are they so afraid of a little biology?? Hmmmm?? "I am no bigot, but you are a biophobic boob." How is that for come back.