smac97 Posted October 18, 2024 Author Posted October 18, 2024 (edited) 2 hours ago, Calm said: Quote Sex is innate, fixed, and binary That is suspect right there in terms of biased interpretation of the science. How anyone can state it’s binary given the various intersex combinations is beyond me. I previously linked to an article by Andrè Van Mol, MD which addresses people with DSD ("intersex") conditions, and I do so again here: Intersex: What It Is And Is Not The money quote: Quote The nomenclature “intersex” acknowledges something between two sexes and not a third sex. The term is intersex and not “extrasex,” therefore acknowledging the binary nature of human sex. Biological sex rarely may be phenotypically unclear in a given individual, but this does not represent a third one. Evolutionary biologist Colin Wright rejects the “sex is a spectrum” mantra with clear reasoning: “a spectrum implies a continuous distribution, and maybe even an amodal one (one in which no specific outcome is more likely than others). Biological sex in humans, however, is clear-cut over 99.98 percent of the time.” Dr. Wright continues, “any method exhibiting a predictive accuracy of over 99.98 percent would place it among the most precise methods in all the life sciences. We revise medical care practices and change world economic plans on far lower confidence than that.” Intersex/DSD is Not Gender Dysphoria or Trans-identification Intersex is not a subjective ideation. There is always an objective underlying medical origin. The DSM-5 Gender Dysphoria criteria states: “Specify if: With a disorder of sex development (e.g., a congenital adrenogenital disorder such as 255.2 [E25.0] congenital adrenal hyperplasia or 259.50 [E34.50] androgen insensitivity syndrome).” Intersex is what they mean, and it is different than gender dysphoria. Intersex/DSD is Rare Wildly inflated claims of the prevalence of DSD are common, but untrue. Dr. Leonard Sax exposed the source of some of this in his article, “How common is intersex.” Dr. Sax writes that Anne Fausto-Sterling asserted in her 2000 book Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality that intersex totaled 1.7 percent of human births. However, Sax shows that she included in her calculations common conditions having nothing to do with DSD. Dr. Sax notes that congenital adrenal hyperplasia and complete androgen insensitivity syndrome are the most common DSDs, which is in keeping with the previously stated DSM-5 Gender Dysphoria specification. Dr. Sax concludes that DSD/Intersex, “far from being ‘a fairly common phenomenon,’ is actually a rare event, occurring in fewer than two out of every 10,000 births.” Similarly, a 1992 Danish study found their rate of “testicular feminization syndrome” to be 1:20,400. A 2001 Dutch study stated their rate of androgen insensitivity syndrome “with molecular proof of the diagnosis is 1:99,000.” And a 2016 Danish study examining all their known 46XY karyotype females (androgen insensitivity syndrome) born since 1960 found the prevalence at 6.4 per 100,000 live born females. Intersex/DSD is rare. Conclusion A disorder of sex development/intersex uniformly signifies the presence of a definable, objective underlying medical problem. Intersex is a condition—something someone has—and neither an identity nor a third sex. DSD/intersex represent rare conditions requiring highly individualized therapeutic approaches and timelines, not a blanket one-size-fits-all prescription. "The term is intersex and not 'extrasex,' therefore acknowledging the binary nature of human sex." "Biological sex rarely may be phenotypically unclear in a given individual, but this does not represent a third one." Per this article, "intersex individuals are not asexual, but have clear sex biomarkers that makes their sex epistemically uncertain." A child born without legs, or with more than two, does not negate the scientific fact that homo sapiens are properly described as bipedal. The same goes with people with DSD. There are exceedingly rare instances of intersex persons, but that does not give rise to a third sex. "Intersex is a condition—something someone has—and neither an identity nor a third sex." These clinical statements were, until very recently, quite unremarkable. Biological sex is, in virtually all circumstances, a straightforward concept. See, e.g., here: Quote Last year I came across an interesting article published in the British Medical Journal (one of the most influential medical periodicals in the world): Rethinking sex-assigned-at-birth questions. In this article the authors were critical of people in medical fields making inquiries about a person's biological sex (“What sex were you assigned at birth, on your original birth certificate?”) and differentiating that from their "gender identity" (“What is your gender identity?”). The authors seemed to hint that these questions were transphobic: These questions have the potential to harm patients when they are used as a proxy for the more specific questions about anatomy and hormonal levels required to determine someone’s health needs. Furthermore, they do not inform clinicians about patients’ identities, names, or pronouns, all of which are important for truly inclusive clinical encounters. Instead, they may worsen rapport since sex assigned at birth is a construct that often clashes with the identity of transgender, intersex, and other people. ... In both clinical and research settings, questions that allow patients to self-identify as transgender are critically important to identify and quantify health disparities and to develop effective interventions to reduce them. Questions about transgender identity should be developed by transgender people and vary according to setting, such as research, clinical practice, and census records. Questions regarding gender, transgender, and other relevant identities should be asked in research settings; in clinical settings, questions about pronouns and anatomy may be more relevant. These questions should be rigorously evaluated in the setting for which they were developed. Recognising and respecting the gender of another person provides an opportunity to connect in a non-hierarchical manner. More broadly, recognising gender without reference to flawed constructs around sex assigned at birth allows us all greater personal autonomy and is key to eliminating transphobia in medicine and beyond. The "Letter to the Editor" responses to the above article mostly from medical professionals were . . . pretty frank. Here's an example (emphases added): Dear editor, We are writing on behalf of the Gender Dysphoria Alliance leadership board and membership. We are an education and advocacy organization for those with gender dysphoria – those who have medically transitioned and those who haven’t. We acknowledge that there is disagreement among transpeople about political and clinical matters. We disagree with the erasure of accurate biological language and realities, for several reasons. ... We believe it’s highly important for people with GD such as ourselves, whether we medicalize or not, to retain awareness of our biological sex. Because it’s not truly possible to change sex, accepting our full reality as trans people is important for both our psychological and physical well-being. ... There are healthcare implications and safety concerns if our biological sex isn’t clearly recorded on our medical records to orient care providers to our medical needs. Finally, we believe that the alteration of language and the falsified understanding of biological sex, applied to all people, is the result of extreme activism which is increasing societal hostility towards trans people. We do not wish to participate in that, and we don’t think it’s necessary in order for us to have rights and be integrated into society. Another (emphasis added): Dear Editor Alpert and colleagues report in a BMJ Editorial 5th June 2021 that characteristics of external genitalia at birth are 98% accurate in defining sex at birth. They go on to say that these are ‘flawed constructs’ around sex assigned at birth. Never before have I heard of a test with 98% sensitivity being regarded as a ‘fl[aw]ed construct’. Would the authors please explain the reasoning which lead them to this conclusion. Dr Peter Phillips FRCP Consultant Geriatrician East Suffolk and North Essex Foundation Trust Another (emphases added): Dear Editor Sex assigned at birth: the difference between the biological fact and its social interpretation It is good news to find articles like the one by Alpert et al.1 in which, from a multidisciplinary perspective, he studies scientific aspects with a humanistic approach. Thus, the aforementioned work shows great sensitivity to issues, beyond scientific ones, that affect a particularly vulnerable sector of the population. However, there is one aspect of the article that I would like to draw attention to, and on which I would like to contribute another view. I am referring to the risk of confusing biological or physiological data with its meaning or social interpretation. Specifically, I find it worrying that, from a scientific point of view, the fact of sex assigned to a human being at birth is relativized, considering it an irrelevant fact and without any consequence. It is true that different authors, mainly related to the ideology of gender postfeminism and from philosophical dialectics, have been affirming for years that biological sex is an artificial construction that must be discarded. Nonetheless, it is a serious danger that, on a clinical and healthcare level, a piece of data that is biological is relativized. This means being left at the expense of the meaning attributed to sex based on certain interests or feelings. It is false that the sex assigned to a human being at birth is an invention or social construction, devoid of reality. On the contrary, we are facing a verifiable fact, not only by the physiognomy of some genitalia, but also by genetic evidence provided by analytics, etc. This same type of verification is the one carried out with the rest of the animals and is the one that, for example, allows detecting a sex-linked hereditary disease, or indicating to a mother in the delivery room if she has had a son or a daughter. Are we really in reality when we think that a mother can be told that the sex of her newborn is not known and that we will have to wait for the newborn to state it? The sex assigned at birth (derived from the consideration of the genitalia, the proportion of circulating hormones, etc.) is a fact that may have different meanings for different people or for different currents of thought. And that is where, in my opinion, the research and debate on the interpretation of what sex and gender means in society should be based. The work referred to, by Alpert et al., ends up stating that “recognizing gender without reference to flawed constructs around sex assigned at birth allows us all greater personal autonomy and key to eliminating transphobia in medicine and beyond”. I believe that the previous statement, in accordance with what is indicated in the previous paragraphs, can be disputed, since, among other things, it can have effects contrary to those that the author seeks. Precisely, considering the sex assigned at birth as a social construction contradicts the autonomy of the person (based on complete and real information), and also the normalization of trans people. In reality, denying that transgender people have a biological sex at birth is stripping their own requests for gender reassignment of foundations. José López-Guzmán Professor of Pharmaceutical Humanities Pharmacy Faculty, University of Navarra Research Building. University of Navarra. 31000 Pamplona (Spain) Another (emphases added): Dear Editor, Like some of your other correspondents, I am baffled by the idea of referring to "sex assigned at birth". Sex is an inbuilt biological characteristic, like eye colour, blood group or the number of fingers one has - it is discovered at birth (or, in some cases, prenatally), not "assigned". Its foundation is the individual's chromosome content which, in the overwhelming majority of cases, leads to predictable processes of development in the genitalia and in other bodily areas. The authors seem to be arguing that because biological sex does not tell a doctor everything about a person's health or disease risk, it is of no value - an obvious non sequitur. To take the example given by the authors in reply to an earlier rapid response: the possibility of pregnancy exists for most biological females (including some of those who have transitioned to a male gender role) but is impossible for all biological males, whatever gender role they adopt. Other respondents have already commented on the need to be aware of disease risk relating to cervical or prostate screening and one must also include cardiovascular risk which, though complicated, shows certain clear differences between men and women. Transgender people, like everyone else, deserve to be treated with dignity and respect but this in no way means that downgrading or ignoring sex as a cardinal feature of someone's biology makes any sense. Roger Fisken Retired consultant physician and endocrinologist Another: Dear Editor I am truly baffled that such an esteemed medical journal could publish an article about sex being assigned at birth. Since forever sex has been observed at birth if not already known. The only time it may be considered to be assigned is in the very small percentage of cases of those with a DSD where there is ambiguity. The notion of someone being assigned a sex implies that it may not be correct, but we know no one changes sex, that there are only 2 sexes. Why are you peddling this nonsense? It is making a mockery of the medical profession. Helen Bailey Client services coordinator Hampshire Another: Dear Editor There is no such thing as "sex-assigned-at-birth". Sex is not assigned at birth. Publishing this nonsense diminishes the reputation of your journal. Prof David Curtis MD PhD FRCPsych Honorary Professor UCL Genetics Institute Another (emphases added): Dear Editor This editorial appears to argue against the use of clear language to describe biological sex in medicine. The authors seem to take a rather myopic view of this issue, framing it as one rooted in transgender rights and who holds power in “assigning sex,” instead of basic principles. Human beings, of course, reproduced sexually long before modern medicine, birth certificates, or the word “transgender” first came to be. The truth of the sex binary is anchored in the mechanism that brings every human into existence.[1] Humans have two different types of gametes, two types of reproductive systems, two discrete reproductive roles: two sexes. As a result, we have given these two sexes different names: female and male. These will exist whether or not the clinician writes them down, or asks a transgender patient “what is your sex?” The fact that 0.02% of babies[2] have differences in sex development that cause the usually easy identification of sex to become a more complex affair, does not invalidate sex as one of the most clinically useful categorisations in medicine. To suggest that it does, and therefore sex should not be recorded, is absurd. If the accuracy of observable sex is claimed not to be good enough for doctors to record or rely on in medical practice, this would logically put doctors in a position where any data they have would need to reach an accuracy threshold far exceeding most tests. Even by the authors’ own statistic of 98%, it sets an impossibly high bar. ... No rational argument appears to be made as to why doctors should avoid admitting that the patients who had hysterectomies are biologically female, and those who had orchiectomies male. Surgery on reproductive organs does not render sex obsolete. A lobectomy does not make the respiratory system redundant. While the authors dismiss information gained from knowledge of biological sex as “shorthand,” knowledge of the two types of reproductive systems, and being able to name them, is important. This holds true for gender clinicians, too. The patient referral form for the Gender Identity Clinic in London asks for “sex assigned at birth.”[8] It seems strange to suggest medicine should have no names for the distinctions between the people at risk of testicular torsion versus cervical cancer. Communication skills usually advise against reducing people to their organs, to avoid saying “the pancreas in room 7,” but even if some form of organ-inventory system were proposed, it seems likely the basic template would come in two distinct types. Gender identity information can be valuable to help guide the clinical encounter, respect the transgender patient’s sense of self and gain a fuller picture as to healthcare needs. But gender identity should be recorded in addition to, not act as a replacement for, biological sex. If an unknown patient comes in to A&E, unaccompanied and unconscious, their gender identity would not be ascertainable. However, their sex would remain observable, and would make a difference to that patient’s care. Healthcare cannot collectively discard words for the two biological sexes. Awareness of the importance of clinical research into sex differences in medicine, especially for the female sex[9], has just been highlighted by the pandemic. How would such work be done if the sexes cannot be named? Clear language on sex is vital in medicine, science, and public health education. It is surprising these words should need to be typed in a Rapid Response to the BMJ. Sara Dahlen MSc Student, Bioethics and Society King's College London London Never before have I heard of a test with 98% sensitivity being regarded as a ‘fl[aw]ed construct’ It is false that the sex assigned to a human being at birth is an invention or social construction, devoid of reality. On the contrary, we are facing a verifiable fact, not only by the physiognomy of some genitalia, but also by genetic evidence provided by analytics, etc. I am baffled by the idea of referring to "sex assigned at birth". Sex is an inbuilt biological characteristic, like eye colour, blood group or the number of fingers one has - it is discovered at birth (or, in some cases, prenatally), not "assigned". Transgender people, like everyone else, deserve to be treated with dignity and respect but this in no way means that downgrading or ignoring sex as a cardinal feature of someone's biology makes any sense. There is no such thing as "sex-assigned-at-birth". Sex is not assigned at birth. Publishing this nonsense diminishes the reputation of your journal. The truth of the sex binary is anchored in the mechanism that brings every human into existence.[1] Humans have two different types of gametes, two types of reproductive systems, two discrete reproductive roles: two sexes. As a result, we have given these two sexes different names: female and male. The fact that 0.02% of babies[2] have differences in sex development that cause the usually easy identification of sex to become a more complex affair, does not invalidate sex as one of the most clinically useful categorisations in medicine. To suggest that it does, and therefore sex should not be recorded, is absurd. No rational argument appears to be made as to why doctors should avoid admitting that the patients who had hysterectomies are biologically female, and those who had orchiectomies male. Healthcare cannot collectively discard words for the two biological sexes. Awareness of the importance of clinical research into sex differences in medicine, especially for the female sex, has just been highlighted by the pandemic. How would such work be done if the sexes cannot be named? The sexual binary is not unique to humans. All mammals have the same trait, yet nobody goes around suggesting a "spectrum" of "genders" for dogs, cats, cows, horses, and so on. To be "female" is to be "of, relating to, or being a person with a certain combination of sex characteristics, commonly including two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei, a vagina, a uterus and ovaries, and enlarged breasts developed at puberty," and to be a "woman" is to be "an adult female person." Conversely, to be "male" is to be "of, relating to, or being a person with a certain combination of sex characteristics, commonly including an X and Y chromosome pair in the cell nuclei, a penis, scrotum, and testicles, and facial hair developed at puberty," and to be a "man" is to be "an adult male person." The sexual binary of human beings is beyond reasonable dispute. There are two sexes: male and female, man and woman. That's it. These categories are rooted in biology and fact, and efforts to conflate them, to make them interchangeable, to make these categories subject to individualized ideas and preferences, does not work. No matter how sincerely I may feel was born in the "wrong body," I cannot alter the reality of that body. I am a man. A male. Adopting mannerisms and affectations, and using clothing and hair and makeup choices, to make me superficially look like a woman may end up fooling some people, but the reality of me being male remains. Undergoing radical medical and surgical treatments to chemically and physically alter my body may improve the deception of me "being" a woman, but the deception still remains. I cannot "identify" as being an age I am not, or "identify" as having parentage/ancestry I do not have, or "identify" as being a species other than what I am. No matter how much and how strongly I may "identify" and "feel" as these other things, I cannot change biological fact. I hope you will give this article a read. it is by evolutionary biologist Dr. Colin Wright, who states in part: Quote Despite there being zero evidence in favor of Blank Slate psychology, and a mountain of evidence to the contrary, this belief has entrenched itself within the walls of many university humanities departments where it is often taught as fact. Now, armed with what they perceive to be an indisputable truth questioned only by sexist bigots, they respond with well-practiced outrage to alternative views. This has resulted in a chilling effect that causes scientists to self-censor, lest these activists accuse them of bigotry and petition their departments for their dismissal. I’ve been privately contacted by close, like-minded colleagues warning me that my public feuds with social justice activists on social media could be occupational suicide, and that I should disengage and delete my comments immediately. My experience is anything but unique, and the problem is intensifying. Having successfully cultivated power over administrations and silenced faculty by inflicting reputational terrorism on their critics and weaponizing their own fragility and outrage, social justice activists now justifiably think there is no belief or claim too dubious that administrations won’t cater to it. Recently, this fear has been realized as social justice activists attempt to jump the epistemological shark by claiming that the very notion of biological sex, too, is a social construct. As a biologist, it is hard to understand how anyone could believe something so outlandish. It’s a belief on a par with the belief in a flat Earth. I first saw this claim being made this year by anthropology graduate students on Facebook. At first I thought they mistyped and were simply referring to gender. But as I began to pay closer attention, it was clear that they were indeed talking about biological sex. Over the next several months it became apparent that this view was not isolated to this small friend circle, as it began cropping up all over the Internet. In support of this view, recent editorials from Scientific American—an ostensibly trustworthy, scientific, and apolitical online magazine—are often referenced. The titles read, “Sex Redefined: The Idea of 2 Sexes Is Overly Simplistic,” and “Visualizing Sex as a Spectrum.” Even more recently, the most prestigious scientific journal in the world, Nature, published an editorial claiming that classifying people’s sex “on the basis of anatomy or genetics should be abandoned” and “has no basis in science” and that “the research and medical community now sees sex as more complex than male and female.” In the Nature article, the motive is stated clearly enough: acknowledging the reality of biological sex will “undermine efforts to reduce discrimination against transgender people and those who do not fall into the binary categories of male or female.” But while there is evidence for the fluidity of sex in many organisms, this is simply not the case in humans. We can acknowledge the existence of very rare cases in humans where sex is ambiguous, but this does not negate the reality that sex in humans is functionally binary. These editorials are nothing more than a form of politically motivated, scientific sophistry. The formula for each of these articles is straightforward. First, they list a multitude of intersex conditions. Second, they detail the genes, hormones, and complex developmental processes leading to these conditions. And, third and finally, they throw their hands up and insist this complexity means scientists have no clue what sex really is. This is all highly misleading and deceiving (self-deceiving?), since the developmental processes involved in creating any organ are enormously complex, yet almost always produce fully functional end products. Making a hand is complicated too, but the vast majority of us end up with the functional, five-fingered variety. The same goes with the sexual binary. Complexities are involved, and from such complexities arise irregularities, but "the vast majority of us end up" as unambiguously and unequivocally and phenotypically "male" or "female." Quote What these articles leave out is the fact that the final result of sex development in humans are unambiguously male or female over 99.98 percent of the time. Thus, the claim that “2 sexes is overly simplistic” is misleading, because intersex conditions correspond to less than 0.02 percent of all births, and intersex people are not a third sex. Intersex is simply a catch-all category for sex ambiguity and/or a mismatch between sex genotype and phenotype, regardless of its etiology. Furthermore, the claim that “sex is a spectrum” is also misleading, as a spectrum implies a continuous distribution, and maybe even an amodal one (one in which no specific outcome is more likely than others). Biological sex in humans, however, is clear-cut over 99.98 percent of the time. Lastly, the claim that classifying people’s sex based on anatomy and genetics “has no basis in science” has itself no basis in reality, as any method exhibiting a predictive accuracy of over 99.98 percent would place it among the most precise methods in all the life sciences. We revise medical care practices and change world economic plans on far lower confidence than that. Despite the unquestionable reality of biological sex in humans, social justice and trans activists continue to push this belief, and respond with outrage when challenged. Pointing out any of the above facts is now considered synonymous with transphobia. The massive social media website Twitter—the central hub for cultural discourse and debate—is now actively banning users for stating true facts about basic human biology. And biologists like myself often sit quietly, afraid to defend our own field out of fear that our decade of education followed by continued research, job searches, and the quest for tenure might be made obsolete overnight if the mob decides to target one of us for speaking up. Because of this, our objections take place almost entirely between one another in private whisper networks, despite the fact that a majority of biologists are extremely troubled by these attacks to our field by social justice activists. This is an untenable situation. When I speak of people and organizations being ideologically pressured and/or compromised, the above article's description of things is what I have in mind. Quote It is undoubtedly true that trans people lead very difficult lives, which are only made more difficult by the bigotry of others. But social justice activists appear completely unwilling or unable to distinguish between people who criticize their ideology and people who criticize their humanity. Their social immune system appears so sensitive that it consumes itself. We need to acknowledge that trans issues and ideology are complex, and concern one of the most marginalized communities in the world. Because of this, we must give these issues the respect they deserve by approaching them with nuance and compassion instead of crudeness and cruelty. But we must not jettison truth in this process. If social justice activists require scientists to reject evolution and the reality of biological sex to be considered good allies, then we can never be good allies. What are your thoughts about this? Quote Back when evolution was under attack from proponents of Biblical Creation and Intelligent Design, academic scientists were under no pressure to hold back criticism. This is because these anti-evolution movements were almost exclusively a product of right-wing evangelicals who held no power in academia. Now we have a much bigger problem, because evolution denialism is back, but this time it’s coming from left-wing activists who do hold power in academia. This makes the issue both harder to ignore and harder to remove. Social justice and hyper-militant trans activism now seems to act as a kind of anti-universal acid, and not merely a strong buffer solution. While the universal acid of evolution eats through old cherished beliefs and replaces them with deeper understanding and a clearer picture of reality, the anti-universal acid of social justice ideology is a recklessly destructive force, aiming to abolish scientific truth and replace it with relativistic postmodern nonsense. I did not train to be a scientist for over a decade just to sit quietly while science in general, and my field in particular, comes under attack from activists who subvert truth to ideology and narrative. When I reflect on my initial reasons over a decade ago for choosing a career as an academic scientist, it was largely due to the inspiration I felt from outspoken public intellectuals like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Stephen Fry, and the late Christopher Hitchens, who led by example and followed reason wherever it took them. At the time, it seemed to me that a career as an academic scientist would be the most intellectually satisfying profession imaginable. It would allow me to dive deep into questions at the frontier of human knowledge, teach and train students to think critically, and pass on the virtues of boldly engaging with unreason in the search for truth to a new generation. But it seems clear to me that academia now is not as it was advertised a decade ago when I started down this path. It is no longer a refuge for outspoken, free-thinking intellectuals. Instead, it seems one must now choose between living a zipper-lipped life as an academic scientist, or living a life as a fulfilled intellectual. Currently, one cannot do both. Again, thoughts? Thanks, -Smac Edited October 18, 2024 by smac97 1
Calm Posted October 18, 2024 Posted October 18, 2024 3 minutes ago, smac97 said: These clinical statements were, until very recently, quite unremarkable. Medicine is updating positions all the time based on new findings with new tech and better studies. So that something used to be accepted widely, but is being challenged now is not a good reason imo to dig in on the traditional position. 2
smac97 Posted October 18, 2024 Author Posted October 18, 2024 (edited) 1 hour ago, Calm said: Medicine is updating positions all the time based on new findings with new tech and better studies. So that something used to be accepted widely, but is being challenged now is not a good reason imo to dig in on the traditional position. That is not what I am doing. See the Colin Wright article in my previous post, and the Paul McHugh amicus brief in the one before that. There is a lot of institutional rot going on. It is this ideologically-compromised stuff, not intransigence about "the traditional position," that is foisting profoundly unscientific nonsense on the academic and scientific communities. Thanks, -Smac Edited October 18, 2024 by smac97
Calm Posted October 18, 2024 Posted October 18, 2024 1 hour ago, CV75 said: If sex wasn't binary, we would have not arrived at the observation and concept of "various intersex combinations." Homo sapiens would have given each variation a unique term without reference to male or female, the first time any appeared. Or humans typically like to simplify things when they categorize, thus missing important nuances and that which is different than the norm is minimized at best, dismissed or even destroyed as dysfunctional or worse, dangerous. Doing so in beyond what is necessary in medical research and treatment can be dangerous, such as acting as all that is necessary to learn of disorders of the heart can be learned from studying white males and anyone complaining of different symptoms of say a heart attack is dramatizing, looking for attention, drugs, whatever. How many women died because doctors couldn’t see they were having heart attacks because they didn’t match the symptoms and they were sent home untreated? But simply because something is not the perceived norm doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist as an entity as itself and not just as a variation of something else, at least not any more than everything else exists in context of its surroundings. 4
Calm Posted October 18, 2024 Posted October 18, 2024 1 hour ago, smac97 said: There are exceedingly rare instances of intersex persons There are less LDS in the US than intersex individuals (1.2% vs 1.7). Do you view LDS as exceedingly rare in the US in general? 1
smac97 Posted October 18, 2024 Author Posted October 18, 2024 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Calm said: Quote There are exceedingly rare instances of intersex persons There are less LDS in the US than intersex individuals (1.2% vs 1.7). Do you view LDS as exceedingly rare in the US in general? The "1.7" figure is rather heavily disputed. See here: Quote Intersex/DSD is Rare Wildly inflated claims of the prevalence of DSD are common, but untrue. Dr. Leonard Sax exposed the source of some of this in his article, “How common is intersex.” Dr. Sax writes that Anne Fausto-Sterling asserted in her 2000 book Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality that intersex totaled 1.7 percent of human births. However, Sax shows that she included in her calculations common conditions having nothing to do with DSD. Dr. Sax notes that congenital adrenal hyperplasia and complete androgen insensitivity syndrome are the most common DSDs, which is in keeping with the previously stated DSM-5 Gender Dysphoria specification. Dr. Sax concludes that DSD/Intersex, “far from being ‘a fairly common phenomenon,’ is actually a rare event, occurring in fewer than two out of every 10,000 births.” Similarly, a 1992 Danish study found their rate of “testicular feminization syndrome” to be 1:20,400. A 2001 Dutch study stated their rate of androgen insensitivity syndrome “with molecular proof of the diagnosis is 1:99,000.” And a 2016 Danish study examining all their known 46XY karyotype females (androgen insensitivity syndrome) born since 1960 found the prevalence at 6.4 per 100,000 live born females. Intersex/DSD is rare. Andd Quote By far the leading scientific authority on intersexuality is Anne Fausto-Sterling, a professor of evolutionary biology and gender studies at Brown University. Having originally claimed that up to 4 percent of the population is intersex, Fausto-Sterling downgraded her assessment to 1.7 percent in 2000, after conducting independent research with colleagues. Academic publications, advocacy literature, and corporate diversity training seminars widely cite this figure today. Several scholars have taken Fausto-Sterling to task for sloppy empirical work and politically motivated definitions. On the first front, University of Toronto political science professor Carrie Hull accepts, for the sake of argument, Fausto-Sterling’s definition of intersex as “any deviation,” however slight, from the “Platonic ideal” of male and female but finds serious errors of interpretation and computation. Using data from the studies on which Fausto-Sterling relies but with “correct math,” Hull finds that a more accurate estimate of intersex incidence is 0.373 percent. Even this, Hull emphasizes, is likely a “dramatic overstatement.” The primary driver of Fausto-Sterling’s exaggerated assessment was her inclusion of a condition known as late-onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH). The classic version of this condition occurs when hormonal production structures are defective in utero, causing the overproduction of male sex hormones, which impairs anatomical development in females. Practically speaking, this leads to a female infant being born with genitals that appear more masculine than feminine. In the condition’s late-onset version, however, hormonal malfunction occurs much later in life, and because it is often asymptomatic, those who have it tend to discover that fact only incidentally, in the context of treatment for infertility. The study on which Fausto-Sterling relies for her assessment of late-onset CAH reports an incidence rate of 1.5 percent. Hence, this single condition represents 88 percent of all intersex conditions in her 1.7 percent figure. Yet the original study (1985) did not say that late-onset CAH occurs at 1.5 percent across the general population. Rather, it sampled four high-risk demographic groups: Ashkenazi Jews (3.7 percent), Hispanics (1.9 percent), Yugoslavs (1.6 percent), and Italians (0.3 percent). The 1.5 percent figure seems to be an average of these four groups, adjusting for their respective portion in the general population. Among Caucasians, the frequency is about 0.1 percent; among blacks and Native Americans, the figure is close to zero, according to the authors of the original study. Fausto-Sterling has conceded that this study is nonrepresentative, but her 2000 article leads the reader to believe that 1.5 percent is universal. That has certainly been the way lawyers and judges have used her work. Leonard Sax, a physician and psychologist with extensive clinical experience in treating children with intersex conditions, believes that behind Fausto-Sterling’s dubious empirical claims lurks a politicized definition of intersex. That definition is clinically useless, he argues, because it makes no distinction between symptomatic and asymptomatic conditions, or between types and severities of symptoms, and it fails to recognize that the vast majority of intersex people have variations of sex development so subtle as to be imperceptible to the untrained eye—or even to the person with the condition. “A definition of intersex which encompasses individuals who are phenotypically indistinguishable from normal,” Sax cautions, “is likely to confuse both clinicians and patients.” A good example is Klinefelter syndrome, which accounts for roughly 5 percent of intersex conditions in Fausto-Sterling’s final estimate. Individuals with Klinefelter are essentially males born with an additional X chromosome (X-X-Y). The features that distinguish them from other males become detectable after puberty and include smaller-than-average testes, larger-than-average breast tissue, and lower-than-average bone density and muscle mass. Genitals are normal for such males and capable of both erection and ejaculation. The majority of Klinefelter males are infertile. Affected individuals are usually so indistinguishable from other males that their condition may go undiagnosed until fertility problems arise; those who are fertile may go their entire lives without knowing that they have it. Yet the Fourth Circuit in Gloucester suggested that the existence of students with Klinefelter makes it impossible for schools consistently to enforce a policy that adheres to the conventional meaning of male and female. The Obama administration’s definition of “sex” as a matter of gender identity, the court explained, would at least “resolve ambiguity” by applying a fail-proof criterion (the assumption being that a student’s asserted gender identity is accurate simply by virtue of being sincere). True intersex conditions, according to Sax, are extremely rare, representing fewer than two out of every 10,000 births, or 0.018 percent of the population. Put into perspective, this means that a medium-size high school is likely to have one intersex student every 15 years or so, making utterly implausible the claim by federal judges that intersex conditions create an administrative headache for schools that choose to enforce the conventional definition of “sex.” "{F}ewer than two out of every 10,000 births, or 0.018 percent of the population" = "exceedingly rare." Thanks, -Smac Edited October 18, 2024 by smac97
CV75 Posted October 19, 2024 Posted October 19, 2024 3 hours ago, Calm said: Or humans typically like to simplify things when they categorize, thus missing important nuances and that which is different than the norm is minimized at best, dismissed or even destroyed as dysfunctional or worse, dangerous. Doing so in beyond what is necessary in medical research and treatment can be dangerous, such as acting as all that is necessary to learn of disorders of the heart can be learned from studying white males and anyone complaining of different symptoms of say a heart attack is dramatizing, looking for attention, drugs, whatever. How many women died because doctors couldn’t see they were having heart attacks because they didn’t match the symptoms and they were sent home untreated? But simply because something is not the perceived norm doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist as an entity as itself and not just as a variation of something else, at least not any more than everything else exists in context of its surroundings. Yet our common reference point, even in medical research and treatment (of mind and body), remains binary, as demonstrated when we say “non-binary,” “intersex,” and “X and “Y,” “phenotype,” “syndrome,” etc. Add to that the theological considerations, and we only compound the weight of our binary paradigm extant in our current expansion and application of interdisciplinary knowledge on this subject. Diagnosing chest pain symptoms at various stages of morbidity still begins with a binary, pain/no pain model. The perceived norm, or ideal, is “no pain,” so we apply preventive measures and see doctors when a degree of variation from the norm becomes problematic. The perceived norm can always be challenged, which can be a healthy exercise in the good-faith pursuit of useful knowledge. I think that only those who can do this with a tremendous level of restraint and altruism within an interdisciplinary team will be able to benefit society at large. I’m not sure the legislative process is the best way to invite this approach, but it’s a start, I guess. If a child needs help, I would suggest we weigh the combined wisdom of the disciplines no matter what we choose to call what, and I believe this comports with the Handbook.
Calm Posted October 19, 2024 Posted October 19, 2024 (edited) 38 minutes ago, CV75 said: The perceived norm, or ideal, is “no pain,” so we apply preventive measures and see doctors when a degree of variation from the norm becomes problematic. Do you have chronic health issues? If so, the no pain/pain binary may hold no meaning for you. Edited October 19, 2024 by Calm
MustardSeed Posted October 19, 2024 Posted October 19, 2024 23 hours ago, Doctor Steuss said: The younger parts of us will always be the oldest. When we are 25, the parts of us that formed when we were 24 are only a year old. They are still fragile, and malleable. The parts of us that formed when we were 11 though are 14 years old. They are solid, and foundational. Sometimes it's possible to tear them down, and rebuild them, but more often than not, the best we can do is shore them up with newer parts of us. I don’t think I’ve ever read something so well said. I think I might quote you in my journal of important things to understand. Thank you 3
Analytics Posted October 19, 2024 Posted October 19, 2024 15 hours ago, smac97 said: Fourth, I have recently come across an excellent amicus curiae brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in 2019 on behalf of Dr. Paul McHugh. From the summary: The entire brief is worth a read. For example, he goes on to suggest - rather forcefully, - that several otherwise vaunted medical organizations, which in your view are the be-all-end-all sources of information about these issues, are ideologically compromised: "The American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Psychiatric Association (APA) thoroughly confuse sex and gender identity or transpose them, as if gender identity is innate and fixed at birth, while sex is malleable and the body configurable to one’s sense of gender identity. They attempt to obfuscate their ideological pronouncements as science. However, '[t]he hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex — that a person might be ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’ or "a woman trapped in a man’s body" — is not supported by scientific evidence.'" Question: You previously said that, you "want to turn to organizations of doctors who have a vested interest in the wellbeing of their patients." Well, so do I. But I assume we would also want to know if these organizations are ideologically or otherwise compromised. Do you see any possibility that this is happening? I’ll answer your question with a question. Do you think it is possible that Dr. Paul McHugh is ideologically compromised? Looking at this in context, five years ago there was a Supreme Court case about whether employment discrimination laws protect transgender people from employment discrimination. The Court ruled 6-3 that yes, the Civil Rights Act does in fact protect transgender people. Dr. McHugh claims that the American Medical Association, The American College of Physicians, and 14 additional medical, mental health, and health care organizations that filed a joint amici curiae in favor of the party that eventually prevailed all believe, or at least argue, that “gender identity is fixed at birth” because of “the hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings” and that these doctors “thoroughly confuse sex and gender identity." Do you really think this is an honest, fair, and accurate representation of their position, as expressed in their own amici curiae brief? We don’t need to guess about this; their brief is on the internet. Despite Dr. McHugh’s claims to the contrary, they do in fact carefully define “sex”, “gender identity”, “transgender”, “gender dysphoria,” and "sexual orientation”, and are in fact careful with how they use these terms. This shouldn’t be surprising--these are people who graduated from medical school. And it turns out that they do in fact say in their brief on page 8 that, “most people who express their gender in non-stereotypical or non-conforming manner are or become comfortable with the sex they were assigned at birth.” Dr. McHugh doesn’t fairly represent what their position even is, much less accurately respond to it. 15 hours ago, smac97 said: I have said exactly zero about you and your medical issues (for which you have my sympathy). I appreciate your sympathy, but it is unnecessary. Despite how badly my joints were permanently damaged in the years before, immediately after, and especially on my mission, thanks to both traditional medicine and alternative medicine, I am now in the best shape of my life; in general, I now feel better than most of the guys I went to high school with. And I’m fairly confident that no matter what health issues I may eventually face in the future, I’ll always be happy and grateful that my body doesn’t feel like it did when I was 19. The point of telling my story is to help you see both the passion and nuance of my thoughts, feelings, and attitudes about mainstream medicine, which is what informs my position on the medical issues we’re discussing. The New York Times was able to successfully resist the pressure to “toe the ideological line” when reporting on these issues and was able to report on the medical research in a way that was “honest and accurate.” Likewise, I believe that on the whole, the AMA summarizes the medical research honestly and accurately as well. 2
MustardSeed Posted October 19, 2024 Posted October 19, 2024 (edited) 17 hours ago, Calm said: Or humans typically like to simplify things when they categorize, thus missing important nuances and that which is different than the norm is minimized at best, dismissed or even destroyed as dysfunctional or worse, dangerous. (NOTE the following is entirely my opinion. I have no CFR. However, I will state that I listened to a scientist present the idea of categorizing strangers categories of safety and sex on a documentary about human development many years ago and I do not have any references for this.) If’s my opinion that what most of us have understood our whole lives on a very subconscious level is that categorizing people allows us to know a few survival necessities when approaching a stranger. (Caveman instincts) 1. Am I safe with this person? Having evolved, we have less concern about being killed for survival and instead we tend to be concerned about emotional safety significantly more than our caveman parents were. Still, it’s still about safety and survival. 2. Can I have sex with this person? Procreation and recreation sex is a drive that imo exists in more of our interactions than many of us realize or want to admit. It’s hardwired. IMO it’s a matter of basic lizard brain functioning to determine both these factors. When one person has a religious, or a dogmatic belief that there is “one way,” anything outside the box threatens safety and survival in a way that is deeply subconscious and rooted in our dna. Thus the necessity for categorization . Edited October 19, 2024 by MustardSeed 2
CV75 Posted October 19, 2024 Posted October 19, 2024 12 hours ago, Calm said: Do you have chronic health issues? If so, the no pain/pain binary may hold no meaning for you. I do not, but in the case of chronic illness, the binary norm is the second half of "health issue/no health issue " The complaints over someone's gender-related health issues aren't over gender/non-gender but which of the two gender norms is affected and is the aim of treatment, or in the case of someone identifying as non-gendered, both genders. This is why I think the analogy with a heart attack or chronic health issues isn't the best, but I went along with it to the extent clinical decision trees or other decision support algorithms begin with a binary reference point to identify whether there is a complaint or not, an what it is.
Analytics Posted October 19, 2024 Posted October 19, 2024 16 hours ago, smac97 said: Again, thoughts? A lot of this is simply a matter of nomenclature. If we are talking about some platonic ideal of what “normal" humans are like, then sure, according to that ideal, human sex is strictly binary. But if we are talking about real world biological beings, if there is just one person that biologically doesn’t fit into the male/female dichotomy, then sex is not binary. At the genetic level, there is a single gene on the end of one chromosome called the SRY gene that is the ultimate genetic driver that determines 99%+ of whether one’s phenotype will be male or female. If that gene doesn’t exist or is disabled, the person grows into a female body by default. But if that gene is enabled, then a few proteins are created that cause gonads to grow into testes rather than ovaries. That is why if somebody has XY chromosomes, it is still possible to have a female phenotype. For example, whether such a person is considered male (because of the SRY gene), female (because of the body’s phenotype), or intersex is just a matter of the classification scheme somebody chooses to use. The fact is, determining if somebody in the real world “is” male or female on the genetic level can be a complicated thing. This was illustrated in the 1992 Olympic games: Quote One of the most controversial uses of this discovery was as a means for sex verification at the Olympic Games, under a system implemented by the International Olympic Committee in 1992. Athletes with an SRY gene were not permitted to participate as females, although all athletes in whom this was "detected" at the 1996 Summer Olympics were ruled false positives and were not disqualified. Specifically, eight female participants (out of a total of 3387) at these games were found to have the SRY gene. However, after further investigation of their genetic conditions, all these athletes were verified as female and allowed to compete. These athletes were found to have either partial or full androgen insensitivity, despite having an SRY gene, making them externally phenotypically female.[33] In the late 1990s, a number of relevant professional societies in United States called for elimination of gender verification, including the American Medical Association, stating that the method used was uncertain and ineffective.[34] Chromosomal screening was eliminated as of the 2000 Summer Olympics,[34][35][36] but this was later followed by other forms of testing based on hormone levels.[37] The observation that the sex of real-world people is not a binary thing didn’t develop out of ideology--it grew out of biological insights into the complicated nature of the human genome and how sex expresses itself in the growth of actual human beings. The extent to which an individual has masculine or feminine characteristics is a function of how much and when hormones such as testosterone, estrogen, progesterone, dihydrotestosterone, androstenedione, etc. are released into the body. This is driven by whether the gonads develop as ovaries as they do by default, or whether they develop as testes as they do if the SRY gene is activated. If you took a group of 10,000 adults, you could divide them into “males”, “females”, and “intersex”. You could then line up the “males” and rank them according to how masculine they are. You could also rank the females on how feminine they are. In this exercise, being masculine and feminine is not a cultural thing; it is a biological thing. We are talking about masculine and feminine phenotypes, which are driving by masculine and feminine hormones and the effect that those hormones have on human bodies, regardless of whether or not the body has a SRY gene. You could then order all 10,000 people from masculine to feminine with the most masculine men on one end, the intersex crowd in the middle, and the most feminine women on the other end. If you then compare the most feminine man with the most masculine man, and compared that same most feminine man with somebody who was intersex, then in many, ways, he’s probably more like the intersex person than he’s like the manly man. This is what scientists mean when they say sex is on a spectrum. It does not mean that you can’t group most people into “male” or“female.” Rather, it means that on a fundamental developmental level, the body’s default pathway is female, and the extent to which that development is directed towards male characteristics by the SRY gene and male hormones can vary from person to person. This isn’t ideology. It is biological reality. 3
Calm Posted October 19, 2024 Posted October 19, 2024 3 hours ago, CV75 said: binary norm is the second half of "health issue/no health issue " Not really 1
CV75 Posted October 19, 2024 Posted October 19, 2024 3 hours ago, Analytics said: A lot of this is simply a matter of nomenclature. If we are talking about some platonic ideal of what “normal" humans are like, then sure, according to that ideal, human sex is strictly binary. But if we are talking about real world biological beings, if there is just one person that biologically doesn’t fit into the male/female dichotomy, then sex is not binary. At the genetic level, there is a single gene on the end of one chromosome called the SRY gene that is the ultimate genetic driver that determines 99%+ of whether one’s phenotype will be male or female. If that gene doesn’t exist or is disabled, the person grows into a female body by default. But if that gene is enabled, then a few proteins are created that cause gonads to grow into testes rather than ovaries. That is why if somebody has XY chromosomes, it is still possible to have a female phenotype. For example, whether such a person is considered male (because of the SRY gene), female (because of the body’s phenotype), or intersex is just a matter of the classification scheme somebody chooses to use. The fact is, determining if somebody in the real world “is” male or female on the genetic level can be a complicated thing. This was illustrated in the 1992 Olympic games: The observation that the sex of real-world people is not a binary thing didn’t develop out of ideology--it grew out of biological insights into the complicated nature of the human genome and how sex expresses itself in the growth of actual human beings. The extent to which an individual has masculine or feminine characteristics is a function of how much and when hormones such as testosterone, estrogen, progesterone, dihydrotestosterone, androstenedione, etc. are released into the body. This is driven by whether the gonads develop as ovaries as they do by default, or whether they develop as testes as they do if the SRY gene is activated. If you took a group of 10,000 adults, you could divide them into “males”, “females”, and “intersex”. You could then line up the “males” and rank them according to how masculine they are. You could also rank the females on how feminine they are. In this exercise, being masculine and feminine is not a cultural thing; it is a biological thing. We are talking about masculine and feminine phenotypes, which are driving by masculine and feminine hormones and the effect that those hormones have on human bodies, regardless of whether or not the body has a SRY gene. You could then order all 10,000 people from masculine to feminine with the most masculine men on one end, the intersex crowd in the middle, and the most feminine women on the other end. If you then compare the most feminine man with the most masculine man, and compared that same most feminine man with somebody who was intersex, then in many, ways, he’s probably more like the intersex person than he’s like the manly man. This is what scientists mean when they say sex is on a spectrum. It does not mean that you can’t group most people into “male” or“female.” Rather, it means that on a fundamental developmental level, the body’s default pathway is female, and the extent to which that development is directed towards male characteristics by the SRY gene and male hormones can vary from person to person. This isn’t ideology. It is biological reality. Under this description, there are then two pathways to female phenotype: XX and nonactivated SRY XY, and no single default pathway, since there is are nodes where SRY must be present or not and then either on or off. The absence of a sex-determining region on the X creates a binary dependent condition: SRY activated or SRY not-activated, the latter possible in both XX and XY. Also, in some cases, the SRY is present on one of the XX individual’s sex chromosomes resulting from meiotic recombination during spermatogenesis. So, there are also two pathways to male phenotype (XY and XX SRY+). It is also interesting to me that a spectrum requires two defined ends, and the region defined as indeterminate depends on the presence of the two ends. This would support the idea that gender is an eternal characteristic
Malc Posted October 20, 2024 Posted October 20, 2024 9 hours ago, CV75 said: I do not, but in the case of chronic illness, the binary norm is the second half of "health issue/no health issue " The complaints over someone's gender-related health issues aren't over gender/non-gender but which of the two gender norms is affected and is the aim of treatment, or in the case of someone identifying as non-gendered, both genders. This is why I think the analogy with a heart attack or chronic health issues isn't the best, but I went along with it to the extent clinical decision trees or other decision support algorithms begin with a binary reference point to identify whether there is a complaint or not, an what it is. I'm pretty sure that there is no binary determination for at least some health conditions. There may be a continuum of indicators, and an arbitrary limit - for example, in determining whether someone is considered to be diabetic. The limit itself may change from time to time, and from country to country, with some values of the indicator being (again, arbitrarily) considered to be "pre-diabetic". About 15 years ago I had a perfectly normal value of an antigen in my bloodstream - well below the value that normally strongly suggested the possibility of cancer. As it happened, I did have cancer, as a biopsy showed, and the tumour was growing fairly rapidly, although I had no symptoms. If I had skipped the next scheduled test, I might have been seriously ill by the following one, and with the antigen level still below the "danger" level. 1
CV75 Posted October 20, 2024 Posted October 20, 2024 16 minutes ago, Malc said: I'm pretty sure that there is no binary determination for at least some health conditions. There may be a continuum of indicators, and an arbitrary limit - for example, in determining whether someone is considered to be diabetic. The limit itself may change from time to time, and from country to country, with some values of the indicator being (again, arbitrarily) considered to be "pre-diabetic". About 15 years ago I had a perfectly normal value of an antigen in my bloodstream - well below the value that normally strongly suggested the possibility of cancer. As it happened, I did have cancer, as a biopsy showed, and the tumour was growing fairly rapidly, although I had no symptoms. If I had skipped the next scheduled test, I might have been seriously ill by the following one, and with the antigen level still below the "danger" level. I hope that your treatment is going well despite the failure of the antigen test to identify the presence of cancer the biopsy showed. Two tests, two bases of identification -- thankfully one worked for you. Each test's basis of identification is a standard range of results that indicate the presence of disease. These "arbitrary" limits are still based on a binary paradigm (max and min), otherwise there could be no range or spectrum. I see differences between countries as qualified professional divergence, and changes over time as evidence-based fine tuning rather than simply arbitrary, but that's besides the point. As long as there is even one reference point, there will always be a binary arrangement (point / not-point).
smac97 Posted October 20, 2024 Author Posted October 20, 2024 (edited) On 10/19/2024 at 10:13 AM, Analytics said: A lot of this is simply a matter of nomenclature. Scientific, biological nomenclature, yes, sociopolitical/ideological nomenclature, no (though some are trying to conflate the two). On 10/19/2024 at 10:13 AM, Analytics said: If we are talking about some platonic ideal of what “normal" humans are like, then sure, according to that ideal, human sex is strictly binary. No, we are not talking about "platonic ideal{s}" or "'normal' humans." these are sociopolitical/ideological propositions, not scientific/biological ones. On 10/19/2024 at 10:13 AM, Analytics said: But if we are talking about real world biological beings, if there is just one person that biologically doesn’t fit into the male/female dichotomy, then sex is not binary. This is incorrect. A child born without legs, or with more than two, does not negate the scientific fact that homo sapiens are properly described as bipedal. The same goes with people with DSD. There are exceedingly rare instances of intersex persons, but that does not give rise to a third sex. Per this article, "{b}iological sex rarely may be phenotypically unclear in a given individual, but this does not represent a third one." Also: "Intersex is a condition—something someone has—and neither an identity nor a third sex." Per this article, "intersex individuals are not asexual, but have clear sex biomarkers that makes their sex epistemically uncertain." See also here: Quote Dear Editor This editorial appears to argue against the use of clear language to describe biological sex in medicine. The authors seem to take a rather myopic view of this issue, framing it as one rooted in transgender rights and who holds power in “assigning sex,” instead of basic principles. Human beings, of course, reproduced sexually long before modern medicine, birth certificates, or the word “transgender” first came to be. The truth of the sex binary is anchored in the mechanism that brings every human into existence.[1] Humans have two different types of gametes, two types of reproductive systems, two discrete reproductive roles: two sexes. As a result, we have given these two sexes different names: female and male. These will exist whether or not the clinician writes them down, or asks a transgender patient “what is your sex?” The fact that 0.02% of babies[2] have differences in sex development that cause the usually easy identification of sex to become a more complex affair, does not invalidate sex as one of the most clinically useful categorisations in medicine. To suggest that it does, and therefore sex should not be recorded, is absurd. If the accuracy of observable sex is claimed not to be good enough for doctors to record or rely on in medical practice, this would logically put doctors in a position where any data they have would need to reach an accuracy threshold far exceeding most tests. Even by the authors’ own statistic of 98%, it sets an impossibly high bar. ... No rational argument appears to be made as to why doctors should avoid admitting that the patients who had hysterectomies are biologically female, and those who had orchiectomies male. Surgery on reproductive organs does not render sex obsolete. A lobectomy does not make the respiratory system redundant. While the authors dismiss information gained from knowledge of biological sex as “shorthand,” knowledge of the two types of reproductive systems, and being able to name them, is important. This holds true for gender clinicians, too. The patient referral form for the Gender Identity Clinic in London asks for “sex assigned at birth.”[8] It seems strange to suggest medicine should have no names for the distinctions between the people at risk of testicular torsion versus cervical cancer. Communication skills usually advise against reducing people to their organs, to avoid saying “the pancreas in room 7,” but even if some form of organ-inventory system were proposed, it seems likely the basic template would come in two distinct types. Gender identity information can be valuable to help guide the clinical encounter, respect the transgender patient’s sense of self and gain a fuller picture as to healthcare needs. But gender identity should be recorded in addition to, not act as a replacement for, biological sex. If an unknown patient comes in to A&E, unaccompanied and unconscious, their gender identity would not be ascertainable. However, their sex would remain observable, and would make a difference to that patient’s care. Healthcare cannot collectively discard words for the two biological sexes. Awareness of the importance of clinical research into sex differences in medicine, especially for the female sex[9], has just been highlighted by the pandemic. How would such work be done if the sexes cannot be named? Clear language on sex is vital in medicine, science, and public health education. It is surprising these words should need to be typed in a Rapid Response to the BMJ. Sara Dahlen MSc Student, Bioethics and Society King's College London London On 10/19/2024 at 10:13 AM, Analytics said: At the genetic level, there is a single gene on the end of one chromosome called the SRY gene that is the ultimate genetic driver that determines 99%+ of whether one’s phenotype will be male or female. If that gene doesn’t exist or is disabled, the person grows into a female body by default. But if that gene is enabled, then a few proteins are created that cause gonads to grow into testes rather than ovaries. That is why if somebody has XY chromosomes, it is still possible to have a female phenotype. For example, whether such a person is considered male (because of the SRY gene), female (because of the body’s phenotype), or intersex is just a matter of the classification scheme somebody chooses to use. From ChatGPT: A variation in the SRY gene (Sex-determining Region Y), which is typically responsible for initiating male sex determination, does not create a third biological sex but can result in atypical or intersex variations of sexual development. While SRY gene variations contribute to intersex conditions, these conditions are generally understood as variations within the binary framework of biological sex (male or female), rather than representing a distinct "third sex." The term "biological sex" is typically classified based on chromosomes (XX or XY), gonads (ovaries or testes), and secondary sexual characteristics. Atypical development in one or more of these areas is considered an intersex condition, but not a separate biological category. In summary, variations in the SRY gene can lead to conditions where sex development differs from typical male or female patterns, but these are categorized as intersex conditions rather than constituting a third biological sex. On 10/19/2024 at 10:13 AM, Analytics said: The fact is, determining if somebody in the real world “is” male or female on the genetic level can be a complicated thing. And yet, the sexual binary remains. As Colin Wright put it: Quote Recently, this fear has been realized as social justice activists attempt to jump the epistemological shark by claiming that the very notion of biological sex, too, is a social construct. As a biologist, it is hard to understand how anyone could believe something so outlandish. It’s a belief on a par with the belief in a flat Earth. ... Over the next several months it became apparent that this view was not isolated to this small friend circle, as it began cropping up all over the Internet. In support of this view, recent editorials from Scientific American—an ostensibly trustworthy, scientific, and apolitical online magazine—are often referenced. The titles read, “Sex Redefined: The Idea of 2 Sexes Is Overly Simplistic,” and “Visualizing Sex as a Spectrum.” Even more recently, the most prestigious scientific journal in the world, Nature, published an editorial claiming that classifying people’s sex “on the basis of anatomy or genetics should be abandoned” and “has no basis in science” and that “the research and medical community now sees sex as more complex than male and female.” ... These editorials are nothing more than a form of politically motivated, scientific sophistry. The formula for each of these articles is straightforward. First, they list a multitude of intersex conditions. Second, they detail the genes, hormones, and complex developmental processes leading to these conditions. And, third and finally, they throw their hands up and insist this complexity means scientists have no clue what sex really is. This is all highly misleading and deceiving (self-deceiving?), since the developmental processes involved in creating any organ are enormously complex, yet almost always produce fully functional end products. Making a hand is complicated too, but the vast majority of us end up with the functional, five-fingered variety. This is pretty much exactly what you are doing here. On 10/19/2024 at 10:13 AM, Analytics said: The observation that the sex of real-world people is not a binary thing didn’t develop out of ideology--it grew out of biological insights into the complicated nature of the human genome and how sex expresses itself in the growth of actual human beings. ... This isn’t ideology. It is biological reality. Nah. It's ideology. From the Colin Wright article: "Having successfully cultivated power over administrations and silenced faculty by inflicting reputational terrorism on their critics and weaponizing their own fragility and outrage, social justice activists now justifiably think there is no belief or claim too dubious that administrations won’t cater to it. Recently, this fear has been realized as social justice activists attempt to jump the epistemological shark by claiming that the very notion of biological sex, too, is a social construct." "We need to acknowledge that trans issues and ideology are complex, and concern one of the most marginalized communities in the world. Because of this, we must give these issues the respect they deserve by approaching them with nuance and compassion instead of crudeness and cruelty. But we must not jettison truth in this process. If social justice activists require scientists to reject evolution and the reality of biological sex to be considered good allies, then we can never be good allies." "Despite the unquestionable reality of biological sex in humans, social justice and trans activists continue to push this belief, and respond with outrage when challenged." "And biologists like myself often sit quietly, afraid to defend our own field out of fear that our decade of education followed by continued research, job searches, and the quest for tenure might be made obsolete overnight if the mob decides to target one of us for speaking up. Because of this, our objections take place almost entirely between one another in private whisper networks, despite the fact that a majority of biologists are extremely troubled by these attacks to our field by social justice activists. This is an untenable situation." Denial of the scientific reality of the sexual binary is pretty clearly a sociopolitical ideology. That you are labeling your denial of the sexual binary as "biological reality" is, to me, pretty solid evidence that you are ideologically compromised on this issue. Which is itself rather odd, since you keep talking about this issue and staking out ideological grounds for your position on it, and yet, at the same time, you occasionally pepper your ongoing commentary with disclaimers and weird evasions and qualifiers hinting/declaring that you and I should not be talking about these issues, comments like "I am not a stakeholder," "I am agnostic on what medical treatments other people receive," "I see my role as very limited," "I {am} unqualified to speak," {M}y opinion is {} irrelevant," "I don't know enough about the details," "{C}ulture warriors {} shouldn’t be part of that decision making process," and so on. Thanks, -Smac Edited October 22, 2024 by smac97
Calm Posted October 20, 2024 Posted October 20, 2024 (edited) 4 hours ago, Malc said: I'm pretty sure that there is no binary determination for at least some health conditions. There may be a continuum of indicators, and an arbitrary limit - for example, in determining whether someone is considered to be diabetic. The limit itself may change from time to time, and from country to country, with some values of the indicator being (again, arbitrarily) considered to be "pre-diabetic". About 15 years ago I had a perfectly normal value of an antigen in my bloodstream - well below the value that normally strongly suggested the possibility of cancer. As it happened, I did have cancer, as a biopsy showed, and the tumour was growing fairly rapidly, although I had no symptoms. If I had skipped the next scheduled test, I might have been seriously ill by the following one, and with the antigen level still below the "danger" level. Then there is the fact that the interactions may create something significantly different than either condition separated (the sum is greater than the parts), for example diabetes is one thing, realitively understandable and often easy to manage for many, thyroid is another relatively understood situation and again relatively easy to manage for most…stick diabetes and thyroid together and you may have hell and suddenly tons more issues piling on top of each other. If one continues to treat diabetes and thyroid as two separate things instead of a new condition, then your patient will suffer unnecessarily. On top of that, daughter has diabetes and had both Hashimoto’s and Graves’ disease with her thyroid and had perfect readings for thyroid for years (debate is whether both were dormant or whether both active and canceling each other out, based on what happened before the interlude and afterwards, she is pretty sure they canceled each other out by both being mildly active). I understand that something similar happens with autism and ADHD, unofficially called AuDHD. For those who have both, it is a different animal than simply treating it as two separate neurodivergent states as some conditions cancel each other out to some extent, others intensify, and still more conflict. The medical model is a mechanistic one, body operates like a machine in a binary fashion, on/off, even if it has a bunch of moving parts. But the body is not a machine and such a simplification leads to too many doctors, imo, telling patients how they feel rather than listening…because the doctors know if the test or whatever says something is under control or cured, the symptoms the problem cause will go away. Have lost track of the number of times the doctors have essentially told me I am not feeling the way I did…the most notable one was the morning after my first child and I was still getting morning sickness…impossible in their view as pregnancy causes morning sickness and I was no longer pregnant, everything’s fine in their view even if I felt like puking my guts out and off they went. And yet the morning sickness continued for quite a few weeks until I got some quality sleep. Edited October 20, 2024 by Calm 2
smac97 Posted October 20, 2024 Author Posted October 20, 2024 (edited) 15 hours ago, Analytics said: Quote Question: You previously said that, you "want to turn to organizations of doctors who have a vested interest in the wellbeing of their patients." Well, so do I. But I assume we would also want to know if these organizations are ideologically or otherwise compromised. Do you see any possibility that this is happening? Question: Does Dr. McHugh's assessment here, that the APA and APA "are committed to an ideology," affect your assessment of their objectivity and competence when evaluating these issues? Question: Do you think there is any risk of this happening? That recent trends regarding pediatric sex train modification may amount to "giv{ing} people what they want — and what some of them are prepared to clamor for"? Question: Are the positions taken by the AMA and APA susceptible to criticisms of those organizations having "{prioritized} ideology over science"? Question: Are the positions taken by the AMA and APA susceptible to criticisms of those organizations having adopted an approach to medical care which "operate, in all essentials, analogous to a religious belief system"? Question: If there is a substantial contradiction between the position taken by the AMA and APA and the findings of the Hayes Directory and Dr. Murad, would that affect your assessment of their objectivity and competence when evaluating these issues? Question: Do you think Dr. McHugh might have a point here? That "social transition, puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and eventually surgically altering sex-based anatomy to look like that of the opposite sex" might be "unhelpful since children who identify with the opposite sex but who are allowed to go through puberty without puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones cease identifying with the opposite sex 70% to 98% of the time for males and 50% to 88% of the time for females"? Question: Do you have evidence to contradict Dr. McHugh's statement here? That "no longitudinal, controlled studies support gender-affirming treatments for gender dysphoria"? Question: Does Dr. McHugh's assessment here - that "ideology rather than science is driving the {AMA's and APA's} support" for these treatments - carry any weight with you? If not, why not? Question: The Endocrine Society was one of the other medical organizations you cite as endorsing "gender-affirming interventions." If that organization really did, in creating its guidelines, "included only those who supported the emerging practices," and if that organization "{muted} attempts by many of the endocrinologists present to raise concerns," does that affect your assessment of this organization's endorsement of these interventions? If not, why not? Question: If the APA really did change the DSM because of "the result of cultural changes fueling political interest groups within professional organizations" rather than "through the result of scientific information," does that affect your assessment of the APA's actions re: modifying the DSM? If not, why not? Question: Do you agree or disagree that Lisa Littman was "shut down" after "members of the transgender community criticized {her} research"? Question: Do you agree with Dr. Lier's assessment here, that Dr. Littman's published research was stifled "in large measure due to the intense lobbying the journal received"? Question: Does the possibility of medical organizations being subjected to "intense lobbying" affect your assessment of their objectivity and competence when evaluating these issues? Question: Do you think Dr. Zucker was fired and the clinic shut down due to ideological, rather than professional/clinical, considerations? Question: Do you think these "fifty-four academics in the UK" have a legitimate concern? Question: When they speak of "the suppression of proper academic analysis and discussion of the social phenomenon of transgenderism, and its multiple causes and effects," do you think their concerns merit some attention and consideration? Question: When professional organizations and their members face "campus protests, calls for dismissal in the press, harassment, foiled plots to bring about dismissal, no-platforming, and attempts to censor academic research and publications," is it possible that these organizations might let these influences and pressures affect their professional/scientific/objective/clinical evaluation of transgender issues? Quote 2.9 The Dutch protocol was further elaborated in an article in 2006 (Delemarre-van de Waal & Cohen-Kettenis, 2006) by which time 54 patients were being treated, and in 2011 the Dutch team published a prospective study (de Vries et al., 2011b) of 70 patients who had received early treatment with puberty blockers between 2000 and 2008. Inclusion criteria were that the patients had to be minimum age 12, have suffered from life-long gender dysphoria that had increased around puberty, be psychologically stable without serious comorbid psychiatric disorders that might interfere with the diagnostic process, and have family support. The authors discussed the challenge in adolescents with an autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) of disentangling “whether gender dysphoria evolves from a general feeling of being just “different” or whether a true “core” cross-gender identity exists”. Thoughts? Quote 3.12 Most studies included in this review did not report comorbidities and no study reported concurrent treatments in detail. Because of this it is not clear whether any of the changes seen were due to gender-affirming hormones or other treatments the participants may have received. Thoughts? Quote 5.65 The Review met with The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust to discuss deaths of patients (where known) who had been referred to or were currently or previously under the care of GIDS. The patients who died by suicide between 2018 and 2023 were described as presenting with multiple comorbidities and/ or complex backgrounds. Thoughts? Quote 14.9 The lack of consensus across the clinical community was highlighted by a 2015 study (Vrouenraets et al., 2015), which approached 17 multi-professional treatment teams worldwide to determine their views on use of puberty blockers. They identified seven themes on which there were widely disparate views: the (non-) availability of an explanatory model for gender dysphoria the nature of gender dysphoria (normal variation, social construct or [mental] illness) the role of physiological puberty in developing gender identity the role of comorbidity possible physical or psychological effects of refraining from) early medical interventions child competence and decision-making authority the role of social context in how gender dysphoria is perceived. Thoughts? Quote 15.38 A systematic review of suicide-related outcomes following gender-affirming treatment (Jackson, 2023) reported that in a majority of studies there was a reduction in suicidality following gender-affirming treatment. However, there were major methodological problems in most of the studies, with the biggest problem being a failure to adequately control for the presence of psychiatric comorbidity and treatment, such that no firm conclusions could be drawn. Thoughts? The Cass Review came out six months ago. I addressed in April here, and in May here, a thread in which you participated, and more recently in this thread, in which you are also participating. Question: Have you read the Cass Review? If not, why not? I’ll answer your question with a question. You did not answer the foregoing questions. Of course, you have no obligation to answer them. 15 hours ago, Analytics said: Do you think it is possible that Dr. Paul McHugh is ideologically compromised? I am certainly open to that possibility. To what ideology do you propose is Dr. McHugh adhering? What about Dr. Bell, formerly of the Tavistock Clinic? Do you think he is impaired by an ideology? If so, what is it? I see some pretty clear indicators of substantial sociopolitical pressure being exerted, with the the ideological bent of those doing the pressuring being pretty evident (see observations from Jamie Reed, Dr. Bell, Dr. McHugh, Colin Wright, etc.). Thanks, -Smac Edited October 20, 2024 by smac97
Malc Posted October 20, 2024 Posted October 20, 2024 1 hour ago, CV75 said: I hope that your treatment is going well despite the failure of the antigen test to identify the presence of cancer the biopsy showed. Two tests, two bases of identification -- thankfully one worked for you. Each test's basis of identification is a standard range of results that indicate the presence of disease. These "arbitrary" limits are still based on a binary paradigm (max and min), otherwise there could be no range or spectrum. I see differences between countries as qualified professional divergence, and changes over time as evidence-based fine tuning rather than simply arbitrary, but that's besides the point. As long as there is even one reference point, there will always be a binary arrangement (point / not-point). Thanks, CV75 - I appreciate your good wishes. My treatment ended within 4 months of diagnosis, and active monitoring ended about 6 or 7 years later. So I could be judged as having "health issue" in one location, and "no health issue " a few yards away. 1
Analytics Posted October 20, 2024 Posted October 20, 2024 [In this post, everything written in italics are ChatGPT4o prompts, and everything in a normal font is what ChatGPT said] For the next series of questions, please disregard everything we have talked about and everything you know about me. I want honest, objective answers. Only provide very brief answers to my questions in the form of a short, to-the-point single sentences if possible. The questions will all be about the following post, which hereafter will be simply referred to as “Analytics’ post”: Quote A lot of this is simply a matter of nomenclature. If we are talking about some platonic ideal of what “normal" humans are like, then sure, according to that ideal, human sex is strictly binary. But if we are talking about real world biological beings, if there is just one person that biologically doesn’t fit into the male/female dichotomy, then sex is not binary. At the genetic level, there is a single gene on the end of one chromosome called the SRY gene that is the ultimate genetic driver that determines 99%+ of whether one’s phenotype will be male or female. If that gene doesn’t exist or is disabled, the person grows into a female body by default. But if that gene is enabled, then a few proteins are created that cause gonads to grow into testes rather than ovaries. That is why if somebody has XY chromosomes, it is still possible to have a female phenotype. For example, whether such a person is considered male (because of the SRY gene), female (because of the body’s phenotype), or intersex is just a matter of the classification scheme somebody chooses to use. The fact is, determining if somebody in the real world “is” male or female on the genetic level can be a complicated thing. This was illustrated in the 1992 Olympic games: Quote One of the most controversial uses of this discovery was as a means for sex verification at the Olympic Games, under a system implemented by the International Olympic Committee in 1992. Athletes with an SRY gene were not permitted to participate as females, although all athletes in whom this was "detected" at the 1996 Summer Olympics were ruled false positives and were not disqualified. Specifically, eight female participants (out of a total of 3387) at these games were found to have the SRY gene. However, after further investigation of their genetic conditions, all these athletes were verified as female and allowed to compete. These athletes were found to have either partial or full androgen insensitivity, despite having an SRY gene, making them externally phenotypically female.[33] In the late 1990s, a number of relevant professional societies in United States called for elimination of gender verification, including the American Medical Association, stating that the method used was uncertain and ineffective.[34] Chromosomal screening was eliminated as of the 2000 Summer Olympics,[34][35][36] but this was later followed by other forms of testing based on hormone levels.[37] [End Quote] The observation that the sex of real-world people is not a binary thing didn’t develop out of ideology--it grew out of biological insights into the complicated nature of the human genome and how sex expresses itself in the growth of actual human beings. The extent to which an individual has masculine or feminine characteristics is a function of how much and when hormones such as testosterone, estrogen, progesterone, dihydrotestosterone, androstenedione, etc. are released into the body. This is driven by whether the gonads develop as ovaries as they do by default, or whether they develop as testes as they do if the SRY gene is activated. If you took a group of 10,000 adults, you could divide them into “males”, “females”, and “intersex”. You could then line up the “males” and rank them according to how masculine they are. You could also rank the females on how feminine they are. In this exercise, being masculine and feminine is not a cultural thing; it is a biological thing. We are talking about masculine and feminine phenotypes, which are driving by masculine and feminine hormones and the effect that those hormones have on human bodies, regardless of whether or not the body has a SRY gene. You could then order all 10,000 people from masculine to feminine with the most masculine men on one end, the intersex crowd in the middle, and the most feminine women on the other end. If you then compare the most feminine man with the most masculine man, and compared that same most feminine man with somebody who was intersex, then in many, ways, he’s probably more like the intersex person than he’s like the manly man. This is what scientists mean when they say sex is on a spectrum. It does not mean that you can’t group most people into “male” or“female.” Rather, it means that on a fundamental developmental level, the body’s default pathway is female, and the extent to which that development is directed towards male characteristics by the SRY gene and male hormones can vary from person to person. This isn’t ideology. It is biological reality. Understood. Please go ahead with your first question. 13 hours ago, smac97 said: No, we are not talking about "platonic ideal{s}" or "'normal' humans." these are sociopolitical/ideological propositions, not scientific/biological ones. This is incorrect. A child born without legs, or with more than two, does not negate the scientific fact that homo sapiens are properly described as bipedal. The same goes with people with DSD. There are exceedingly rare instances of intersex persons, but that does not give rise to a third sex. Was Analytics scientifically and logically accurate when he said, "If we are talking about some platonic ideal of what “normal" humans are like, then sure, according to that ideal, human sex is strictly binary. But if we are talking about real world biological beings, if there is just one person that biologically doesn’t fit into the male/female dichotomy, then sex is not binary.”? Yes, Analytics is scientifically and logically accurate in stating that while a strict binary view of sex might fit a theoretical ideal, the real-world biological existence of intersex individuals shows that sex is not strictly binary. 13 hours ago, smac97 said: This is pretty much exactly what you are doing here. Somebody named Colin Wright said the following things in an article: Quote "Having successfully cultivated power over administrations and silenced faculty by inflicting reputational terrorism on their critics and weaponizing their own fragility and outrage, social justice activists now justifiably think there is no belief or claim too dubious that administrations won’t cater to it. Recently, this fear has been realized as social justice activists attempt to jump the epistemological shark by claiming that the very notion of biological sex, too, is a social construct." "We need to acknowledge that trans issues and ideology are complex, and concern one of the most marginalized communities in the world. Because of this, we must give these issues the respect they deserve by approaching them with nuance and compassion instead of crudeness and cruelty. But we must not jettison truth in this process. If social justice activists require scientists to reject evolution and the reality of biological sex to be considered good allies, then we can never be good allies." "Despite the unquestionable reality of biological sex in humans, social justice and trans activists continue to push this belief, and respond with outrage when challenged." "And biologists like myself often sit quietly, afraid to defend our own field out of fear that our decade of education followed by continued research, job searches, and the quest for tenure might be made obsolete overnight if the mob decides to target one of us for speaking up. Because of this, our objections take place almost entirely between one another in private whisper networks, despite the fact that a majority of biologists are extremely troubled by these attacks to our field by social justice activists. This is an untenable situation.” Is it fair to say that this is “pretty much exactly” what Analytics is doing here? No, it is not fair to say that this is "pretty much exactly" what Analytics is doing. Colin Wright's statements focus on criticizing social justice activism for allegedly denying the reality of biological sex and silencing scientists. In contrast, Analytics' post recognizes the biological complexity of sex, explaining that sex is not strictly binary due to real-world variations like intersex individuals. Analytics is presenting a nuanced biological perspective rather than dismissing biological realities or engaging in ideological arguments. 13 hours ago, smac97 said: Denial of the scientific reality of the sexual binary is pretty clearly a sociopolitical ideology. That you are labeling your denial of the sexual binary as "biological reality" is, to me, pretty solid evidence that you are ideologically compromised on this issue. Would it be fair to say that since Analytics is in denial of the sexual binary, and that this is pretty solid evidence that Analytics is ideologically compromised on this issue? It wouldn't be fair to say that Analytics is necessarily ideologically compromised simply because they acknowledge that sex exists on a spectrum rather than being strictly binary. Analytics is basing their perspective on biological insights about the complexity of human sex development, such as the existence of intersex conditions, which challenge a strict binary view. Colin Wright’s critique seems to be more focused on the denial of biological sex entirely, whereas Analytics’ post acknowledges biological realities, including male, female, and intersex variations. It’s important to differentiate between denying biological sex and recognizing the complexity and exceptions that exist within it. Analytics’ argument is rooted in scientific observations about real-world variations, not necessarily in ideology. 13 hours ago, smac97 said: Which is itself rather odd, since you keep talking about this issue and staking out ideological grounds for your position on it... Was analytics staking out ideological grounds for his position on this issue? No, Analytics was not staking out ideological grounds in their position. Analytics' post was focused on biological realities and scientific observations, specifically the complexity of sex determination and the existence of intersex individuals. The argument was grounded in genetics and the biological spectrum of sex expression, rather than being driven by an ideological stance. 13 hours ago, smac97 said: ...and yet, at the same time, you occasionally pepper your ongoing commentary with disclaimers and weird evasions and qualifiers hinting/declaring that you and I should not be talking about these issues, comments like "I am not a stakeholder," "I am agnostic on what medical treatments other people receive," "I see my role as very limited," "I {am} unqualified to speak," {M}y opinion is {} irrelevant," "I don't know enough about the details," "{C}ulture warriors {} shouldn’t be part of that decision making process," and so on. Did analytics say anything about whether or not the protocols for how people with gender dysphoria are treated are supported by the medical research? Did he offer his opinion about individual studies on how people with gender dysphoria are treated and how they relate to the research that has been published before and after those individual studies? Did he say that he has an opinion on how people should be treated who may have gender dysphoria? No, Analytics did not say anything about the protocols for treating people with gender dysphoria, did not offer opinions on individual studies related to their treatment, and did not express an opinion on how people with gender dysphoria should be treated. The focus of Analytics' post was on the complexity of biological sex and how it is expressed in real-world individuals, not on the medical treatment or management of gender dysphoria. Can somebody be qualified to summarize the nuances of biological sex in the way Analytics has done, but be unqualified to comment on how gender dysphoria is treated? Yes, someone can be qualified to summarize the nuances of biological sex, as Analytics did, but still be unqualified to comment on how gender dysphoria is treated. Expertise in genetics or biology doesn't necessarily equate to expertise in medical or psychological treatments, which require specialized knowledge in fields like endocrinology, psychiatry, or psychology. These are distinct areas of study, so being well-versed in one does not guarantee expertise in the other.
CV75 Posted October 20, 2024 Posted October 20, 2024 13 hours ago, Malc said: Thanks, CV75 - I appreciate your good wishes. My treatment ended within 4 months of diagnosis, and active monitoring ended about 6 or 7 years later. So I could be judged as having "health issue" in one location, and "no health issue " a few yards away. Glad to hear your treatment went well. Both locations used a health issue / no health issue decision tree, fortunately you kept at it as both perception and circumstance changes over time and place.
smac97 Posted October 20, 2024 Author Posted October 20, 2024 (edited) 43 minutes ago, Analytics said: [In this post, everything written in italics are ChatGPT4o prompts, and everything in a normal font is what ChatGPT said] For the next series of questions, please disregard everything we have talked about and everything you know about me. I want honest, objective answers. Only provide very brief answers to my questions in the form of a short, to-the-point single sentences if possible. The questions will all be about the following post, which hereafter will be simply referred to as “Analytics’ post”: Understood. Please go ahead with your first question. Was Analytics scientifically and logically accurate when he said, "If we are talking about some platonic ideal of what “normal" humans are like, then sure, according to that ideal, human sex is strictly binary. But if we are talking about real world biological beings, if there is just one person that biologically doesn’t fit into the male/female dichotomy, then sex is not binary.”? Yes, Analytics is scientifically and logically accurate in stating that while a strict binary view of sex might fit a theoretical ideal, the real-world biological existence of intersex individuals shows that sex is not strictly binary. Somebody named Colin Wright said the following things in an article: Is it fair to say that this is “pretty much exactly” what Analytics is doing here? No, it is not fair to say that this is "pretty much exactly" what Analytics is doing. Colin Wright's statements focus on criticizing social justice activism for allegedly denying the reality of biological sex and silencing scientists. In contrast, Analytics' post recognizes the biological complexity of sex, explaining that sex is not strictly binary due to real-world variations like intersex individuals. Analytics is presenting a nuanced biological perspective rather than dismissing biological realities or engaging in ideological arguments. Would it be fair to say that since Analytics is in denial of the sexual binary, and that this is pretty solid evidence that Analytics is ideologically compromised on this issue? It wouldn't be fair to say that Analytics is necessarily ideologically compromised simply because they acknowledge that sex exists on a spectrum rather than being strictly binary. Analytics is basing their perspective on biological insights about the complexity of human sex development, such as the existence of intersex conditions, which challenge a strict binary view. Colin Wright’s critique seems to be more focused on the denial of biological sex entirely, whereas Analytics’ post acknowledges biological realities, including male, female, and intersex variations. It’s important to differentiate between denying biological sex and recognizing the complexity and exceptions that exist within it. Analytics’ argument is rooted in scientific observations about real-world variations, not necessarily in ideology. Was analytics staking out ideological grounds for his position on this issue? No, Analytics was not staking out ideological grounds in their position. Analytics' post was focused on biological realities and scientific observations, specifically the complexity of sex determination and the existence of intersex individuals. The argument was grounded in genetics and the biological spectrum of sex expression, rather than being driven by an ideological stance. Did analytics say anything about whether or not the protocols for how people with gender dysphoria are treated are supported by the medical research? Did he offer his opinion about individual studies on how people with gender dysphoria are treated and how they relate to the research that has been published before and after those individual studies? Did he say that he has an opinion on how people should be treated who may have gender dysphoria? No, Analytics did not say anything about the protocols for treating people with gender dysphoria, did not offer opinions on individual studies related to their treatment, and did not express an opinion on how people with gender dysphoria should be treated. The focus of Analytics' post was on the complexity of biological sex and how it is expressed in real-world individuals, not on the medical treatment or management of gender dysphoria. Can somebody be qualified to summarize the nuances of biological sex in the way Analytics has done, but be unqualified to comment on how gender dysphoria is treated? Yes, someone can be qualified to summarize the nuances of biological sex, as Analytics did, but still be unqualified to comment on how gender dysphoria is treated. Expertise in genetics or biology doesn't necessarily equate to expertise in medical or psychological treatments, which require specialized knowledge in fields like endocrinology, psychiatry, or psychology. These are distinct areas of study, so being well-versed in one does not guarantee expertise in the other. Wholesale outsourcing of reasoned rebuttal to an AI platform. Edited October 20, 2024 by smac97
Analytics Posted October 20, 2024 Posted October 20, 2024 (edited) 48 minutes ago, smac97 said: Wholesale outsourcing of reasoning to an AI platform. Not at all; I put a lot of thought and attention into that post. The questions I carefully crafted were designed to see if a neutral third party could see any merit in your arguments because if it is there, I certainly can't see it. More subtly, the questions I wrote and directed to AI were also designed to explain to you how I see the issues. For example, consider the following question. Although I’m posing it as a question to AI, I’m using the question to communicate something to you: If somebody is adamant that Analytics is both wrong about the biology of human sex and claims Analytics' ability to understand these scientific issues is seriously compromised by ideology, how likely is it that he’s projecting? It’s quite possible that the person accusing Analytics of being ideologically compromised could be projecting their own ideological biases. Projection occurs when someone attributes their own feelings or biases onto others. In this case, if someone is adamant that Analytics is wrong and overly influenced by ideology, it could suggest they are interpreting Analytics' position through their own ideological lens. Given that Analytics' argument is grounded in biological complexity and real-world variations, rather than ideology, it's reasonable to consider that the accuser may be projecting their own ideological views onto Analytics. Edited October 20, 2024 by Analytics 3
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now