Oh, a chart. I guess I must change my (scientific) view of sex and gender now that he showed me a chart. (I could make a better chart than that). If you just show a chart, you’ve done your work, right?
Reminds me of a stupid joke. I’ll spare you the details, but it hinges on a person saying that, if something is written in the bible, it must be true, and the item in question turns out to be some hotel guest’s scribblings in the in-room bible. Anyone can write things in a bible, and anyone can make a chart.
These charts are very revealing, in that they show how Genderists think.
The last two spectrums are conceivable as spectrums. If we’re being sexist and dividing clothing, makeup, etc into masculine and feminine, then we can imagine a manly man in manly man gear becoming a bit less manly man by putting on pink nail polish. Same with sexual orientation: someone could be exclusively interested in women, or mostly interested, or usually interested, and so forth. We could put our finger on any part of the last two lines and come up with something that more or less fits the idea.
But what the hell do we do with those other charts?
The first one — “Sex” — is disturbing at best. Someone with a congenital disorder of their sexual development is nor some mutant hybrid between male & female. This is the Mister Potato Head Theory of sex, with no attention to the casual chain of evolutionary and biological events. Call male Jackie a “she,” pop some breasts on, and Jackie’s further along the spectrum towards woman. And when Jackie’s mom has breast cancer and gets a mastectomy, she’s now further along the spectrum towards man. Not as woman as she used to be, poor dear.
The “gender spectrum” is also confusing. We want to do the same as with the presentation spectrum, pull on sexist stereotypes regarding masculine and feminine behavior, so that a “masculine” woman is a different gender than one who doesn’t change her own lightbulbs, but we have been told ad nauseum that GENDER IDENTITY IS NOT SEX STEREOTYPING so where do we go from here? It does no good to be helpfully informed that trans ppl have a gender identity that doesn’t fit what’s expected of their sex if we’re supposed to believe that what’s expected of their sex ought to be a wide open empty bag of all possibilities.
And when Jackie’s mom has breast cancer and gets a mastectomy, she’s now further along the spectrum towards man. Not as woman as she used to be, poor dear.
I linked a video a while back of a young woman saying that a man who loses his genitalia to a car crash is intersex.
This is where Genderism takes us. It doesn’t free us from the shackles of rigid gender norms. Rather, it reifies, rebuilds, and reinforces them. It takes us into a future of transhumanist medievalism.
The sex spectrum concept is based on the idea that sex-associated characteristics (hormone levels, body hair, chromosomes, gonads, etc) and not gametes determine maleness or femaleness. But even if such a spectrum could be constructed honestly, the TRAs would never be willing to objectively apply it.
For example, one might expect only persons on the female half to be permitted to participate in the female category of sport. But Caster Semenya, or any post-pubertal male with 5-alpha reductase deficiency, has, apart from atypical genital development, all other male-typical characteristics and therefore would be placed about two pixels from the male end of the chart. That can’t be allowed. He’d have to stay in the male category. That shows what nonsense it is.
It (and the term intersex) serves to confuse people into thinking people with DSDs are somewhere in between male and female when the truth is that there are numerous but distinct conditions which affect the sexual development of males and those that affect the sexual development of females. And that confusion about sex feeds all the other bad faith arguments about what “trans” is.
For all the truth it holds, it would be more accurate to describe this as a “drawing” rather than a “chart.” It’s right up(?) there with the genderbread human and the gender unicorn.Now this drawing from Scientific American is much more authoritative looking:
Look, it’s got more lines! It’s more complicated!! It uses more big words!!! It’s still BULLSHIT!!!!
As Dr.Jane Clare Jones (and others) have pointed out in regards to the oft-used “bimodal sex distribution chart”, the unit of measurement along the x axis is never specified.
With the same degree of scientific and intellectual rigour, I could launch a whole new paradigm in physics with a chart that shows the continuum of matter and anti-matter. Nobel Prize, here I come!
I almost forgot to ask, in light of an earlier post here on B&W, does a “chart” carry more or less scientific weight than a “certificate”? Would their import and authoritativenessness fall along a spectrum? Where would either of these be placed in relation to say, a doctor’s note, a notary’s declaration, a doctored passport, a form from inside a box of Cracker Jack, a letter to Santa Claus, or a license from the Ministry of Housinge?
This is one of the fundamental fallacies of the gender ideology:
Even if sex were a spectrum, this would not actually prove what the TRAs think it would prove. A spectrum is only a spectrum because points on it can be identified, i.e. an object that can be described by this spectrum can be localized on it. Color is a spectrum precisely because we can identify and distinguish colors.
In the same way that the existence of purple (or any color between the extremes) does not imply that it is meaningful to claim that a red apple can be identified as blue, a “sex spectrum” would not imply that someone who is localized on one end can meaningfully claim to be on the other end.
Another (somewhat related) fallacy is the clownfish argument:
Yes, some fish can change their sex, so (according to the argument) sex is mutable. The problem is that in order to know that some fish change their sex, you have to use the biological criterion “sex is determined by what gametes an individuum produces” and if you use that criterion, humans cannot change their sex.
Even if sex were a spectrum, this would not actually prove what the TRAs think it would prove….a “sex spectrum” would not imply that someone who is localized on one end can meaningfully claim to be on the other end.
Nor would the existence of a “sex spectrum” be any help in proving that one can change their position on it.
Yes, some fish can change their sex, so (according to the argument) sex is mutable.
Mammals don’t and can’t change sex. Even if some did, it would still need to be shown that this is something that humans can do.
Neither of these “arguments” was ever made in good faith. They were and are only ever used as a cheap debating tactic to muddy and confuse the concept of “sex”. In humans, sex is binary and immutable. So called “intersex” people do not change this; clownfish do not change this. Arguing that sex is a “spectrum” does not change this. There are no third gametes, no “intermediate” gametes, and no ability for humans to change their physiology in order to produce gametes other than those their bodies were aiming for them to build from before birth. By confusing the concept of sex altogether, they hope to jump to the conclusion that someone can be or become (funny how it’s either) the sex one is not without having to bring any actual arguments or proof to the discussion, which is made up of thought-terminating slogans built on deliberate conflation and confusion of “sex” and “gender.” If you loosen the definition of “woman” and “man”, then presto, anyone might will the new, less stringent, more “inclusive” criteria! Saw Horses Are Horses! Saddle up and giddy-up!
People with DSDs are used as a supposed gotcha, but are dropped from the “debate” immediately after being mentioned. Apart from appropriation of the “assigned (SEX) at birth” terminology originating in the treatment of members of this particular community, so-called “intersex” conditions not being used otherwise in any “explanation” of gender dysphoria or “transness”. Where is all the research on this supposed sex spectrum? Who’s looking into the ways in which mammals, and humans particularly, change sex? If the invocation of spectra and clownfish were genuine, serious proponents of these claims would be able to point to research and data and show that these assertions were actually more than rhetorical mud being thrown to confuse and confound attempts at honest debate. But no, all they have are sophistry and lies; and when those don’t work they fall back on bullying and intimidation. Well, at least they’ve held up their end of “NO DEBATE!”
Hmmm. It seems that intersex people are all androgynous bisexuals! (Learn something new everyday!)
Oh, a chart. I guess I must change my (scientific) view of sex and gender now that he showed me a chart. (I could make a better chart than that). If you just show a chart, you’ve done your work, right?
Reminds me of a stupid joke. I’ll spare you the details, but it hinges on a person saying that, if something is written in the bible, it must be true, and the item in question turns out to be some hotel guest’s scribblings in the in-room bible. Anyone can write things in a bible, and anyone can make a chart.
These charts are very revealing, in that they show how Genderists think.
The last two spectrums are conceivable as spectrums. If we’re being sexist and dividing clothing, makeup, etc into masculine and feminine, then we can imagine a manly man in manly man gear becoming a bit less manly man by putting on pink nail polish. Same with sexual orientation: someone could be exclusively interested in women, or mostly interested, or usually interested, and so forth. We could put our finger on any part of the last two lines and come up with something that more or less fits the idea.
But what the hell do we do with those other charts?
The first one — “Sex” — is disturbing at best. Someone with a congenital disorder of their sexual development is nor some mutant hybrid between male & female. This is the Mister Potato Head Theory of sex, with no attention to the casual chain of evolutionary and biological events. Call male Jackie a “she,” pop some breasts on, and Jackie’s further along the spectrum towards woman. And when Jackie’s mom has breast cancer and gets a mastectomy, she’s now further along the spectrum towards man. Not as woman as she used to be, poor dear.
The “gender spectrum” is also confusing. We want to do the same as with the presentation spectrum, pull on sexist stereotypes regarding masculine and feminine behavior, so that a “masculine” woman is a different gender than one who doesn’t change her own lightbulbs, but we have been told ad nauseum that GENDER IDENTITY IS NOT SEX STEREOTYPING so where do we go from here? It does no good to be helpfully informed that trans ppl have a gender identity that doesn’t fit what’s expected of their sex if we’re supposed to believe that what’s expected of their sex ought to be a wide open empty bag of all possibilities.
Sastra:
I linked a video a while back of a young woman saying that a man who loses his genitalia to a car crash is intersex.
This is where Genderism takes us. It doesn’t free us from the shackles of rigid gender norms. Rather, it reifies, rebuilds, and reinforces them. It takes us into a future of transhumanist medievalism.
The sex spectrum concept is based on the idea that sex-associated characteristics (hormone levels, body hair, chromosomes, gonads, etc) and not gametes determine maleness or femaleness. But even if such a spectrum could be constructed honestly, the TRAs would never be willing to objectively apply it.
For example, one might expect only persons on the female half to be permitted to participate in the female category of sport. But Caster Semenya, or any post-pubertal male with 5-alpha reductase deficiency, has, apart from atypical genital development, all other male-typical characteristics and therefore would be placed about two pixels from the male end of the chart. That can’t be allowed. He’d have to stay in the male category. That shows what nonsense it is.
It (and the term intersex) serves to confuse people into thinking people with DSDs are somewhere in between male and female when the truth is that there are numerous but distinct conditions which affect the sexual development of males and those that affect the sexual development of females. And that confusion about sex feeds all the other bad faith arguments about what “trans” is.
For all the truth it holds, it would be more accurate to describe this as a “drawing” rather than a “chart.” It’s right up(?) there with the genderbread human and the gender unicorn.Now this drawing from Scientific American is much more authoritative looking:
https://static.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/File/Pitch_sketch_final.png
Look, it’s got more lines! It’s more complicated!! It uses more big words!!! It’s still BULLSHIT!!!!
As Dr.Jane Clare Jones (and others) have pointed out in regards to the oft-used “bimodal sex distribution chart”, the unit of measurement along the x axis is never specified.
https://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2021/03/23/debunking-the-bimodal-sex-spectrum-graph/
With the same degree of scientific and intellectual rigour, I could launch a whole new paradigm in physics with a chart that shows the continuum of matter and anti-matter. Nobel Prize, here I come!
I almost forgot to ask, in light of an earlier post here on B&W, does a “chart” carry more or less scientific weight than a “certificate”? Would their import and authoritativenessness fall along a spectrum? Where would either of these be placed in relation to say, a doctor’s note, a notary’s declaration, a doctored passport, a form from inside a box of Cracker Jack, a letter to Santa Claus, or a license from the Ministry of Housinge?
This is one of the fundamental fallacies of the gender ideology:
Even if sex were a spectrum, this would not actually prove what the TRAs think it would prove. A spectrum is only a spectrum because points on it can be identified, i.e. an object that can be described by this spectrum can be localized on it. Color is a spectrum precisely because we can identify and distinguish colors.
In the same way that the existence of purple (or any color between the extremes) does not imply that it is meaningful to claim that a red apple can be identified as blue, a “sex spectrum” would not imply that someone who is localized on one end can meaningfully claim to be on the other end.
Another (somewhat related) fallacy is the clownfish argument:
Yes, some fish can change their sex, so (according to the argument) sex is mutable. The problem is that in order to know that some fish change their sex, you have to use the biological criterion “sex is determined by what gametes an individuum produces” and if you use that criterion, humans cannot change their sex.
Nor would the existence of a “sex spectrum” be any help in proving that one can change their position on it.
Mammals don’t and can’t change sex. Even if some did, it would still need to be shown that this is something that humans can do.
Neither of these “arguments” was ever made in good faith. They were and are only ever used as a cheap debating tactic to muddy and confuse the concept of “sex”. In humans, sex is binary and immutable. So called “intersex” people do not change this; clownfish do not change this. Arguing that sex is a “spectrum” does not change this. There are no third gametes, no “intermediate” gametes, and no ability for humans to change their physiology in order to produce gametes other than those their bodies were aiming for them to build from before birth. By confusing the concept of sex altogether, they hope to jump to the conclusion that someone can be or become (funny how it’s either) the sex one is not without having to bring any actual arguments or proof to the discussion, which is made up of thought-terminating slogans built on deliberate conflation and confusion of “sex” and “gender.” If you loosen the definition of “woman” and “man”, then presto, anyone might will the new, less stringent, more “inclusive” criteria! Saw Horses Are Horses! Saddle up and giddy-up!
People with DSDs are used as a supposed gotcha, but are dropped from the “debate” immediately after being mentioned. Apart from appropriation of the “assigned (SEX) at birth” terminology originating in the treatment of members of this particular community, so-called “intersex” conditions not being used otherwise in any “explanation” of gender dysphoria or “transness”. Where is all the research on this supposed sex spectrum? Who’s looking into the ways in which mammals, and humans particularly, change sex? If the invocation of spectra and clownfish were genuine, serious proponents of these claims would be able to point to research and data and show that these assertions were actually more than rhetorical mud being thrown to confuse and confound attempts at honest debate. But no, all they have are sophistry and lies; and when those don’t work they fall back on bullying and intimidation. Well, at least they’ve held up their end of “NO DEBATE!”
Ooops, typo on aisle 5:
If you loosen the definition of “woman” and “man”, then presto, anyone
mightwill fit the new, less stringent, more “inclusive” criteria!