New trans laws

[Aris Katsaris]

You are literally telling me that what I said is that what I am arguing for is the need to oppress gay people. You didn't argue that it's an unintended conclusion of what I wrote, you're saying that I SAID IT. Since there is no conceivable way you could believe I wrote that, my only conclusion is you are lying about what I said in order to...to do what? I won't put up with it. I don't know why you're pretending that what I wrote is so hard to understand. I don't trust your motives any more. I'll avoid you for a while now, thanks.

You first got upset and called me dishonest because I did NOT immediately get that you meant "for purposes of societal oppression" when I asked what the supposed usefulness is for the usage of the term "homosexual" in law, and now you get upset and call me dishonest for accepting your claim that you indeed meant "for purposes of societal oppression".

So I no longer know what the bleeping heck you meant, or if you meant anything at all, or if you're pretending at a meaning, or if you're pretending at getting offended -- all I know is that when I asked you what you meant you called me dishonest because I didn't get that you meant X,and when I restated the X you said you meant, you again called me dishonest because obviously you couldn't have meant that X you just said you meant.

We can't communicate -- either because you're utterly UTTERLY dishonest, or because of mental insufficiencies (in you or me or both), or both of the above.

[Fenring]

You first got upset and called me dishonest because I did NOT immediately get that you meant "for purposes of societal oppression" when I asked what the supposed usefulness is for the usage of the term "homosexual" in law, and now you get upset and call me dishonest for accepting your claim that you indeed meant "for purposes of societal oppression".

Is there a rule on this site about people intentionally attributing malicious statements to other people that they did not make?

[Aris Katsaris]

Fenring said

they're muddy terms but needed to solve practical issues in both the dating scene as well as in matters of law

I asked:

"In matters of law"? I don't see any reason that the labels hetero/gay are needed in matters of law, or for that matter why trans/cis would be needed in matters of law either.

Fenring said

Are you playing dumb to win an argument or something? You are really unaware that in many (and historically, most) places it was illegal to conduct oneself as a homosexual?

I summarize:

So when you said that the label "homosexual" (or gay) is needed to solve practical issues in both the dating scene as well as in matters of law, you meant that it's *needed* when the law is designed to solve the "practical isssue" of how to oppress gay people.

Well, excuse me, but I actually thought that you meant there was some matter of law where it's actually supposedly *good* and *useful* for the label to exist. That was the whole point of the paragraph, and since I couldn't think of one, I was reasonably confused when you spoke about the usefulness of the term in matters of law.

So, okay, I concede the point: It's useful for tyrannical evil regimes that want to oppress people, to use the term "homosexual" in matters of law.

----

So can someone (someone other than Fenring), explain what I'm supposedly getting wrong in what Fenring is saying?

The way I see the above discussion Fenring said the terms are needed to solve practical matters in matters of law. When I asked, he explained (and was indignant that I needed to ask) that he was talking about the legal oppression of gay people, and that's what he meant. Then I restated it, and he got upset again.

What am I *censored*ing misunderstanding? Someone other than Fenring, please.

[jc44]

So can someone (someone other than Fenring), explain what I'm supposedly getting wrong in what Fenring is saying?

The way I see the above discussion Fenring said the terms are needed to solve practical matters in matters of law. When I asked, he explained (and was indignant that I needed to ask) that he was talking about the legal oppression of gay people, and that's what he meant. Then I restated it, and he got upset again.

What am I *censored*ing misunderstanding? Someone other than Fenring, please.

I can't read anyone's mind, but I can see that the term "homosexual" would be useful in law in lists of things that it is illegal to discriminate against or to convert an "ordinary" crime into a hate crime.  So good for striking down the sort of laws given in the example.  It does not seem implausible to me that that is what Fenring meant. His initial phrasing suggests to me that he wasn't in favour of the oppression, and given he knew that he couldn't then comprehend that you didn't know it too - I have found that if you know what you meant when you wrote something it is often terribly hard to work out why anyone else can't see that.

[TheDeamon]

Responses violent enough to justify documentation are arguably not justified in any case. But on the flip side, I could see a legitimate basis for the person who thought they were meeting someone whose equipment matched their presented gender to claim they were potentially warding off what suddenly turned into a sexual assault in their eyes.

I wonder would you feel the same ("see a legitimate basis"), if a woman violently attacked a man, if the man they thought they were meeting was wearing a wig in all the photos' they sent but was in reality bald, and the woman suddenly so realizes the guy is bald?

That suddenly becomes a sexual assault (they were going on a date with someone they thought had a full set of fair), so by the same argument, so there's a "legitimate basis" to claim the woman was "potentially warding off what turned into sexual assault in her eyes"?

False equivalence. The presence, or absence, of a full head of hair has no meaningful impact on the sexual interactions of most people. Although I will acknowledge that there may be people with a specific enough "kink" that the wig would seriously be a make or break deal for them, they're very much the outlier. Of course, trans-persons are outliers in most respects to start with as well. (It isn't until you start merging "non-conforming gender-roles" with "trans people" that you start to swell their ranks)

Gender roles are not gender identity.

But getting back to your question. A "better framing" for the scenario in question would probably be more comparable to your hooking up with a hot date for the night and you go back to their place, only for them to lead you into "a play room" straight out of 50 Shades of Grey, and they try to restrain you from leaving because "it's perfectly normal" so far as they're concerned and "nothing for you to freak out over."

[TheDrake]

Regarding consent, etc. You can solve that problem by posting a sign "trans individuals are welcome in this locker room, as a result you might glimpse a penis". But that's never the proposed solution, the proposed solution is "we can't allow trans individuals into that locker room". It's also only about terrible predatory men, we don't hear about how awful it might be if someone caught a glimpse of a vagina in the men's room. It's a weird juxtaposition that extreme feminists and anti-trans individuals appear to agree that being in ownership of a penis means you are a rapist waiting in the wings and we must make rules to guard against you.

You can even codify that if you want to, California already has a hundred different things that people are required to post in establishments, from "employees must wash hands" to "beware: carcinogens!"

Meanwhile, most sexual crimes are committed by people known to the individual in question. You should be more worried about a kid's uncle or teacher than somebody lurking in the spa bathroom.

[Aris Katsaris]

So can someone (someone other than Fenring), explain what I'm supposedly getting wrong in what Fenring is saying?

The way I see the above discussion Fenring said the terms are needed to solve practical matters in matters of law. When I asked, he explained (and was indignant that I needed to ask) that he was talking about the legal oppression of gay people, and that's what he meant. Then I restated it, and he got upset again.

What am I *censored*ing misunderstanding? Someone other than Fenring, please.

I can't read anyone's mind, but I can see that the term "homosexual" would be useful in law in lists of things that it is illegal to discriminate against or to convert an "ordinary" crime into a hate crime.  So good for striking down the sort of laws given in the example.  It does not seem implausible to me that that is what Fenring meant. His initial phrasing suggests to me that he wasn't in favour of the oppression, and given he knew that he couldn't then comprehend that you didn't know it too - I have found that if you know what you meant when you wrote something it is often terribly hard to work out why anyone else can't see that.

Except, read the quotes: when I asked what he meant by "needed to solve practical matters in matters of law" he said "You are really unaware that in many (and historically, most) places it was illegal to conduct oneself as a homosexual?"

So he doesn't seem to be talking about it being needed so that the law makes it illegal for civilians to discriminate against homosexual people, he (clearly, and utterly unambiguously to me) seemed to be talking about it being needed by the law so that it could be made illegal to "conduct oneself as a homosexual".

This has in turn nothing to do with whether Fenring approves or disapproves of the law doing this -- I didn't claim he approved of the law doing that. At most I condemned his bile at me for simply not immediately understanding that when he said "needed" he meant "it is needed by evil people in order that they do an evil thing", since usually that's not the implied usage of the word needed. (When we say that something is needed without specifying an actor, we usually mean needed by good people to do good things instead)

If he was talking about anti-discrimination legislation it would have made better sense if he had said "Are you really unaware that in many places there's anti-discrimination legislation?", rathan than speak about the many places where homosexuality is illegal.

[oldbrian]

TheDeamon:

A "better framing" for the scenario in question would probably be more comparable to your hooking up with a hot date for the night and you go back to their place, only for them to lead you into "a play room" straight out of 50 Shades of Grey, and they try to restrain you from leaving[/b] because "it's perfectly normal" so far as they're concerned and "nothing for you to freak out over."

   emphasis mine

Are you happy with the way you 'framed' this?  Do you want to maybe re-edit it for clarity?

[Aris Katsaris]

and they try to restrain you from leaving

If they try to restrain you from leaving, and you're merely using violence to free yourself from a captor who's trying to keep you captive against your wishes -- then why is anything else relevant in this situation, being cis or trans, having a bondage room or an ordinary bedroom, producing expected or unexpected genitalia?

In any of these cases the usage of violence would be legitimate, in order to free yourself from a captor.

[TheDeamon]

TheDeamon:

A "better framing" for the scenario in question would probably be more comparable to your hooking up with a hot date for the night and you go back to their place, only for them to lead you into "a play room" straight out of 50 Shades of Grey, and they try to restrain you from leaving[/b] because "it's perfectly normal" so far as they're concerned and "nothing for you to freak out over."

   emphasis mine

Are you happy with the way you 'framed' this?  Do you want to maybe re-edit it for clarity?

It was the "quick" option, as the other option is they follow you out of the room and start calling you names and other things while you're in the process of trying to leave. And the "restraint" in this case, even though the context was BDSM, was just physically obstructing your path, not physical contact.

[oldbrian]

TheDeamon:
So you are indeed equating finding out something unexpected with being blocked from leaving an uncomfortable situation.

Interesting.

[TheDeamon]

TheDeamon:
So you are indeed equating finding out something unexpected with being blocked from leaving an uncomfortable situation.

Interesting.

Well, alternate option is you invited them into your own home, and they're refusing to leave.

Also keep in mind that most people aren't going to be very rational when presented with that scenario. Doesn't justify outright physical violence, but it certainly informs what they're encountering. But when there are trans-persons who want to treat any negative response to such a "surprise" as being the abnormal thing. They're setting themselves up for more of the same. And an awareness campaign that will never end, because no matter what they try to claim, such experiences are not normal in most venues.

[oldbrian]

But the initial situation that Drake theorized was not in any way coercive.  You changed it to not only a shocking revelation (I'm into BDSM!) but also into coercion (no, you can't leave).  And then held onto that coercion when it was pointed out that the two are very different things.

So, it being a metaphor, you are comparing 'gay panic' or 'trans panic' with the natural self-defense impulse of a person under coercion.  IE, that it is perfectly understandable, and even a natural right, to defend yourself with violence when the girl you are chatting up in the bar reveals that she is trans.

Also, 'not rational in that situation' does not automatically equal 'getting violent', which was the whole point of the example.  That people seem to think something kinky is an attack on them personally, rather than a weird thing that they are just not into.

[TheDeamon]

But the initial situation that Drake theorized was not in any way coercive.  You changed it to not only a shocking revelation (I'm into BDSM!) but also into coercion (no, you can't leave).  And then held onto that coercion when it was pointed out that the two are very different things.

The initial situation theorized, and I was the originator, as I recall. Was basically that you went to a bar and picked up a one night stand(longer term relationship scenarios are possible, in which case you've progressed into the "having sex stage" instead). You have moved things into an appropriate venue for the relevant activities. Then the pants(or equivalent) come off, and "the equipment revealed" doesn't match the gender you thought you were getting hot and heavy with just moments before.

How is that not "a shocking revelation" in your book? While progressing from foreplay to actual sex is not the time to be learning about such things. "Jilted lover" type responses are almost to be expected at that point.

I would also expect a strong negative response if someone sprung an already equipped BDSM sex-play room on their partner out of the blue in the context of a relationship where it has never come up before.

And as for the "no you can't leave" in the context of the Transperson vs the BDSM person who is going "Wait, just let me explain" (because they know they're not mainstream, and could face public ridicule if word gets out) is that the Transperson will instead call you nasty names, compare you to Nazis, and threaten you with legal action because they're part of a protected minority group.

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-42652947

[oldbrian]

Got it.  When you said ' back to your question [Drake]. A better framing would be...'  I thought you were reframing his metaphor, but you were actually reframing yours.

So then the only question is what you meant by 'legitimate response'
Is the Jilted Lover response a valid excuse for turning violent?  I know a couple of trans people and my understanding is that you always let the other know before it goes that far, just to avoid these situations.  Just like telling the cop that you have a weapon in the car when you get pulled over.
It is possible for both parties to be in the wrong.


ETA:
from your bbc article:

"If you have a trans woman who transitions very early on, she may be physically identical to a cis woman at a surface level."

A "cis woman" or "cisgendered" person is someone whose gender identity matches the one they were born with.

This is the only usage of 'cis' I have ever seen, although I admit to being very isolated social media-wise.  Basically Ornery and facebook and I have only a few 'friends' on FB.  just to explain my position in the whole 'cis is only used as an insult' thing earlier.

[Fenring]

This is the only usage of 'cis' I have ever seen, although I admit to being very isolated social media-wise.  Basically Ornery and facebook and I have only a few 'friends' on FB.  just to explain my position in the whole 'cis is only used as an insult' thing earlier.

Probably depends on your friend and association network. I've heard it used countless times by now.

[wmLambert]

The only science abut this is XX or XY. All else is political raving.

[TheDeamon]

The only science abut this is XX or XY. All else is political raving.

XX Male Syndrome would disagree with you, although that has an estimate incidence rate of 1:20,000 among males. The most common form of it (about 80% of cases) involve the SRY Gene being expressed on the X Chromosome, when it is only supposed to be found on the Y Chromosome. (The SRY Gene is the one that triggers development of a penis)

[msquared]

TheDeamon

Remember God only created Man and Woman. No other options are allowed.

[TheDeamon]

TheDeamon

Remember God only created Man and Woman. No other options are allowed.

Well, tell that to the people with XX chromosomes who were born with a penis. 

[msquared]

In case you couldn't tell I was sort of parodying the extreme religious view that there are only XX and XY.

[Wayward Son]

The only science about this is XX or XY. All else is political raving.

You're ignorance of science is quite extensive, I see.  Why don't you try learning a little before spouting out nonsense.

[Fenring]

The only science about this is XX or XY. All else is political raving.

You're ignorance of science is quite extensive, I see.  Why don't you try learning a little before spouting out nonsense.

It seems quite typical that people here post links as if to slam dunk their interlocutors, when in fact reading the link seems to undermine the certain position they were presenting. Note that I am referring only to this link and not to any other general knowledge base:

At this point, this organ is called the bipotential gonad — it is identical in males and females. Two genes, Fgf9 and Wnt4, teeter in a balanced antagonistic relationship — Wnt4 suppresses Fgf9, and Fgf9 suppresses Wnt4 — in the bipotential gonad, and anything that might tip the balance between them will trigger development of one sex or the other. A mutation that breaks Fgf9, for instance, gives Wnt4 an edge, and the gonad will develop into an ovary; a mutation that breaks Wnt4 will let Fgf9 dominate the relationship, and the gonad will develop into a testis (with a note of caution: the changes will initiate differentiation into one gonad or the other, but there are other steps downstream that can also vary).

[...]

So far, then, we’ve got a nice little Rube Goldberg machine and an epistatic pathway. Sf1/Wt1 and other early genes induce the formation of a urogenital ridge and an ambiguous gonad; Sry upregulates Sox9 which upregulates Fgf9 which suppresses Wnt4, turning off the ovarian pathway and turning on the testis pathway.

[...]

The Sertoli cells produce AMH, or anti-Müllerian Hormone, which is responsible for causing the female ducts of the reproductive system to degenerate in males (if you don’t remember the difference between Müllerian and Wolffian and that array of tubes that get selected for survival in the different sexes, here’s a refresher). Defects in the AMH system lead to persistent female ducts: you get males with partial ovaries and undescended testicles.

[...]

Just to complicate matters, while testosterone is the signal that regulates the male ducts, testosterone must be converted to dihydrotestosterone (DHT), the signal that regulates development of the external genitalia. Defects in the enzyme responsible for this conversion can lead to individuals with male internal plumbing, including testes, but female external genitalia. Sex isn’t all or nothing, but a whole series of switches!

I think that's enough for now. The author is pretty specific that there's a rube goldberg machine at work, with multiple switches where processes trigger other processes. This is not a refutation of the premise that XX/XY are the 'normal' sexual outcomes, because that premise does not require a premise that arriving at the final recipe is a one-step simple process. Who would ever argue that in the first place? And note throughout that when the process goes in a different direction, resulting in results other than the typical, he refers to it as defects in the system. Well I don't think anyone would ever suggest that a system never has defects. It's like talking about whether it's normal to have two hands and two feet, and arguing that this is completely false because some people are born without hands or feet. The presence of defects in formation is a trivial thing to bring up in a discussion of what the system is set up to produce. Now if you had linked an article showing that unusual sexual results are a feature rather than a bug, that would be a different story.

[TheDeamon]

The only science about this is XX or XY. All else is political raving.

You're ignorance of science is quite extensive, I see.  Why don't you try learning a little before spouting out nonsense.

While I was having fun lampooning Lambert's comment, he wasn't far from the mark all the same. As I pointed out with respect to the "XX Males" they are exceedingly rare, roughly 1 in 20,000 males. (Which means roughly about 1 in 40,000 of the general population) Further, for most of those 1 in 20,000 men, they identify as male, not trans.

While the science does clearly demonstrate that there are a great many developmental "switches" that are involved in determining the gender someone is born with, and that they do sometimes go wrong. There is no scientific basis to assert the claim that gender is "whatever a person wants it to be" or that there are legitimate biological imperatives driving the actions of most of the people who have decided they're trans. The people who do have clear biological markers that can be identified are in reality an extreme minority and what is being witnessed is several orders of magnitude above and beyond what those supporting numbers would even begin to suggest.

I strongly suspect that what is being witnessed is some kind weird psycho-social response to environmental triggers, and not some hidden genetic trigger in play that was just waiting for its moment to strike.

As a likely psycho-social issue, the question then devolves into what is happening in their environment that is leading to what is being observed. Is is purely social in nature? Or is it something else in their environment, like exposure to certain artificial chemical compounds? (Such as certain reasonably common plastic compounds that have shown some strong correlations to reduced testosterone levels?)

I strongly suspect we're seeing a mix of all of the above, and it is the longer-term implications of a social aspect helping drive things which is of major concern to me. If only because of the reproductive and potential longer-term health implications for the people who get pulled into that social vortex. I guess in some ways, you could argue it is Darwinism working at its finest as "the unworthy" voluntarily remove themselves from the gene pool, but that's also a rather horrific stance to take at the same time.

[Wayward Son]

But, Ferning, in a binary system, where there is only 0 or 1, on or off, male or female, XX or XY, where is there room for defects?? 

You're either male or female, XX or XY, right?  If you're XXX, or if you are XY and have testosterone levels as high as an XX, or if you have gonads for both sexes, are you XX or XY?  Which category do you fit into?  And, most importantly, who decides?

Lambert tells us that science says there is only XX or XY.  That is all there is to it.  If you're XX, you are the male gender.  You like sports and dress in pants and are aggressive and don't wear make-up.  If you are XY you can dress in a dress and are not very aggressive and can wear make-up.  He tells us it's biology.  XX or XY is all you need to know.  There is no room for variation.  No room for an XX to feel like an XY, or vice versa.  No room for girly men or manly women.  Just XX or XY.

What this mini-lecture illustrations is that there is nothing but variations.  With all these steps involved, how often does it happen perfectly?  The defects he lists are just the major ones, the ones that have such a profound influence on the outcome that it is obvious that something did not go correctly.  But think of all the minor defects that can occur.  Ones that aren't immediately obvious, or even detectable in most cases.  Different levels of hormones or different development of the brain.  Ones that may influence a person's personality or perceptions of their own sexuality.

A vast majority of us probably have at least one of these minor defects.  Does that mean then that these minor defects are "features?"

Real science says sex is not binary, but a continuum. Most people, a vast majority, can be divided into the two sexes, if you ignore the subtle differences between individuals in the two categories.  But there are those who still don't fit neatly into either category.  Those with major differences from either sex.  Jamming them into one or the other sex is like jamming a triangle into either a circular or square hole.  Sure, if you use a hammer, you might get them into one hole or the other, but that doesn't mean they should be there or that they fit.

There is far, far more to sex that just XX and XY, according to science.  It is far more complicated than that.  You can't hide behind "science" when you espouse that political position.  Because that fits into science like a triangle into a square hole.

[rightleft22]

I agree with TheDeamon
When discussing gender its important to be specific if your referring to gender-biology and gender-identification.

Gender identification may have very little to do with gender-biology. Unfortunately most of the dialog mix the two which clouds and confuses the issue.

For many I think only the Objective Reality can be allowed to be real as anything Subjective is to messy or fearful to be real. 

Other then the Religious Fundamentalist I wonder how many people really care about others gender identity and or are threatened by it.

[TheDeamon]

Lambert tells us that science says there is only XX or XY.  That is all there is to it.  If you're XX, you are the male gender.  You like sports and dress in pants and are aggressive and don't wear make-up.  If you are XY you can dress in a dress and are not very aggressive and can wear make-up.  He tells us it's biology.  XX or XY is all you need to know.  There is no room for variation.  No room for an XX to feel like an XY, or vice versa.  No room for girly men or manly women.  Just XX or XY.

History tells us that if you pick the right cultures in the right centuries the wearing of Pants would mean you were "dressing like a woman." While the wearing of certain types of "dresses" in modern parlance would have you "dressing like a man" instead. The wearing of high heeled shoes also originated with Butchers, a predominately male profession throughout history. Declaring someone's gender identity based purely on what they like to wear is exceptionally toxic in my book.

Real science says sex is not binary, but a continuum. Most people, a vast majority, can be divided into the two sexes, if you ignore the subtle differences between individuals in the two categories.  But there are those who still don't fit neatly into either category.  Those with major differences from either sex.  Jamming them into one or the other sex is like jamming a triangle into either a circular or square hole.  Sure, if you use a hammer, you might get them into one hole or the other, but that doesn't mean they should be there or that they fit.

[citation needed] Which kind of science is suggesting that "sex is not binary but a continuum" as you claim? If this a biology based study, or some psychology/"social sciences" study group making these findings that you're buying into?

Just because someone has slapped a "science label" onto their profession doesn't make them a scientist. Even if it is in vogue to slap the "science" label onto all kinds of things in various university departments these days. Universities aren't entirely reliable arbiters on that front at times, and they're historically just as likely to get swept up in trends as everyone else. Largely due to their being at the mercy of "their patrons" and money talks. At least until the so-called science in question manages to discredit itself. If a patron is willing to fund it, why are they going to say no to accepting the money? (especially if it is a very large sum of money)

There is far, far more to sex that just XX and XY, according to science.  It is far more complicated than that.  You can't hide behind "science" when you espouse that political position.  Because that fits into science like a triangle into a square hole.

Now are we talking about Sex, gender, or sexuality?

The Biological Sciences are quite clear that we have Male, female, and non-viable reproductive anomalies which typically end up somewhere in between.

The Sexuality side does indeed reflect that there is a whole spectrum in play.

As to gender, well, I already kind of touched on that above. Pick your era, gender roles and norms have little to do with science(beyond the typical physical differentiation that tends to happen involving testosterone resulting in the men typically being larger and physically stronger), and far more to do with the societies in which the people live.

[Wayward Son]

Now if you had linked an article showing that unusual sexual results are a feature rather than a bug, that would be a different story.

Also remember, Fenring, that to the developmental process, there are no features or bugs.  There is just chemistry.  "Feature" and "bugs" are what we assign to the outcome dependent on what we believe is the "proper" outcome.  But the process does not recognize outcome.  It has no intelligence.  It just happens.  Natural selection determines if it a feature or a bug, and that depends to a large extent on the circumstances, aka the environment.

So a "defect" is just as natural as a "correct" process.  It's all the same according to our bodies.

[Wayward Son]

Which kind of science is suggesting that "sex is not binary but a continuum" as you claim? If this a biology based study, or some psychology/"social sciences" study group making these findings that you're buying into?

If you are talking about reproductive ability, then, yes, there is basically only two sexes in humans, male and female.

But there are not exclusively determined by just the XX or XY chromosome.

And I very much doubt that Lambert was limiting himself to only reproductive ability in this thread on trans laws. 

The Sexuality side does indeed reflect that there is a whole spectrum in play. ...

Pick your era, gender roles and norms have little to do with science(beyond the typical physical differentiation that tends to happen involving testosterone resulting in the men typically being larger and physically stronger), and far more to do with the societies in which the people live.

Precisely.

[TheDeamon]

Now if you had linked an article showing that unusual sexual results are a feature rather than a bug, that would be a different story.

Also remember, Fenring, that to the developmental process, there are no features or bugs.  There is just chemistry.  "Feature" and "bugs" are what we assign to the outcome dependent on what we believe is the "proper" outcome.  But the process does not recognize outcome.  It has no intelligence.  It just happens.  Natural selection determines if it a feature or a bug, and that depends to a large extent on the circumstances, aka the environment.

So a "defect" is just as natural as a "correct" process.  It's all the same according to our bodies.

Well, more concerning for me is the rat population experiments that have been carried out in the past. Or the Lemmings as the other example.

Sometimes I have to wonder if some of what we're seeing is some hidden biological switch that is pegged to population densities, and once a certain threshold is reached, the impulse to go (proverbially) charging off a cliff starts to take hold.

You can call that a "feature" if you want to. But if we humans have a series of "lemming genes" just waiting to be activated under the right trigger conditions, I want them found, and turned off.

[Wayward Son]

Fortunately I've heard that the lemming phenomenon was created by the Disney cameramen at the time.  It sounds like it is not a natural occurrence.

I agree, though, that population density may be a factor in homosexuality, as shown by the rat experiments.  Of course, that could be considered just another natural response to the environment.

Bottom line: biology is complex and weird. 

[rightleft22]

I wonder what the role the easy access to Porn is playing in sexuality-identity.  That the watching of porn creates a such a impersonal experience that one detaches the act from traditional notions of sex. The sextual act becoming detached from gender-biology and even gender-identity. Sex as something you do, with no 'meaning' or identification beyond that. 

Sex is not binary, but a continuum....  in the context that sex is not associated with biological gender or even identify but the act.  is Attraction binary or a sexual desire to fornicate with that which we are attracted. Not a either or but a 0. The sextual act a psychological phenomenon with little or no connection to gender?

The current discussion reminds me of 'The Forever War' by Joe Haldeman. The group of soldiers who are sent into space to fight the Taurans and due relativistic time effects four years of military service means that several centuries elapse on earth.  Each time the soldiers return home society norms have changed.  Returning after 2 years their time they discover that to curb overpopulation homosexuality has become officially encouraged by many of the world's nations and heterosexuality is seen a deviant behavior.

[NobleHunter]

Sex as a continuum is part of the continuing realization that earlier scientific efforts to sort biological realities into neat and tidy categories is doomed to failure. Real life rejects all attempts to reduce it to something that fits nicely in a model you can explain to twelve-year-olds. The two-sex model might be more useful that the old one-sex model but tit still doesn't fully describe the human experience.

[TheDrake]

Just because someone has slapped a "science label" onto their profession doesn't make them a scientist. Even if it is in vogue to slap the "science" label onto all kinds of things in various university departments these days. Universities aren't entirely reliable arbiters on that front at times, and they're historically just as likely to get swept up in trends as everyone else. Largely due to their being at the mercy of "their patrons" and money talks. At least until the so-called science in question manages to discredit itself. If a patron is willing to fund it, why are they going to say no to accepting the money? (especially if it is a very large sum of money)

Lots of people are offered large sums of money and routinely turn them down out of integrity, risk/reward analysis, and many other factors. That's like saying, why wouldn't we expect all cops to take bribes?

The peer review system is designed to work against rogue individuals who care only about their own wealth or prestige, though it has its failings currently. We've certainly seen researchers of one cloth or another taking money from Exxon to "prove" global warming isn't happening.

It is far less likely for a University researcher to be swayed in such a manner. It is also true that researchers might come up with questions that have a hard time finding funding. This would certainly be true when there is a wealth of existing information pointing against the researchers hypothesis. If you decided you wanted to run a study to demonstrate that smoking is not detrimental to your health, you would find a hard time getting funding for that. Likewise, if you want to run a study demonstrating that homosexuality is a pathological case, you won't get funding for that. Not because of political correctness or social justice warriors, but because there are sufficient studies of animal populations to demonstrate that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, but it is instead a part of nature.

A bigger question is why we should care about any of these questions? Unless you are a competing athlete, where there is still plenty of room for healthy debate, or an individuals doctor - why should you care how someone else identifies or wants to live their life?

[rightleft22]

why should you care how someone else identifies or wants to live their life

Growing up in the 70's and 80's in a 99% all white religious community where family values and the idea of Sin seems to spend most of its time revolving around the act of sex. Probably a lot of reasons for that that had little to do with biology and more with 'being' chosen' and virtuous, acceptable to God where God = community.   The thing I was taught consciously and unconsciously was to at some level fear sex and the 'other' who didn't.  Sex could not be trusted to be left in the hands of sinners, and sinners in regards to sex were the threating others.

A something more pavlovian then conscious. Nothing like the a perceived threat to ones attachment to identity to get the fear juices flowing and keeping a community inline.

My bet that in 50 years, baring any major economic, war and environment disaster, few will care about how other identify.  Then again a minority religious fanatical views may gain the upper hand and takes us back to the good old days. 

[Fenring]

Also remember, Fenring, that to the developmental process, there are no features or bugs.  There is just chemistry.  "Feature" and "bugs" are what we assign to the outcome dependent on what we believe is the "proper" outcome.  But the process does not recognize outcome.  It has no intelligence.  It just happens.  Natural selection determines if it a feature or a bug, and that depends to a large extent on the circumstances, aka the environment.

Sorry, but this is an absurdly reductionist position - nothing has any purpose, anything goes, since the universe is random. First of all, it is not a "scientitic fact" that nothing happens for any reason. It's just one of the possibilities, but the one you are hanging your hat on despite there being no evidence that it's correct. So to argue that there are no features or bugs, just chemistry, already assumes a bunch of stuff not in evidence. But putting aside the onolotogical realities of the universe (or the metaphysics of it), you are also playing a motte and bailey game with the phrase "it just happens", as if you're pretending to place no value judgement on one outcome versus another. By your logic, eyes are not "for seeing" since that's a purpose-oriented definition, therefore there's nothing wrong with eyes that can't see, that's just another element in the wonderful spectrum of the varieties of people out there. This is essentially the position you're taking in regard to the article you yourself linked, where the author describes certain outcomes (that you are calling a "continuum of sex") as defective processes. The final destination of your argument is that since there is an infinite variety of mutations a human can have, and a near-infinite amount of things that can go wrong in processes, that there is no right or wrong outcome for any human system, just variety. If this is your position then I would argue it is as far from science and also as far from common sense as an argument could possibly get. It's a postmodern nightmare of redefining everything into just an opinion.

So a "defect" is just as natural as a "correct" process.  It's all the same according to our bodies.

Everything is "natural", your argument is semantically absent of content in this case. By calling something "natural" and treating that as if it somehow lends credibility to an outcome, you're just saying that if something exists then it's all the same "to our bodies". Well no one who lives actually agrees with that, including you, so not sure where you think this type of argument can lead.

As others have mentioned, that sexual preference can have a continuum is not only a reasonable proposition but it's almost obvious. People have known that for centuries or more. That gender can have a spectrum is not really something we "know" but rather something that has been decided, since the entire premise is based on definitions. Change definitions and sure, you can make claims about gender that accord with the other claims made within the same definition system. That's not empirical, though, as TheDeamon points out. But regarding biological sex, no, it's not a continuum. Your own article points out as much through its flowchart of discrete system elements. And it's not even a spread of sexes, so much as a spread out potential outcomes when the binary system tries to play itself out. This is much like any system that is set up to reach a destination but can potentially go elsewhere if things are messed up. It's like regulation of neurotransmitters: someone with a deficiency can have severe bad effects. Trying to claim that this isn't actually a problem but is rather just part of a spectrum of brain setups, is confusing levels of analysis. At the atomic level none of it is 'wrong', it's just particles. At the level of human life and good living being severely depressed is a problem - a malfunctioning system - not just another mode of being that can't be judged as right or wrong.

[NobleHunter]

But why is depression a problem? Or at least, are you suggesting that an intersex person has a problem in the same way a depressed person does?

I would propose that there are human conditions (such as depression) which can be labelled as negative conditions based on the way they are intrinsically experience by an individual. Other conditions, which may be equally far from the baseline, are labelled as negative--despite the intrinsic experience being neural or positive--for the convenience or comfort of either society or the people running it. Being trans sucks not because it's inherently bad but because society wants it to suck. I think it was Mill who pointed out that if beliefs about sex and gender were actually rooted in empirical fact, there would not have been so many laws about it.

[Fenring]

But why is depression a problem? Or at least, are you suggesting that an intersex person has a problem in the same way a depressed person does?

Not in the same way, but I think it's going to be pretty obvious to a person with an unusual arrangement of sexual organs (or any other deviation from normal) is going to have to come to terms with it somehow. Maybe they will be super well-adjusted, just like many people find a way to be when something sub-optimal happens. Doesn't necessarily mean they need correction, just like a depressed person may not choose to use meds. The argument of "well if this is how I am then this is how I am" is a coping situation; how do you deal with what you're dealt. But diagnosing 'problematic results' doesn't not have to have a moral or a judgemental component. So I would be against saying that someone is deficient as a person or anything like that. But to suggest that 'hey, you could such and such a situation, do you want it remedied' is a pretty normal type of line to take. It would not make any sense to take a person born with two hands, two feet, and ask them if they want that remedied, whereas someone born with a misshapen foot or some other issue, yeah, it would be pretty normal to ask if the parents want it corrected. All scenarios are not equivalent, even though they are all "natural". Cancer is natural too, but we take that 'alternative' pretty seriously as something to be halted. That's a question of life or death, of course. What you're asking is what the final and inclusive definition is of defining something as a problem. That's probably a deep rabbit hole.

[TheDeamon]

Fortunately I've heard that the lemming phenomenon was created by the Disney cameramen at the time.  It sounds like it is not a natural occurrence.

It actually turns out to be a bit more interesting than that. But you're right, they don't commit mass suicide. Although they do have dispersal/migration events that are triggered by overpopulation, much as happens for elk, deer, and other animals. And with some of those dispersal events, it is very common for large numbers of them die while crossing bodies of water.

Source: https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=56

I agree, though, that population density may be a factor in homosexuality, as shown by the rat experiments.  Of course, that could be considered just another natural response to the environment.

As per the link above, even the Lemmings can turn cannibal under the circumstances. 

[TheDeamon]

I would propose that there are human conditions (such as depression) which can be labelled as negative conditions based on the way they are intrinsically experience by an individual. Other conditions, which may be equally far from the baseline, are labelled as negative--despite the intrinsic experience being neural or positive--for the convenience or comfort of either society or the people running it. Being trans sucks not because it's inherently bad but because society wants it to suck. I think it was Mill who pointed out that if beliefs about sex and gender were actually rooted in empirical fact, there would not have been so many laws about it.

But why turn "Science" into a pretzel in order to try to fix an underlying social problem.

Society's relationship with sex is complex for a number of reasons.

Patriarchal societies can be solidly blamed for their obvious interest in trying to assure certainty as to who the father is/was.

Many societies developing taboos involving Sodomy without respect to gender of the participants is entirely reasonable when viewed in the context of societies that didn't have an understanding of germ theory. The sodomites had health problems to contend with that others generally didn't, so that speaks to such behavior "incurring the wrath of the gods."

Likewise taboos against sexual promiscuity outside of a "closed system" mesh well when considered against the backdrop of "lack of germ theory" once again. Monogamous couples who remain faithful to one another don't normally get infected with STDs. People who are not faithful and "play the field" on the other hand, are more likely to get a STD. They might not have understood the ​"why and how" behind what they were seeing, but they could certainly see the correlation and possibly attach a divine element to it.

Likewise, that correlation also helps point to the tendency of multiple cultures placing a premium on virgins. Virgins are likely to be "clean" of STD's as they likely haven't done anything to be exposed to one. As they're inexperienced lovers, they're also more likely to remain faithful(lower risk of them bringing in an STD from outside "the closed system") and of course, if they're being monogamous, that also means paternity of the child is also not going to in question.

There also are the social/competitive reasons that can be overlaid on top of that, which introduces "power dynamics" into the mix, and there is always someone out there looking for a way to amass power to themselves so they can exert it over others, and the people who follow after that aren't going to question it critically because that's simply "how it has been done."

And more recently, then there are the laws relating specifically to sex and children/adolescents. Some of which have a basis in science, but a lot more having to do with parents or politicians creating "moral panics" over "think about the children."

[wmLambert]

...why we should care about any of these questions? Unless you are a competing athlete, where there is still plenty of room for healthy debate, or an individuals doctor - why should you care how someone else identifies or wants to live their life?

Because it literally destroys the entire system. Science is simple: XX or XY.

An individual can think anything - but that does not mean that thinking has merit. A contest between idiots may be relevant. but a race between a paraplegic and an Olympic sprinter is nonsensical. When I studied the Philosophy of Persuasion at UofM, much of this gobbledygook made sense. You can make anyone believe virtually anything. The human psychology allows mechanisms that enable such things. Understanding how it works does not mean it makes sense.

[Wayward Son]

Sorry, but this is an absurdly reductionist position - nothing has any purpose, anything goes, since the universe is random. First of all, it is not a "scientitic fact" that nothing happens for any reason. It's just one of the possibilities, but the one you are hanging your hat on despite there being no evidence that it's correct. So to argue that there are no features or bugs, just chemistry, already assumes a bunch of stuff not in evidence. But putting aside the onolotogical realities of the universe (or the metaphysics of it), you are also playing a motte and bailey game with the phrase "it just happens", as if you're pretending to place no value judgement on one outcome versus another. By your logic, eyes are not "for seeing" since that's a purpose-oriented definition, therefore there's nothing wrong with eyes that can't see, that's just another element in the wonderful spectrum of the varieties of people out there. This is essentially the position you're taking in regard to the article you yourself linked, where the author describes certain outcomes (that you are calling a "continuum of sex") as defective processes. The final destination of your argument is that since there is an infinite variety of mutations a human can have, and a near-infinite amount of things that can go wrong in processes, that there is no right or wrong outcome for any human system, just variety. If this is your position then I would argue it is as far from science and also as far from common sense as an argument could possibly get. It's a postmodern nightmare of redefining everything into just an opinion.

Actually, I think I covered all your objections in my initial statement.

Note that I said, "to the developmental process, there are no features or bugs.  There is just chemistry."  I limited it to the developmental process.  When you "zoom out" to the final product of the development, then there certainly are better and worse outcomes, as I admitted when I said, "Natural selection determines if it a feature or a bug."

But as far as biology is concerned, "defects" are as much an expected outcome as "perfect" outcomes.  Eyes that can't see will occur as well as eyes that can see; they are both natural outcomes, although the former (fortunately!) happens at a far lower frequency than the latter.  But--and this is the point--since they are both natural outcomes, neither can be excluded when talking about biology.

Which means that, when you are talking about the sexes in a biological sense, you can't exclude those who are "defective," whether it is physical or psychological or whatever.  Defects are just as natural as non-defects.

So scientifically (biologically), one can't say there is only XX and XY, because it ignores all the variations in between.

Acknowledging that does not mean that these variations cannot be considered "good" or "bad" or "defects" or "superhuman abilities."   But those judgements are based on macroscopic evaluations, based on society, environment, and other structures.  After all, those eyes that don't see are not a defect if you live in an environment without light, like those fishes that live in the mid-west aquafer.  In fact, not having eyes is actually a benefit, since it takes less energy to develop without them, as some of the species have discovered.

Oh, and while there could be some supernatural component to the developmental process, it has yet to reveal itself, and so occam's razor dictates that we treat is as mere chemistry until we are forced to add that extra assumption.

[NobleHunter]

But why turn "Science" into a pretzel in order to try to fix an underlying social problem.

Science makes challah bread look like a baguette. A pretzel would still be a simplification. The science most people are taught is simple because that's either age appropriate or good enough to get by. Science itself is incredibly complex, especially when it comes to biology. It's the "gender critical" people who are abusing science to justify transphobia.

[TheDeamon]

Sorry, but this is an absurdly reductionist position - nothing has any purpose, anything goes, since the universe is random. First of all, it is not a "scientitic fact" that nothing happens for any reason. It's just one of the possibilities, but the one you are hanging your hat on despite there being no evidence that it's correct. So to argue that there are no features or bugs, just chemistry, already assumes a bunch of stuff not in evidence. But putting aside the onolotogical realities of the universe (or the metaphysics of it), you are also playing a motte and bailey game with the phrase "it just happens", as if you're pretending to place no value judgement on one outcome versus another. By your logic, eyes are not "for seeing" since that's a purpose-oriented definition, therefore there's nothing wrong with eyes that can't see, that's just another element in the wonderful spectrum of the varieties of people out there. This is essentially the position you're taking in regard to the article you yourself linked, where the author describes certain outcomes (that you are calling a "continuum of sex") as defective processes. The final destination of your argument is that since there is an infinite variety of mutations a human can have, and a near-infinite amount of things that can go wrong in processes, that there is no right or wrong outcome for any human system, just variety. If this is your position then I would argue it is as far from science and also as far from common sense as an argument could possibly get. It's a postmodern nightmare of redefining everything into just an opinion.

Actually, I think I covered all your objections in my initial statement.

Note that I said, "to the developmental process, there are no features or bugs.  There is just chemistry."  I limited it to the developmental process.  When you "zoom out" to the final product of the development, then there certainly are better and worse outcomes, as I admitted when I said, "Natural selection determines if it a feature or a bug."

But as far as biology is concerned, "defects" are as much an expected outcome as "perfect" outcomes.  Eyes that can't see will occur as well as eyes that can see; they are both natural outcomes, although the former (fortunately!) happens at a far lower frequency than the latter.  But--and this is the point--since they are both natural outcomes, neither can be excluded when talking about biology.

Which means that, when you are talking about the sexes in a biological sense, you can't exclude those who are "defective," whether it is physical or psychological or whatever.  Defects are just as natural as non-defects.

So scientifically (biologically), one can't say there is only XX and XY, because it ignores all the variations in between.

Acknowledging that does not mean that these variations cannot be considered "good" or "bad" or "defects" or "superhuman abilities."   But those judgements are based on macroscopic evaluations, based on society, environment, and other structures.  After all, those eyes that don't see are not a defect if you live in an environment without light, like those fishes that live in the mid-west aquafer.  In fact, not having eyes is actually a benefit, since it takes less energy to develop without them, as some of the species have discovered.

Oh, and while there could be some supernatural component to the developmental process, it has yet to reveal itself, and so occam's razor dictates that we treat is as mere chemistry until we are forced to add that extra assumption.

But from an evolutionary biology standpoint, which is the more proper frame to be viewing things from. Either a development is beneficial (improves the odds of propagation of posterity)--"a feature," or detrimental (no posterity result)--"a bug."

Homosexuality vs heterosexuality is actually somewhat neutral on that front, while it bias slightly against propagation, it doesn't actively hinder it either. That point is doubly valid for the numerous iterations between "completely straight" and "completely gay."

But where the Transsexuals' are concerned, it is very much a dead end. Both for the ones who come by it genetically, gestationally, or for the ones who come by it through social factors the moment they pursue HRT. Now there could be potential arguments about is being vestigal/atavistic DNA that is somehow being triggered, as there are examples of viable gender-bending animals in nature. Although they all seem to be Amphibians, lizards, or fish. (Although it was interesting when looking into that, where one set of frogs was discovered to be able to change genders after they were exposed to pesticides... Which would make a potential environmental argument for what we could be seeing playing out among our fellow humans. Where a chemical exposure flipped some DNA/RNA triggers and and sent them down an alternate and incomplete path.)

When one theory about humans in particular is that our ability to see color was atavistic DNA mutation to a pre-Jurassic state, while most of the rest of our Mammalian counterparts are still stuck with only seeing black and white--because it gave our mutual ancestors better night vision and thus enhanced ability to hide from the dinosaurs.

[wmLambert]

I could have given more discussion with XX vs.XY. Scientific fact is lost on some people. Yes there are physical anomalies, but very, very few. I could have noted the Aberent sexual revolution in the late 70's, when several activists gained control of the American Psychological Association, and deep-sixed all the research that didn't agree with their own ideas. Those thousands of research studies disappeared as if they were never written.

[LetterRip]

But from an evolutionary biology standpoint, which is the more proper frame to be viewing things from. Either a development is beneficial (improves the odds of propagation of posterity)--"a feature," or detrimental (no posterity result)--"a bug."

Vast majority are neutral.

Homosexuality vs heterosexuality is actually somewhat neutral on that front, while it bias slightly against propagation, it doesn't actively hinder it either. That point is doubly valid for the numerous iterations between "completely straight" and "completely gay."

May actually be beneficial in moderate percentages in social species by improving the odds of survival of nieces and nephews, especially in resource scare times (eg most of history).

But where the Transsexuals' are concerned, it is very much a dead end. Both for the ones who come by it genetically, gestationally, or for the ones who come by it through social factors the moment they pursue HRT.

Nope.  Evolution is at the level of genes, not organisms.  You can pass on your own genes, or you can help a sibling or cousins offspring.  It would only be a 'dead end' if universally expressed.

[Wayward Son]

When one theory about humans in particular is that our ability to see color was atavistic DNA mutation to a pre-Jurassic state, while most of the rest of our Mammalian counterparts are still stuck with only seeing black and white--because it gave our mutual ancestors better night vision and thus enhanced ability to hide from the dinosaurs.

You do know that both dogs and cats see a limited range of color, not just strictly black and white.  Which probably means other mammals have a limited range, too.

[LetterRip]

When one theory about humans in particular is that our ability to see color was atavistic DNA mutation to a pre-Jurassic state, while most of the rest of our Mammalian counterparts are still stuck with only seeing black and white--because it gave our mutual ancestors better night vision and thus enhanced ability to hide from the dinosaurs.

Dinosaurs were extinct 65 million years ago.  A distant pre-primate ancestor (agnathan vertebrates - a 'fish') of humans had tetrachromatic (4 color) vision (540 million years ago) and more recent mammilian ancestors actually lost the capability during the time of the dinosaurs due to switching to nocturnal (color vision doesn't work well at night so a mutation that loses the capability won't be selected against).  Primates didn't regain color vision till 30 million years ago after dinosaurs went extinct and a return to diurnal.  Also monochromatic vision is 'black and white', primates, their post tetrachromatic ancestor and humans have never been monochromatic - always at least dichromatic.  (However we don't rely on our color vision at night).

Most of the theories on primates gaining trichromatic vision is related to finding food (possibly 'ripe fruit', possibly young, less bitter leaves, etc.)

So not sure where that 'dinosaur' theory came from but it is nonsensical.

[LetterRip]

Primates didn't regain color vision

Should be 'regain trichromatic vision' since they always had at least dichromatic vision.

[cherrypoptart]

https://news.yahoo.com/jk-rowling-condemns-activists-for-posting-her-address-to-twitter-perhaps-the-best-way-to-prove-your-movement-isnt-a-threat-to-women-is-to-stop-stalkingus-165542194.html

"I’ve now received so many death threats I could paper the house with them, and I haven’t stopped speaking out," she wrote in part. "Perhaps — and I’m just throwing this out there – the best way to prove your movement isn’t a threat to women, is to stop stalking, harassing and threatening us."

I wonder if this might even be appropriate for the vigilante justice thread.

Was her crime really so terrible that this is the justice it deserved?