Woman and Sex, means biological sex.

[Koolpc]

What part of I will not give dates do you not understand? take my 5 years or 4 years or 10 years as innacurate and don't let the dates get you too worked up. You must be tearing your hair out working on my dates.

He is an *****. Just put him on ignore..

 

[Lirefighter]

Dates? Who is asking for dates. You happily post when you left the Army. Except in April this year it was five years ago, then miraculously one week LATER its down to four years.

Which one is is Billy?

All you posted was a couple of quotes, there's no date's on them at all.

 

[Highway Man]

Dates? Who is asking for dates. You happily post when you left the Army. Except in April this year it was five years ago, then miraculously one week LATER its down to four years.

Which one is is Billy?

None of your concern or your business, I have reasons for not giving dates out as I am concerned with keeping my identity as it needs to be. Secure. You on the other hand face no danger as a handyman.

 

[Highway Man]

He is an azz wipe. Just put him on ignore..

He is my personal stalker. I am wondering why and he thinks I will give out info on me with specifics. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.

 

[morqthana]

You are deliberately conflating two different things. A small percentage of people, about 0.2%., are born with a Disorder of Sexual Development. You are trying to argue this is proof that biological sex is a spectrum, rather than being binary. It is a common ploy.

The point is that, no matter how small the number (and if it's 0.2% that means over a quarter of a million people last year), SOME people do not fit into a simple binary classification system.

And if not everybody does, then the classification system does not work. It's no good if it doesn't work for 100% of people, as you're going to have to do something for those for whom it doesn't work. Even if you don't create a "spectrum" scale, even if you just introduce a 3rd category, "Other", or "Unclassified", you have to move away from just 2 categories.

Why you seem so fixated on trying to say that the category is of people born with a Disorder of Sexual Development (or a Difference in Sexual Development) I have no idea, they still exist, no matter what you call them. Even if your categorisation would be Male, Female & Freak, there will still be 3.

If it's a "ploy" to point out scientific truths, then the ploy is to show that anybody who tries to justify a position by claiming things which are untrue is in the business of lying and denial.

 

[morqthana]

If you are a boy baby, nobody can assign to you the identity of a kangaroo, or a kitten..

Who decides that the baby is a boy?

What criteria do they use?

Nonsense. The sex of the baby decides that.

How is the sex of the baby identified?

 

[denso13]

Who decides that the baby is a boy?

A medical professional, at birth.

How is the sex of the baby identified?

By anatomical features, or further tests.

 

[morqthana]

We don't, you keep using the word assigning which I disagree with. It is simply a record of the sex of the baby.

It can't be, 100% of the time.

Unless you can show us some criteria which will work 100% of the time.

And I mean 100%.

Not 99.9%. Not 99.99%. Not 99.999999999999999999999999999999%.

100%.

 

[denso13]

It can't be, 100% of the time.

So what? Deal with it when/if issues arise because of it.

Unless you think the sex shouldn't be recorded at all.

 

[fixitflav]

The point is that, no matter how small the number (and if it's 0.2% that means over a quarter of a million people last year), SOME people do not fit into a simple binary classification system.

But the vast majority do. The flaw in your argument is the claim that since a small number don't fit clearly into M or F, all the others must be on a M/F spectrum. No, they're one or t'other.

 

[morqthana]

A medical professional, at birth.

By anatomical features, or further tests.

And what are those features they look for? When they see these features, are they able, without fail, absolutely 100% of the time, to say that the baby falls into one of two categories?

What tests do they run? When they get the results, are they able, without fail, absolutely 100% of the time, to say that the baby falls into one of two categories?

Why do you seem to want to flatly refuse to accept that some people are people born with any of several sex characteristics, including chromosome patterns, gonads, or genitals that, according to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, "do not fit typical binary notions of male or female bodies"?

 

[morqthana]

So what? Deal with it when/if issues arise because of it.

Some arise at birth.

But if you say "so what?" you're saying that no, a binary system doesn't work. Whether YGAS about that fact is irrelevant - the fact is there.

 

[morqthana]

But the vast majority do. The flaw in your argument is the claim that since a small number don't fit clearly into M or F, all the others must be on a M/F spectrum. No, they're one or t'other.

I'm not saying that there is a spectrum. Just that there are more than two categories.

 

[denso13]

And what are those features they look for? When they see these features, are they able, without fail, absolutely 100% of the time, to say that the baby falls into one of two categories?

What tests do they run? When they get the results, are they able, without fail, absolutely 100% of the time, to say that the baby falls into one of two categories?

https://www.uhs.nhs.uk/Media/UHS-website-2019/Patientinformation/Childhealth/Sex-assignment-in-newborn-babies-3505-PIL.pdf

 

[Justin Passing]

Yes a percentage of babies don't fall into one of the two categories and they are termed intersex. Some people try to inflate the number.
PubMed says
"Anne Fausto-Sterling s suggestion that the prevalence of intersex might be as high as 1.7% has attracted wide attention in both the scholarly press and the popular media. Many reviewers are not aware that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia. If the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling s estimate of 1.7%."

About 1 in 5000. Not irrelevant but small.
Yes yes yes yes yes we ALL know it exists.
It's unfortunate for those involved but in society generally it's not a problem.

Why troll on about it?