SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
When uploaded to Netflix, an episode of the educational children's show "Bill Nye the Science Guy" cut out a segment saying that chromosomes determine one's gender.
[...] While noncontroversial at the time, the 1996 segment appears to contradict Netflix's new series "Bill Nye Saves the World."
The new show endorses a socially liberal understanding of gender, under which gender is defined by self-identification rather than genetics and there are more than just the two traditional genders.
People, people, people... Say it with me: The Internet Never Forgets.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Netflix Edits 'Bill Nye' Episode to Remove Segment Saying Chromosomes Determine Gender
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 250 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
And tomorrow will be like today, only more so.
-- Isaiah 56:12, New Standard Version
(Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Friday May 05 2017, @11:13AM (54 children)
There's no such differentiation. They are synonyms and always have been.
There have been cross dressers, butch women, lady-boys and all manner of other ways we define ourselves as long as there have been humans. So, no, they have not always been synonyms, nor will that change.
A small percentage of humans are born with both sets of genitalia. When the doctor (and/or the parents) decide which set of genitalia should be removed, that's a socially constructed choice.
Still others have XXY chromosome sets. Often, despite the Y chromosome, such people are women. If someone has a Y chromosome, yet has female genitalia, how does that comport with your conception of sex vs. gender?
And since we've developed the technology for "gender reassignment," with hormone treatments and surgery, you might have had sex with someone who has had such treatment and not even know it.
Some cultures have explicitly defined non male/female genders [wikipedia.org].
Which makes gender a cultural construct. Which was my whole point. There is a difference between biological "sex" and cultural "gender". That those are the same for the vast majority of us doesn't obviate that.
Most of us (IIRC in excess of 97%) are that way. They are comfortable with their gender (even if born hermaphroditic and assigned a gender). Shall we deny that small percentage of those who wish to choose differently their personal agency to think and choose for themselves?
Given that you claim to be a libertarian, it surprises me that you would reject the idea that people should have such agency.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @11:56AM (32 children)
Being born with or without a Y chromosome is not a cultural construct. One may as well claim species to be a social construct, declare themselves a poodle and go crap on their neighbours lawn. Secure psychiatric institutions -- these are social constructs!
(Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Friday May 05 2017, @12:56PM (31 children)
Which makes gender a cultural construct. Which was my whole point. There is a difference between biological "sex" and cultural "gender".
Being born with or without a Y chromosome is not a cultural construct. One may as well claim species to be a social construct, declare themselves a poodle and go crap on their neighbours lawn. Secure psychiatric institutions -- these are social constructs!
That's right. If you have a Y chromosome (except in cases where you have XXY and female genitalia), you are male. That's your sex.
How you are perceived and classified in the culture is much more complicated, at least for a small number of people.
What's more, Research shows that varying hormone levels at various times during pregnancy can create the situation where the body has one set of characteristics, while the brain is configured differently. Those are biological and physiological traits.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150213112317.htm [sciencedaily.com]
people.kzoo.edu/ggregg/biolgend.ppt
I really don't understand what the big deal is about this. Those who identify their gender as distinct from their biological sex make up maybe 1% of the population. Live and let live, I say.
Even if there are folks who want to blur the lines (and that's nothing new), who cares? It doesn't affect anyone else.
It amazes me that folks think that they should have the right to dictate to others how they should live their lives.
Heinlein [goodreads.com] had the right idea:
So go ahead and live however you want. But you don't have the right to force your beliefs and lifestyle on anyone else. Don't be a "self-righteous fathead who mistakes his trained-in prejudices for the laws of nature."
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday May 05 2017, @01:08PM (29 children)
You can say it as much as you like but it's never going to be true. Gender = sex. What a thing is, it is, and no amount of wishing or denial will change that.
Now you can let your freak flag fly however you like and that's fine with me but I'm not going to make special allowances or effort to make you feel comfortable with your particular peccadilloes. I have no moral obligation to do so and you have no grounds to demand that I do.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @02:01PM (5 children)
Do you also have arguments with people about the usage of "hacker" to mean "criminal who uses computers"?
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday May 05 2017, @02:51PM (2 children)
Yup.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Gaaark on Friday May 05 2017, @09:59PM (1 child)
Me too.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday May 05 2017, @11:16PM
Me 11.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Touché) by tangomargarine on Friday May 05 2017, @03:37PM (1 child)
I know, all those prescriptivist assholes ruining the language for everybody. Oh wait...
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday May 07 2017, @01:36AM
Hah, nice. You just about made me cat /usr/bin/teacup/tea | /dev/hazuki/nose > /mnt/desktop with that one :D That low-key, snarky cutting humor is awesome.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Friday May 05 2017, @02:03PM (9 children)
You can say it as much as you like but it's never going to be true. Gender = sex. What a thing is, it is, and no amount of wishing or denial will change that.
Now you can let your freak flag fly however you like and that's fine with me but I'm not going to make special allowances or effort to make you feel comfortable with your particular peccadilloes. I have no moral obligation to do so and you have no grounds to demand that I do.
As an aside, I am male and identify as such. I have never had any confusion about that. As such, I have no "freak flag" to fly and my peccadilloes don't run into those areas.
I'm not telling you what to do. If you come to my house, I might make certain requests regarding your behavior or what you bring with you. You, of course, can decline based on those strictures. No harm no foul. Other than that, I have no interest in telling you what you should or shouldn't do or say.
I'm not trying to PC you into silence. Not that it matters, but I generally appreciate your bluntness. I don't believe I've ever even intimated that you should modify your speech or behavior for *any* reason. Nor would I. It's not my business. Full stop.
What I'm telling you is that (read the links I posted if you like, I think you'll find them illuminating) you're flat wrong on the science.
Make of that what you will. It's no skin off my nose either way, Buzzard.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday May 05 2017, @02:51PM (8 children)
I don't personally care about what science has to say about how people choose to view themselves, because I don't care how people choose to view themselves. What I'm saying is pick a different word, you can't have this one; it's already in use.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Funny) by NotSanguine on Friday May 05 2017, @03:04PM (1 child)
Gender on rye, with swiss cheese and mustard.
That was a helluva gender last night, wasn't it?
I've been gendering about that for weeks!
So many genders, so little time.
If you get a gender, you should make sure you really want it. They're hard to remove.
Have a great gender, Buzzard!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday May 05 2017, @06:46PM
That could work if 22nd century technology allows "transhumans" to change gender daily.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday May 05 2017, @04:40PM
I don't personally care about what science has to say
Uh oh! I think I've heard that before. Anyway, it has become a disturbing trend
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 05 2017, @05:01PM (2 children)
I don't personally care about what science has to say...
You don't care what the science says.
You don't care what the dictionary says.
Yet, you accuse others of playing fast-and-loose with definitions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @05:35PM
The dictionary is biased and liberal. It does not reflect the modern understanding of the word.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 06 2017, @03:58PM
He is a turd, the remains of dead animals eaten by an ugly bird. He is a mighty piece of crap!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 06 2017, @01:03AM (1 child)
What I'm saying is pick a different word, you can't have this one; it's already in use.
Who made you the word police?
You obviously care, very, very much.
Why?
What is it to you if other people use a word in a way that has nothing to do with you?
As an individualist above all else, you seem to be oddly over-invested in the collective usage of a word.
Why are you unable to say, "fine, have your stupid definition" and then go on living your life never using the definition that you find so offensive?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 08 2017, @02:44AM
Hi, you must be new here. Let me fill you in on something important to know about me. I like to argue.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Friday May 05 2017, @02:58PM (2 children)
In many languages, all nouns, including inanimate objects, are arbitrarily assigned to have a certain gender. In some languages, there are more than two genders to which nouns are assigned. When taking the relevant classes, this information was always phrased as "Latin has three genders" and never as "Latin has three sexes". Gender and sex do not have identical meanings in standard English.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday May 05 2017, @03:35PM (1 child)
Good points but I have a nit to pick.
In some languages, there are more than two genders to which nouns are assigned.
Isn't neuter more accurately described as an absence of gender, rather than a third gender?
Hell, for some wacky reason the German word for "girl" is neuter (das Mädchen).
The bottom line is that we should not confuse the name 'gender' for biological sex, because grammatical gender is merely a way for partitioning reality into different sets of things on a grammatical basis.
- are there languages with more than 3 genders [quora.com] (yeah okay hardly a reputable source lol)
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday May 05 2017, @05:59PM
Isn't neuter more accurately described as an absence of gender, rather than a third gender?
No, that comes from confusing grammatical gender with sex.
Gender etymologically [etymonline.com] is related to genre and ultimately to Latin genus. It just means "class" of things. That's it. It used to just mean grammatical classification. In English it came to have reference to male/female sex in the 15th century, but it wasn't until the 20th century that it really became strongly associated with that (and even then, it was originally used as a sort of humorous way of saying "sex" once "sex" became more of a "dirty word" in polite conversation).
Anyhow, historically and etymologically, gender was primarily a classification scheme for words, not a reference to biological sex. As such, neuter words definitely have a gender, i.e., classification.
(Score: 5, Informative) by butthurt on Friday May 05 2017, @03:00PM (6 children)
Oxford University Press is apparently fully SJW-converged. Its first definition of "gender":
1 Either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female. [...]
-- https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gender [oxforddictionaries.com]
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday May 05 2017, @03:08PM (5 children)
--https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sex
Multiple dictionaries say the same thing. Gosh, those SJWs are everywhere!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @09:07PM (4 children)
There is a lot of irony in your embrace of the range of definitions of gender and your hardcore insistence on the narrow usage of the term "race."
I'm sure you've got some rationalization why the same dictionary is correct for one word and incorrect for another.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday May 05 2017, @09:42PM (3 children)
There is a lot of irony in your embrace of the range of definitions of gender and your hardcore insistence on the narrow usage of the term "race."
I'm sure you've got some rationalization why the same dictionary is correct for one word and incorrect for another.
Yup. Because I said so. Life is wonderful, isn't it?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 06 2017, @01:31AM (2 children)
Yup. Because I said so. Life is wonderful, isn't it?
Looks like you and buzzard are in complete harmony.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday May 06 2017, @01:44AM (1 child)
Yup. Because I said so. Life is wonderful, isn't it?
Looks like you and buzzard are in complete harmony.
If somone's going to whinge like a six year old, they're going to get the standard mommy response.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 06 2017, @02:09PM
If somone's going to whinge like a six year old, they're going to get the standard mommy response.
Haha. When the might dummy does it, he's a 6-year old princess stamping his foot.
When you do it you are a mommy.
Your cognitive dissonance is showing.
(Score: 1) by Weasley on Friday May 05 2017, @03:20PM (1 child)
You can say it as much as you like but it's never going to be true.
I was agreeing with you but you're just sounding foolish now. Gay used to mean happy. Now it means homosexual and using gay to mean happy is extremely archaic. This change happened quickly. It could happen just as quick with gender.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 08 2017, @02:46AM
This response makes me incredibly gay.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday May 05 2017, @10:15PM
I guess I agree:
After thinking a bit about it, I don't call it a gender issue: I'd call it a way of thinking.
I think of myself as a male, and my body agrees.
If my body didn't agree, then I would say my gender is female, but I consider my brain male (or neuter??)
I guess I look at body as gender,but way of thinking is different from gender.
I just don't look as gender as anything but sex, I guess.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @01:31PM
Thank you. I would add that most people born with XXY chromosome anomalies have a male phenotype and that in these instances we are discussing rare congenital conditions and not genders.
Now we get to the crux of the matter, the aggressive normalisation and promotion of non-binary nonsense to the extent that children are being raised as gender neutral. That is everyone's business because in many cases, it is clear psychological abuse. Individuals suffering from gender dysphoria are rare, the more vociferous individuals attempting to bully others into favoured pronoun usage appear to be these gender non-conformity types.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @11:57AM (1 child)
xxy and yyx Are NOT genders. They are medical conditions.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @02:05PM
Being alive is a medical condition. Although it is fortunately temporary.
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Friday May 05 2017, @12:38PM (2 children)
So because a womb screws up and exposes a female fetus to a little more testosterone suddenly sex is a made up concept?
Because albinos prove that skin color is a social construct.
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday May 05 2017, @03:09PM (1 child)
sex in individual, gender is social. (hand-waving a lot there).
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday May 05 2017, @10:17PM
All this talk about sex is making me want to do some hand waving too, lol.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 5, Insightful) by theluggage on Friday May 05 2017, @01:36PM (6 children)
There have been cross dressers, butch women, lady-boys and all manner of other ways we define ourselves as long as there have been humans.
First, I'm pretty sure that a significant proportion of cross-dressers don't consider themselves to actually belong to the sex they impersonate (AFAIK even being gay isn't compulsory) and that even fewer women who might, for one reason or another, find themselves (offensively) labelled as "butch" consider themselves to be male. Actual transgenderism (is that a word?) may be connected with such things, but it isn't the same - and while the phenomenon may be older than humanity, the wide social acceptance that people are entitled to choose their gender independently of what sexual organs they were born with is a phenomenon of the last couple of decades. This has created a requirement for separate terms for "biological gender" and "social gender" where none existed in the past. Biology may not have changed, but society has.
There is a difference between biological "sex" and cultural "gender".
However there's no clear consensus on the vocabulary - "sex = biological, gender=cultural" might be a sensible to adopt some such convention going forward, there's certainly no justification for going back and censoring 20-year-old videos that don't use your preferred terminology.
Still others have XXY chromosome sets. Often, despite the Y chromosome, such people are women. If someone has a Y chromosome, yet has female genitalia, how does that comport with your conception of sex vs. gender?
It just goes to show that reality is always more complex than high school science - but you have to start somewhere because the simplistic observations lay the groundwork for more sophisticated models: After the discovery of general relativity and quantum mechanics, nobody went back and airbrushed Newton and Mendeleev from recorded history - they weren't wrong they were incomplete and the thinking behind them was still of value.
Anyway, all of these "nature vs. nurture/biology vs. culture" arguments have two big failings: first, they assume that there is a distinction line between the two (basically a hangover from the religious conceit that we have a soul that is somehow more than the product of our physical nature - and that our culture is something other than the product of our biology) and, secondly, it's all non-falsifiable because it is almost impossible to test experimentally without committing ethical atrocities.
Maybe in the future there will be a complete biological model explaining the 256 gender types identified by social science. For the moment, the best option might be to let people self-identifiy.
Shall we deny that small percentage of those who wish to choose differently their personal agency to think and choose for themselves?
I see no evidence that the GP was opposing this, just objecting to the retconning of the language and censoring of perfectly valid (if simplified) science because it failed the buzzword test. This is what stirs up some of the division on these issues: the presumption that someone who isn't quite pro-active enough in using your preferred terminology is actually showing intolerance. If you accuse everybody who disagrees with you of bigotry, soon only bigots will disagree with you.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday May 05 2017, @02:24PM (3 children)
However there's no clear consensus on the vocabulary - "sex = biological, gender=cultural" might be a sensible to adopt some such convention going forward, there's certainly no justification for going back and censoring 20-year-old videos that don't use your preferred terminology.
In my initial post [soylentnews.org] I commented that I thought it was a bad idea to censor prior work.
In fact, I'm pretty anti-censorship in general.
My reference to cross-dressing, etc. was more to point out that culture plays a role in gender identification. Biology also plays a role. And new research is pointing out that during pregnancy brains can develop in conflicting ways from the body. There is no religious bias (at least not from me). I reject the concept of dualism as a ridiculous anachronism.
Making a human is a complex undertaking. From the chemistry of conception, to the incredibly complex interplay of cellular growth and replication modulated by many enzymes and hormones, to the socialization and environment of the individual.
For the most part, I think we're in violent agreement. We can disagree as to nomenclature if you like.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Informative) by theluggage on Friday May 05 2017, @03:09PM (2 children)
To be fair, having gone back and looked at the context for the original video, the main focus of the show is probability, not biology, which makes "censoring" a little more forgivable.
Trouble is, how the hell do you introduce probability to kids when the interesting real world examples are all about gambling, sex or death? As someone who has actually worked on educational materials I can attest to this being a headache: we know that using entirely dry/abstract/contrived contexts for science and math turns kids off and deprives them of educational opportunities, bringing the real world into the classroom engages kids and improves their learning but opens a minefield of sensitivities: Try even stocking the imaginary school shop with items that 5/6-year-olds might realistically buy that are healthy, eco-friendly, gender neutral, race neutral, social-class neutral, hypo-allergenic, don't promote specific products or brands and cost less than 99c (because adding numbers over 100 isn't on the curriculum until next year). The kids are gonna get sick of apples.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday May 05 2017, @11:55PM (1 child)
To be fair, having gone back and looked at the context for the original video, the main focus of the show is probability, not biology, which makes "censoring" a little more forgivable.
A fair point. However (given that I haven't read TFA or watched the video -- informed discourse at its best, FTW!), I have a problem with censorship in general. I think an addendum or inserting *additional* footage would have been preferable to censoring the original.
Trouble is, how the hell do you introduce probability to kids when the interesting real world examples are all about gambling, sex or death? As someone who has actually worked on educational materials I can attest to this being a headache: we know that using entirely dry/abstract/contrived contexts for science and math turns kids off and deprives them of educational opportunities, bringing the real world into the classroom engages kids and improves their learning but opens a minefield of sensitivities: Try even stocking the imaginary school shop with items that 5/6-year-olds might realistically buy that are healthy, eco-friendly, gender neutral, race neutral, social-class neutral, hypo-allergenic, don't promote specific products or brands and cost less than 99c (because adding numbers over 100 isn't on the curriculum until next year). The kids are gonna get sick of apples.
Another good point. Although I would point out that even apples are problematic, given pesticides and GMO strains [scienceblogs.com].
In fact, there isn't anything except mom (but you can't have more than one, so that's right out) and apple pie (those damn apples again! so I guess not) that you can use for this stuff.
More seriously, it's an interesting problem. Perhaps creators of such materials could, you know, talk to young kids and get a sense of how they view such things to give them ideas as to the types of examples and comparisons to use.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Saturday May 06 2017, @02:32PM
In fact, there isn't anything except mom
Little Alex's mommy went to hospital and is now ver "other daddy" you insensitive clod!
More seriously, it's an interesting problem. Perhaps creators of such materials could, you know, talk to young kids and get a sense of how they view such things to give them ideas as to the types of examples and comparisons to use.
They do. Except, its not the young kids that are filtering what you can talk about in the classroom for "triggers" - its the teachers, superintendents and upwards who are terrified and tend to turn sensible "guidelines" into iron rules.
I suspect that you could have a great science lesson on genetics vs. gender that would elicit surprisingly mature discussions from the kids and teach everybody (including the teacher) a lot about science and tolerance. However, it would be a very, very brave teacher that would tackle it and run the subsequent gauntlet of complaints from parents (often based on incomplete responses to 'what did you do at school today?')
(Score: 4, Informative) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday May 05 2017, @03:22PM (1 child)
Gender only became synonymous with sex after sex reassignment became available in the mid-20th century.
- Definition of gender in English [oxforddictionaries.com]
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Friday May 05 2017, @05:22PM
"Although the words gender and sex are often used interchangeably"
...is the salient point there unless you're an etymologist.
Rather boringly, though, having looked at the video in question neither the words "gender" or "sex" feature prominently so we're all arguing over a straw person here... It is "boy" and "girl" but it is clear from the context that they're talking about biological sex. It's also a very short slot about probability that certainly doesn't pretend to be a comprehensive lesson in genetics, so the question is, is it OK to refer to biological sex without always appending an explanation of modern thinking on gender identity?
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday May 05 2017, @05:28PM (2 children)
My problem is: I'm old (well, 50's).
I hear that some people are supposed to be called 'they' or 'them'.
If i see a her, i'll probably say 'her', same with a guy: AND, just like if you look like a girl and i call you a guy: don't be offended.... i made a mistake.
If i call you a her and you are a 'them', don't be offended. I am not used to this.
Just like it used to be okay to call someone a 'nigger' and then black and then coloured and now whatever.....
It will take time to work through the system. Kids growing up with this will see it as normal.
For now, there should be calm and understanding.
As for rednecks/haters/Nazis etc who will never change, well, ignorance and stupidity will never change either, lol.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday May 05 2017, @05:29PM
"AND, just like if you look like a girl and i call you a guy"
damn... shoulda been "if you look like a girl and you ARE a guy and i call you a girl"
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 06 2017, @02:13PM
> Just like it used to be okay to call someone a 'nigger' and then black and then coloured and now whatever.....
It was never okay to call someone the n-word.
Seriously, it was never a neutral term.
Its just that black people didn't have the social capital to do anything about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @08:16PM
Still others have XXY chromosome sets. Often, despite the Y chromosome, such people are women. If someone has a Y chromosome, yet has female genitalia, how does that comport with your conception of sex vs. gender?
Some people are born without a brain due to genetic deformities. How does that affect your perception about the definition of a human?
Abnormal chromosome sets are obviously errors, where as gender defines the normal state. People who have them have an abnormal gender. This has no relevance to the situation where a person with the XY set claims to be female, when we can objectively determine beyond any doubt that they are in fact male. Meanwhile, we cannot objectively determine their gender identity because there is no objective factor by which to distinguish an XY "woman" and an XY "man".
The concept of gender identity is pseudo-science drivel, the only basis for it is feel-good pretense. Congratulations, you've reinvented religion.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday May 05 2017, @08:18PM (4 children)
Don't bother. I've presented this shithead documented evidence of gender-variant individuals going back to Sumerian--not Babylonian, *Sumerian*--times, and the only responses I got were personal attacks and insistent repetition that this is still "redefining words." Because as we all know, something that happened 5000+ years ago is something "SJWs" are doing right now, specifically to victimize Uzzard personally.
The guy's nuts.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @10:45PM
No dude, intersex is not the same as transgender. Those born with a Y chromosome and female genitalia are infertile because their gender is male. We don't stigmatise them, we support them -- like the rest of us they deserve the chance to be the best they can be. People born XX or XY who want to change gender... there are two biological genders and it is not possible to change gender, only sex. Stop pretending otherwise.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday May 06 2017, @12:00AM (2 children)
Don't bother. I've presented this shithead documented evidence of gender-variant individuals going back to Sumerian--not Babylonian, *Sumerian*--times, and the only responses I got were personal attacks and insistent repetition that this is still "redefining words." Because as we all know, something that happened 5000+ years ago is something "SJWs" are doing right now, specifically to victimize Uzzard personally.
The guy's nuts.
Buzzard is emphatically not nuts. He is, however, somewhat set in his ways and not as well-informed as he thinks.
More importantly, he loves getting folks all worked up. When you call him out, he doubles down to see if he can get a rise out of you. He manages to do so with you on a regular basis. As long as you let him push your buttons, he's a happy camper.
tl;dr: Buzzard isn't dumb or crazy. He just has different ideas about the world than you do, and loves to bait.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 06 2017, @01:38AM (1 child)
tl;dr: Buzzard isn't dumb or crazy. He just has different ideas about the world than you do, and loves to bait.
You give him waaaaay more credit than he deserves.
The guy is deeply passive aggressive.
Its not the baiting he likes so much as it is the endorphin rush of smug he gets when he thinks he's shown his own righteousness by proving hypocrisy on the part of people he doesn't like.
And when that backfires, as it did in this submission, he goes full retard. Just look at all his posts that are nothing more than princess foot-stamping declarations that he's right no matter what. Its not a stretch to define that kind of reaction as both dumb and crazy. And it happens a lot.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday May 06 2017, @04:25AM
^ Thiiiiiiiiiiiis. I wish I could mod this like +10 so it becomes something everyone sees once on their first login or something.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...