XO is Turner Syndrome.
Down's Syndrome is not related to sex chromosomes at all.
(CA) K-12 Transgender Law Repeal
|
(CA) K-12 Transgender Law Repeal
Bismarck.Annalise said: » I always think it is interesting that a young boy who identifies as a boy is taken at face value and no one questions it (as it should be). However, when a young boy identifies as transgender (or feeling that he is in fact a girl trapped in a boys body) people often say "you're young! How can you know anything!" (this has been asserted in this thread) I guess people only take children at their word when they agree with them, huh? And children eat mud and stick their fingers in light sockets or ovens. It's impossible for a young boy to "identify as a girl", he lacks the biochemical makeup required to do so. Quite literally his brain is wired differently then a females, this has been backed up by neural science on many occasions. For that same reason a young girl is incapable of"identifying as a boy" as she lacks the hormones and brain chemistry required to be male. Nature only equips us with what we need to survive, compete and procreate. Biologically we are still hairless monkeys on the African savanna living in small tribes. Everything you describe, everything Sylow attempts to argue, are things that our fore-brain is tacking onto what nature gave us. The concepts of masculinity and femininity have become so taboo and f*cked up that our society is incapable of providing a template for our young to model themselves after. I'm not talking high-school or grade-school but in the earliest years of development when the child is doing nothing but observing everything around it and integrating that into it's brain's higher order functions. Young boy feeling the pressures of early masculinity coming on? No fear just pretend your a girl, it's ok, see you don't have to deal with that and can shutter it away. Only that sh!t comes out later and gets expressed in all sorts of interesting ways. Lakshmi.Saevel said: » Bismarck.Annalise said: » pseudohermaphroditism You realize that's like making a 3rd "gender" for people with down syndrome right so they don't feel left out. That's a genetic disorder and they tend to be sterile. That's nothing like making a 3rd gender for people with down syndrome. That was a pretty ignorant comment. The children appear to be female at birth. Parents raised them as girls. Puberty hit, and these "girls" grew into men. The overwhelming majority of them (though not all) identified as men. The parents got it wrong. Now the condition is often recognized and because of it they identify them as a third gender. You do realize that although male and female are binary concepts, there really is no clear cut definition to define male or female? There is nearly always an exception whatever you make the rule. Fenrir.Sylow said: » XO is Turner Syndrome. Down's Syndrome is not related to sex chromosomes at all. And again you show your ignorance. XO is used by insects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X0_sex-determination_system XX is used by us http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_sex-determination_system Turners is not XO, it's simply X as the 2nd gene didn't copy and your genetically deformed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_syndrome Naw man, all transgenders are just inner-Saevels yearning to be homosexual on Mondays before reverting to heterosexuals for casual Fridays. They don't want to fit into those culturally defined boxes so they must by definition be liberals and abhor the word 'responsibility'.
Because you know, everyone wants to be socially stigmatized just to get laid.
[+]
Bismarck.Annalise said: » Actually, Papua New Guinea has a third gender due to 5-alpha reductase or guevedoces having a really high prevalence. That's actually an intersex or pseudohermaphroditism condition. Just throwing that out there... They also have some very interesting rights of passage into adult hood that would make most conservative minded westerner's perconceived notions of gender rules suffer a heart attack. Bismarck.Annalise said: » That's nothing like making a 3rd gender for people with down syndrome. That was a pretty ignorant comment. The children appear to be female at birth. Parents raised them as girls. Puberty hit, and these "girls" grew into men. The overwhelming majority of them (though not all) identified as men. The parents got it wrong. Now the condition is often recognized and because of it they identify them as a third gender. It's not a "third gender" its a malformed genetic mutation where the SRY gene failed to asset itself during fetal development. They are just a male XY with a deformed SRY gene. This is no different then downs syndrome which is a malformed Trisomy 21 gene. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome Quote: You do realize that although male and female are binary concepts, there really is no clear cut definition to define male or female? There is nearly always an exception whatever you make the rule. Male is XY, Female is XX. That's all there is to it. If you don't like the binary sexual system fee free to find nature and tell her off. Also while XXY (Klinefelter) does sometimes result in cognitive impairment, this is not always the case and saying "xxy would be mentally HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE" is pretty ignorant.
[+]
Lakshmi.Saevel said: » Bismarck.Annalise said: » I always think it is interesting that a young boy who identifies as a boy is taken at face value and no one questions it (as it should be). However, when a young boy identifies as transgender (or feeling that he is in fact a girl trapped in a boys body) people often say "you're young! How can you know anything!" (this has been asserted in this thread) I guess people only take children at their word when they agree with them, huh? And children eat mud and stick their fingers in light sockets or ovens. It's impossible for a young boy to "identify as a girl", he lacks the biochemical makeup required to do so. Quite literally his brain is wired differently then a females, this has been backed up by neural science on many occasions. For that same reason a young girl is incapable of"identifying as a boy" as she lacks the hormones and brain chemistry required to be male. Nature only equips us with what we need to survive, compete and procreate. Biologically we are still hairless monkeys on the African savanna living in small tribes. Everything you describe, everything Sylow attempts to argue, are things that our fore-brain is tacking onto what nature gave us. The concepts of masculinity and femininity have become so taboo and f*cked up that our society is incapable of providing a template for our young to model themselves after. I'm not talking high-school or grade-school but in the earliest years of development when the child is doing nothing but observing everything around it and integrating that into it's brain's higher order functions. Young buy feeling the pressures of early masculinity coming on? No fear just pretend your a girl, it's ok, see you don't have to deal with that and can shutter it away. Only that sh!t comes out later and gets expressed in all sorts of interesting ways. The concepts of masculinity and femininity are social constructs. They are not what people are talking about when they are talking about people who are transgender. They are talking about biological sex. So if it is impossible for a young boy to identify as a girl, is it impossible for a young boy to identify as a boy? Children are able to understand both biological sex and gender at a very young age. Their concepts will be a little more primitive, yes, but that's how it is. Funny how a child is cognitively complex enough to learn a language and communicate, but not complex enough to understand sex or gender? Do you listen to yourself? To say that people who are transgender choose to be is also pretty ignorant. Of all of the different groups of people in our culture, they are among the higher (if not the highest) for being victims of physical and sexual assault, homelessness, mental illness, substance abuse, and suicide. I'm sure that all of that must outweigh the pressures of being a man, right? Lakshmi.Saevel said: » Fenrir.Sylow said: » XO is Turner Syndrome. Down's Syndrome is not related to sex chromosomes at all. And again you show your ignorance. XO is used by insects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X0_sex-determination_system XX is used by us http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_sex-determination_system Turners is not XO, it's simply X as the 2nd gene didn't copy and your genetically deformed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_syndrome You realize that the 0 in XO means that the second chromosome is not present? It's even in the introduction of the wiki article. Fenrir.Sylow said: » Also while XXY (Klinefelter) does sometimes result in cognitive impairment, this is not always the case and saying "xxy would be mentally HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE" is pretty ignorant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XXY Where you got that from. Quote: Some degree of language learning or reading impairment may be present,[17] and neuropsychological testing often reveals deficits in executive functions, although these deficits can often be overcome through early intervention.[18] There may also be delays in motor development which can be addressed through occupational therapy.[19] XXY males may sit up, crawl, and walk later than other infants; they may also struggle in school, both academically and with sports.[4] Quote: Principal effects include hypogonadism and sterility. A variety of other physical and behavioural differences and problems are common, though severity varies and many XXY boys have few detectable symptoms. Aka genetic defect. And yes they are mentally HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE, and like autism they can have different functional levels. Lakshmi.Saevel said: » Bismarck.Annalise said: » That's nothing like making a 3rd gender for people with down syndrome. That was a pretty ignorant comment. The children appear to be female at birth. Parents raised them as girls. Puberty hit, and these "girls" grew into men. The overwhelming majority of them (though not all) identified as men. The parents got it wrong. Now the condition is often recognized and because of it they identify them as a third gender. It's not a "third gender" its a malformed genetic mutation where the SRY gene failed to asset itself during fetal development. They are just a male XY with a deformed SRY gene. This is no different then downs syndrome which is a malformed Trisomy 21 gene. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome Quote: You do realize that although male and female are binary concepts, there really is no clear cut definition to define male or female? There is nearly always an exception whatever you make the rule. Male is XY, Female is XX. That's all there is to it. If you don't like the binary sexual system fee free to find nature and tell her off. Not true. You mention SRY, the important part of the Y chromosome. If you have an XX person with a mutation where the SRY is on the X chromosome… The mullerian system will degenerate, the wolffian system will flourish, the person will develop testicles, a penis, and become a functional male. You're going to define this person as being female? Quote: So if it is impossible for a young boy to identify as a girl, is it impossible for a young boy to identify as a boy? Bismarck.Annalise said: » Lakshmi.Saevel said: » Bismarck.Annalise said: » I always think it is interesting that a young boy who identifies as a boy is taken at face value and no one questions it (as it should be). However, when a young boy identifies as transgender (or feeling that he is in fact a girl trapped in a boys body) people often say "you're young! How can you know anything!" (this has been asserted in this thread) I guess people only take children at their word when they agree with them, huh? And children eat mud and stick their fingers in light sockets or ovens. It's impossible for a young boy to "identify as a girl", he lacks the biochemical makeup required to do so. Quite literally his brain is wired differently then a females, this has been backed up by neural science on many occasions. For that same reason a young girl is incapable of"identifying as a boy" as she lacks the hormones and brain chemistry required to be male. Nature only equips us with what we need to survive, compete and procreate. Biologically we are still hairless monkeys on the African savanna living in small tribes. Everything you describe, everything Sylow attempts to argue, are things that our fore-brain is tacking onto what nature gave us. The concepts of masculinity and femininity have become so taboo and f*cked up that our society is incapable of providing a template for our young to model themselves after. I'm not talking high-school or grade-school but in the earliest years of development when the child is doing nothing but observing everything around it and integrating that into it's brain's higher order functions. Young buy feeling the pressures of early masculinity coming on? No fear just pretend your a girl, it's ok, see you don't have to deal with that and can shutter it away. Only that sh!t comes out later and gets expressed in all sorts of interesting ways. The concepts of masculinity and femininity are social constructs. ? Stopped reading right there as anything afterword would be pure bullsh!t. Evolution, sexual selection and natural selection do not deal in social constructs. They don't care about political correctness or liberal fantasy's. They don't care how you feel or how comfortable you are. They only care about procreation and creation. Hell prior to the last few thousand years only 40% of males and 80% of females got to pass their genes on to the next generation. I was explaining the difference between sex and gender, which you don't seem to grasp. Nature cares about sex. Nature does not care about gender.
[+]
Bismarck.Annalise said: » Lakshmi.Saevel said: » Bismarck.Annalise said: » That's nothing like making a 3rd gender for people with down syndrome. That was a pretty ignorant comment. The children appear to be female at birth. Parents raised them as girls. Puberty hit, and these "girls" grew into men. The overwhelming majority of them (though not all) identified as men. The parents got it wrong. Now the condition is often recognized and because of it they identify them as a third gender. It's not a "third gender" its a malformed genetic mutation where the SRY gene failed to asset itself during fetal development. They are just a male XY with a deformed SRY gene. This is no different then downs syndrome which is a malformed Trisomy 21 gene. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome Quote: You do realize that although male and female are binary concepts, there really is no clear cut definition to define male or female? There is nearly always an exception whatever you make the rule. Male is XY, Female is XX. That's all there is to it. If you don't like the binary sexual system fee free to find nature and tell her off. Not true. You mention SRY, the important part of the Y chromosome. If you have an XX person with a mutation where the SRY is on the X chromosome… The mullerian system will degenerate, the wolffian system will flourish, the person will develop testicles, a penis, and become a functional male. You're going to define this person as being female? Keep reading, they are sterile. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome Another one of those unfortunate genetic mutations. Bismarck.Annalise said: » I was explaining the difference between sex and gender, which you don't seem to grasp. Nature cares about sex. Nature does not care about gender. No you weren't. You were spouting liberal "feel good" bullsh!t. The type of mental gymnastics that are used to justify any behavior or the fetishizing of a mental disorder. Absolutely zero difference between "sex" and "gender. Just bullsh!t so guys who are afraid of their own masculinity and women who are afraid of their own femininity can feel good about it. Poor wording on my part. I didn't mean functional as in fertile. I also wasn't reading anything. I took a few classes on human sexuality and psychobiology of reproduction.
Still, you're defining this person as female? Lakshmi.Saevel said: » Bismarck.Annalise said: » I was explaining the difference between sex and gender, which you don't seem to grasp. Nature cares about sex. Nature does not care about gender. No you weren't. You were spouting liberal "feel good" bullsh!t. The type of mental gymnastics that are used to justify any behavior or the fetishizing of a mental disorder. How would you even know? You were behaving like a child and didn't even read it. Also, I am not a liberal. You sound like an idiot when you use statements like "the liberals!"
[+]
Bismarck.Annalise said: » Poor wording on my part. I didn't mean functional as in fertile. Still, you're defining this person as female? Read the link. Quote: Males typically have one X chromosome and one Y chromosome in each diploid cell of their bodies. Females typically have two X chromosomes. XX males have two X chromosomes, with one of them containing genetic material from the Y chromosome, making them phenotypically male; they are genetically female but otherwise appear to be male. The function of SRY is to suppress the anti-female genes and express the pro-male genes. A mutated SRV gene on an X chromosome is still doing it's job, it's suppressing the anti-males genes. This will result in a human that appears to be male but without the required material from the Y gene they will have some medical issues and be sterile. There is even an XY female version where the SRY didn't copy over and without it the anti-male genes are expressed and the fetus develops as a sterile female. She will never experience puberty as she's technically asexual, neither ovaries nor testes developed. She literally has no sex organs. She will also lack the hormones normally present and will require medical treatment. You act like you never jacked your *** to futa
[+]
If you are going to define that person as genetically female, how does one define XXY genetically? That is neither male nor female.
Bismarck.Annalise said: » Lakshmi.Saevel said: » Bismarck.Annalise said: » I was explaining the difference between sex and gender, which you don't seem to grasp. Nature cares about sex. Nature does not care about gender. No you weren't. You were spouting liberal "feel good" bullsh!t. The type of mental gymnastics that are used to justify any behavior or the fetishizing of a mental disorder. How would you even know? You were behaving like a child and didn't even read it. Also, I am not a liberal. You sound like an idiot when you use statements like "the liberals!" I do not value your opinion on this matter. You've ruined any scrap of respect by defaulting to the "gender as a social construct" line that progressives use to push radical feminism on society. We're here discussing, and most of you failing horribly, basic sexual genetics but it goes much deeper. The hormonal balance present during fetal development has radical effects on the brain. Male brains and female brains are chemically different. This is something neuroscience has known for a long time but has been very careful discussing out of fear of pissing off the feminist crowd. Male and female brains respond to stress differently. They both have completely different sets of biological instincts and prerogatives. Hell even their subconsciousness's function differently. All that difference isn't a "social construct", it's part of our biology which existed long before society even existed. Admittedly still a little squeemish on the subject (because I did equate it as a short-sighted solution for self-gratification in the form of self-mutilation unless a person was hermaphroditic), but when I read this a while back, I did find myself questioning whether I had judged a little too harshly on the subject of trans. (Yes, I realize this is just addressing male homosexuality, but thinking about it on a more expansive scale.)
I need to fish a little more for another article that said something to the effect of the line of succession in siblings and the following factor... Quote: The increased chance of being gay is believed to occur because women mount an immune response when pregnant with a boy, which attacks part of the foetus’ brain linked to sexual orientation. This immune response increases with every male child. ...may be accompanied by the amount of genetic "resources" (hormonal and otherwise) that is whittled down with each succeeding pregnancy. EDIT: I still need to read through the study itself still.
[+]
Lakshmi.Saevel said: » Bismarck.Annalise said: » Lakshmi.Saevel said: » Bismarck.Annalise said: » I was explaining the difference between sex and gender, which you don't seem to grasp. Nature cares about sex. Nature does not care about gender. No you weren't. You were spouting liberal "feel good" bullsh!t. The type of mental gymnastics that are used to justify any behavior or the fetishizing of a mental disorder. How would you even know? You were behaving like a child and didn't even read it. Also, I am not a liberal. You sound like an idiot when you use statements like "the liberals!" I do not value your opinion on this matter. You've ruined any scrap of respect by defaulting to the "gender as a social construct" line that progressives use to push radical feminism on society. We're here discussing, and most of you failing horribly, basic sexual genetics but it goes much deeper. The hormonal balance present during fetal development has radical effects on the brain. Male brains and female brains are chemically different. This is something neuroscience has known for a long time but has been very careful discussing out of fear of pissing off the feminist crowd. Male and female brains respond to stress differently. They both have completely different sets of biological instincts and prerogatives. Hell even their subconsciousness's function differently. All that difference isn't a "social construct", it's part of our biology which existed long before society even existed. You are describing biological sex, not gender. You do not seem to realize the difference between the two. Lakshmi.Saevel said: » I do not value your opinion on this matter. then gtfo! this isn't "Professor Saevel's everythingunderthesun 101" it's a place for discourse wherein their opinion is just as valid, if not more, than yours. also, poop in your wheaties.
[+]
Bismarck.Annalise said: » If you are going to define that person as genetically female, how does one define XXY genetically? That is neither male nor female. It's male, the SRY gene did it's job and suppressed the anti-male genes thus converting the gonads into testes inside the fetus. The closest you can get to "no sex" the XY female whose sexual organs never developed past fetus stage. Prior to modern medical science she (technically it) would of died fairly young due to the undeveloped gonads becoming cancerous. Quote: There is even an XY female version where the SRY didn't copy over and without it the anti-male genes are expressed and the fetus develops as a sterile female. She will never experience puberty as she's technically asexual, neither ovaries nor testes developed. She literally has no sex organs. She will also lack the hormones normally present and will require medical treatment. Your here trying to debate all these rare mutations, all of which are sterile. The exception proves the rule. Lakshmi.Saevel said: » Bismarck.Annalise said: » If you are going to define that person as genetically female, how does one define XXY genetically? That is neither male nor female. It's male, the SRY gene did it's job and suppressed the anti-male genes thus converting the gonads into testes inside the fetus. The closest you can get to "no sex" the XY female whose sexual organs never developed past fetus stage. Prior to modern medical science she (technically it) would of died fairly young due to the undeveloped gonads becoming cancerous. Quote: There is even an XY female version where the SRY didn't copy over and without it the anti-male genes are expressed and the fetus develops as a sterile female. She will never experience puberty as she's technically asexual, neither ovaries nor testes developed. She literally has no sex organs. She will also lack the hormones normally present and will require medical treatment. Your here trying to debate all these rare mutations, all of which are sterile. The exception proves the rule. You contradict yourself. XX which develops as a male is genetically female. However, XXY is genetically male because it develops as a male? Somehow, I think the law would be less debated if it was only concerning mutations, as opposed to those who believe they'd be happier as the other gender.
Bismarck.Annalise said: » Lakshmi.Saevel said: » Bismarck.Annalise said: » Lakshmi.Saevel said: » Bismarck.Annalise said: » I was explaining the difference between sex and gender, which you don't seem to grasp. Nature cares about sex. Nature does not care about gender. No you weren't. You were spouting liberal "feel good" bullsh!t. The type of mental gymnastics that are used to justify any behavior or the fetishizing of a mental disorder. How would you even know? You were behaving like a child and didn't even read it. Also, I am not a liberal. You sound like an idiot when you use statements like "the liberals!" I do not value your opinion on this matter. You've ruined any scrap of respect by defaulting to the "gender as a social construct" line that progressives use to push radical feminism on society. We're here discussing, and most of you failing horribly, basic sexual genetics but it goes much deeper. The hormonal balance present during fetal development has radical effects on the brain. Male brains and female brains are chemically different. This is something neuroscience has known for a long time but has been very careful discussing out of fear of pissing off the feminist crowd. Male and female brains respond to stress differently. They both have completely different sets of biological instincts and prerogatives. Hell even their subconsciousness's function differently. All that difference isn't a "social construct", it's part of our biology which existed long before society even existed. You are describing biological sex, not gender. You do not seem to realize the difference between the two. There is no difference between the two. Absolutely nothing has changed in the last 10,000~20,000 years. We are the exact same only with shinier toys. You created the difference in an attempt to facilitate an alternate narrative to the absolute one nature handed you. You were born a specific gender, you didn't get a choice in the matter. You don't like how that feels and instead invent an entirely new explanation for who you are, one that nature doesn't get a say in. And then you expect me to buy into your fantasy. |
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.