JK Rowling's gender policing finally caught up to her

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A laboratory test seems like the easiest way to put this to rest.

If there are any “Y” chromosomes detected, the boxer is male. If not, the boxer is female. This is a binary outcome. One or the other. And then we’ll know the answer.


I trust science.

According to science, it is possible for females to have Y chromosomes. It is not binary.

Are you a scientist? Because you are misreading this. It is binary. The only time it isn’t is when there is a mutation.

It's binary, except when it's not binary. So it's not actually binary.

You can keep saying this, but that doesn’t make it true. It is binary. There are only two options. An error in transcription or translation is just that - an error.

So you are saying that someone is a man, a woman, or an “error”? First, that’s not binary (bi meaning two, and even if “error” were an okay think to say about a human being, it’s still a third option) . Second— WTF is wrong with you?

An intersex person is 100% an error of nature. I am a scientist. It is what it is. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be here, or don’t count. But they are literal errors. Sorry that hurts your feelings.

This is correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:what if the "mistake" ends up being beneficial to the organism, such as the sickle cell mutation?

At some point, that isn't a "mistake." right now there are people identified who are abnormal in that they have genetic mutation making them resistant to HIV. If this spreads, and there are more of them than people without, are they still the "mistake?"

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1601663113
Genetic mutations you want

To get to your conclusion, you have to posit the end you want and write the argument backwards to get there. That's not science; it's just bad philosophy.

Or say for instance - a person is born with a chromosomal anomaly that makes them a better boxer…
Oh wait. I accidentally got us back on topic.
Sorry. Carry on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A laboratory test seems like the easiest way to put this to rest.

If there are any “Y” chromosomes detected, the boxer is male. If not, the boxer is female. This is a binary outcome. One or the other. And then we’ll know the answer.


I trust science.

According to science, it is possible for females to have Y chromosomes. It is not binary.

Are you a scientist? Because you are misreading this. It is binary. The only time it isn’t is when there is a mutation.

It's binary, except when it's not binary. So it's not actually binary.

You can keep saying this, but that doesn’t make it true. It is binary. There are only two options. An error in transcription or translation is just that - an error.

So you are saying that someone is a man, a woman, or an “error”? First, that’s not binary (bi meaning two, and even if “error” were an okay think to say about a human being, it’s still a third option) . Second— WTF is wrong with you?

An intersex person is 100% an error of nature. I am a scientist. It is what it is. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be here, or don’t count. But they are literal errors. Sorry that hurts your feelings.

Can you Mrs. Scientist point us to a peer reviewed scientific article that explains the scientific consensus that sex is binary and everyone who doesn't fit in the binary is a "literal error?"

As soon as Mr. Internet rando finds a peer reviewed scientific article that explains the science consensus that sex is not binary and sexual reproduction occurs with configurations other than male and female gametes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A laboratory test seems like the easiest way to put this to rest.

If there are any “Y” chromosomes detected, the boxer is male. If not, the boxer is female. This is a binary outcome. One or the other. And then we’ll know the answer.


I trust science.

According to science, it is possible for females to have Y chromosomes. It is not binary.

Are you a scientist? Because you are misreading this. It is binary. The only time it isn’t is when there is a mutation.

It's binary, except when it's not binary. So it's not actually binary.

You guys clearly don’t understand science but like to pretend that you do.

SEX IS BINARY. There is no NATURALLY OCCURRING category other than XX or XY.

Um, yes there is. There are many other NATURALLY OCCURRING categories, including XXY and XXX and others. There are also XX with male genitalia and XY with female genitalia. You can call them "errors" if you want, but they are 100% natural. And these people actually really exist.

You are misinterpreting. Yes they are natural in terms that these things happen in nature, but they happen when something goes wrong. It is not what is “supposed” to happen. It is not the outcome of the “correct” process. There are not three categories of that TYPICALLY happens during conception and development. There are two. The third is things that went wrong.

I’m not sure how else to explain it.

Is the sickle cell mutation an "incorrect" blood type?

What about in places with endemic malaria, where it increases survive?

Yes. Sickle cell is a genetic mutation. The cells should be round. In sickle cell disease they are not.

This does not mean that there are two categories of normal blood cells - round or sickle shaped. Normal is round. Sickle shaped is abnormal. You do not want this.

No, you DO want this, if you live in certain contexts.

Comparing the most affected to least affected areas, malaria may have been responsible for a ten percentage point difference in the probability of surviving to adulthood.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6171532/

The world does not present itself to us with de novo conclusions already established. You have to actually do the work, PP, and look at context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what if the "mistake" ends up being beneficial to the organism, such as the sickle cell mutation?

At some point, that isn't a "mistake." right now there are people identified who are abnormal in that they have genetic mutation making them resistant to HIV. If this spreads, and there are more of them than people without, are they still the "mistake?"

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1601663113
Genetic mutations you want

To get to your conclusion, you have to posit the end you want and write the argument backwards to get there. That's not science; it's just bad philosophy.

Or say for instance - a person is born with a chromosomal anomaly that makes them a better boxer…
Oh wait. I accidentally got us back on topic.
Sorry. Carry on.

Well, Rowling is getting her butt handed to her because she's making a false claim. She called Khelif a "man" when its very clear that Khelif even has secondary sex characteristics. Calling someone a "man" is a pretty definitively false statement in the context of Khelif.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A laboratory test seems like the easiest way to put this to rest.

If there are any “Y” chromosomes detected, the boxer is male. If not, the boxer is female. This is a binary outcome. One or the other. And then we’ll know the answer.


I trust science.

It's not always that simple. Please educate yourself. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/issue/january-2017

The presence of a Y chromosome is what makes something “male”.

It pretty much IS that simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A laboratory test seems like the easiest way to put this to rest.

If there are any “Y” chromosomes detected, the boxer is male. If not, the boxer is female. This is a binary outcome. One or the other. And then we’ll know the answer.


I trust science.

According to science, it is possible for females to have Y chromosomes. It is not binary.

Are you a scientist? Because you are misreading this. It is binary. The only time it isn’t is when there is a mutation.

It's binary, except when it's not binary. So it's not actually binary.

You guys clearly don’t understand science but like to pretend that you do.

SEX IS BINARY. There is no NATURALLY OCCURRING category other than XX or XY.

Um, yes there is. There are many other NATURALLY OCCURRING categories, including XXY and XXX and others. There are also XX with male genitalia and XY with female genitalia. You can call them "errors" if you want, but they are 100% natural. And these people actually really exist.

You are misinterpreting. Yes they are natural in terms that these things happen in nature, but they happen when something goes wrong. It is not what is “supposed” to happen. It is not the outcome of the “correct” process. There are not three categories of that TYPICALLY happens during conception and development. There are two. The third is things that went wrong.

I’m not sure how else to explain it.

Is the sickle cell mutation an "incorrect" blood type?

What about in places with endemic malaria, where it increases survive?

Yes. Sickle cell is a genetic mutation. The cells should be round. In sickle cell disease they are not.

This does not mean that there are two categories of normal blood cells - round or sickle shaped. Normal is round. Sickle shaped is abnormal. You do not want this.

No, you DO want this, if you live in certain contexts.

Comparing the most affected to least affected areas, malaria may have been responsible for a ten percentage point difference in the probability of surviving to adulthood.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6171532/

The world does not present itself to us with de novo conclusions already established. You have to actually do the work, PP, and look at context.

Narrator: you also don’t want malaria

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am asking this as a legitimate question because I’m not sure if this is true or not but I have read this online. Some people are claiming that she has had genetic testing that indicates she has a Y chromosome even though she presents as woman. Is this true and if so does that provide any meaningful advantages over women with XX chromosomes? Obviously, that doesn’t change her gender identity and people should respectful of that, but fairness in women’s sports is arguably separate from gender identity in some circumstances. I feel bad for her because she is from a very conservative country where most people are not accepting of LGBT rights. This discussion about her being a “man” likely creates a risk to her safety when she visits Algeria.

She doesn’t “visit Algeria” she lives there and has lived there her entire life. After winning gold, she was welcomed back home to Algeria with huge celebrations. People were in the streets celebrating and ecstatic for her. She is considered a hero at home. Someone who overcame racist and unfair targeting and then triumphed and become a champion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what if the "mistake" ends up being beneficial to the organism, such as the sickle cell mutation?

At some point, that isn't a "mistake." right now there are people identified who are abnormal in that they have genetic mutation making them resistant to HIV. If this spreads, and there are more of them than people without, are they still the "mistake?"

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1601663113
Genetic mutations you want

To get to your conclusion, you have to posit the end you want and write the argument backwards to get there. That's not science; it's just bad philosophy.

Or say for instance - a person is born with a chromosomal anomaly that makes them a better boxer…
Oh wait. I accidentally got us back on topic.
Sorry. Carry on.

Well, Rowling is getting her butt handed to her because she's making a false claim. She called Khelif a "man" when it’s very clear that Khelif even has secondary sex characteristics. Calling someone a "man" is a pretty definitively false statement in the context of Khelif.

She’s not concerned.
I don’t think she should have weighed in on this one, but I understand why she did.
She saw a (confirmed by an outside agency) “man” literally beating an Italian woman boxer.
She reacted.
Her lawyers will deal with this and if she owes some coin, she won’t notice it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A laboratory test seems like the easiest way to put this to rest.

If there are any “Y” chromosomes detected, the boxer is male. If not, the boxer is female. This is a binary outcome. One or the other. And then we’ll know the answer.


I trust science.

According to science, it is possible for females to have Y chromosomes. It is not binary.

Are you a scientist? Because you are misreading this. It is binary. The only time it isn’t is when there is a mutation.

It's binary, except when it's not binary. So it's not actually binary.

You guys clearly don’t understand science but like to pretend that you do.

SEX IS BINARY. There is no NATURALLY OCCURRING category other than XX or XY.

Um, yes there is. There are many other NATURALLY OCCURRING categories, including XXY and XXX and others. There are also XX with male genitalia and XY with female genitalia. You can call them "errors" if you want, but they are 100% natural. And these people actually really exist.

You are misinterpreting. Yes they are natural in terms that these things happen in nature, but they happen when something goes wrong. It is not what is “supposed” to happen. It is not the outcome of the “correct” process. There are not three categories of that TYPICALLY happens during conception and development. There are two. The third is things that went wrong.

I’m not sure how else to explain it.

Is the sickle cell mutation an "incorrect" blood type?

What about in places with endemic malaria, where it increases survive?

Yes. Sickle cell is a genetic mutation. The cells should be round. In sickle cell disease they are not.

This does not mean that there are two categories of normal blood cells - round or sickle shaped. Normal is round. Sickle shaped is abnormal. You do not want this.

No, you DO want this, if you live in certain contexts.

Comparing the most affected to least affected areas, malaria may have been responsible for a ten percentage point difference in the probability of surviving to adulthood.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6171532/

The world does not present itself to us with de novo conclusions already established. You have to actually do the work, PP, and look at context.

Why don’t you check the mortality rate of sickle cell anemia and get back to me.
(Sickle cell trait is different)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A laboratory test seems like the easiest way to put this to rest.

If there are any “Y” chromosomes detected, the boxer is male. If not, the boxer is female. This is a binary outcome. One or the other. And then we’ll know the answer.


I trust science.

According to science, it is possible for females to have Y chromosomes. It is not binary.

Are you a scientist? Because you are misreading this. It is binary. The only time it isn’t is when there is a mutation.

It's binary, except when it's not binary. So it's not actually binary.

You can keep saying this, but that doesn’t make it true. It is binary. There are only two options. An error in transcription or translation is just that - an error.

So you are saying that someone is a man, a woman, or an “error”? First, that’s not binary (bi meaning two, and even if “error” were an okay think to say about a human being, it’s still a third option) . Second— WTF is wrong with you?

An intersex person is 100% an error of nature. I am a scientist. It is what it is. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be here, or don’t count. But they are literal errors. Sorry that hurts your feelings.

+1
It’s hilarious that all the “trust the science!” people are all about science UNTIL science says something that disagrees with their feelz.

Then it becomes “it’s complicated” or “no one can really say for certain”.


Yeah, NO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A laboratory test seems like the easiest way to put this to rest.

If there are any “Y” chromosomes detected, the boxer is male. If not, the boxer is female. This is a binary outcome. One or the other. And then we’ll know the answer.


I trust science.

According to science, it is possible for females to have Y chromosomes. It is not binary.

Are you a scientist? Because you are misreading this. It is binary. The only time it isn’t is when there is a mutation.

It's binary, except when it's not binary. So it's not actually binary.

You can keep saying this, but that doesn’t make it true. It is binary. There are only two options. An error in transcription or translation is just that - an error.

So you are saying that someone is a man, a woman, or an “error”? First, that’s not binary (bi meaning two, and even if “error” were an okay think to say about a human being, it’s still a third option) . Second— WTF is wrong with you?

An intersex person is 100% an error of nature. I am a scientist. It is what it is. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be here, or don’t count. But they are literal errors. Sorry that hurts your feelings.

Oh, be honest. you're not sorry at all when you call a person an error or mistake. That is evident from your post

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A laboratory test seems like the easiest way to put this to rest.

If there are any “Y” chromosomes detected, the boxer is male. If not, the boxer is female. This is a binary outcome. One or the other. And then we’ll know the answer.


I trust science.

According to science, it is possible for females to have Y chromosomes. It is not binary.

Are you a scientist? Because you are misreading this. It is binary. The only time it isn’t is when there is a mutation.

It's binary, except when it's not binary. So it's not actually binary.

You can keep saying this, but that doesn’t make it true. It is binary. There are only two options. An error in transcription or translation is just that - an error.

So you are saying that someone is a man, a woman, or an “error”? First, that’s not binary (bi meaning two, and even if “error” were an okay think to say about a human being, it’s still a third option) . Second— WTF is wrong with you?

An intersex person is 100% an error of nature. I am a scientist. It is what it is. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be here, or don’t count. But they are literal errors. Sorry that hurts your feelings.

+1
It’s hilarious that all the “trust the science!” people are all about science UNTIL science says something that disagrees with their feelz.

Then it becomes “it’s complicated” or “no one can really say for certain”.


Yeah, NO.

Happy to trust the science once you can provide some actual science. Your assertions are not science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A laboratory test seems like the easiest way to put this to rest.

If there are any “Y” chromosomes detected, the boxer is male. If not, the boxer is female. This is a binary outcome. One or the other. And then we’ll know the answer.


I trust science.

According to science, it is possible for females to have Y chromosomes. It is not binary.

Are you a scientist? Because you are misreading this. It is binary. The only time it isn’t is when there is a mutation.

It's binary, except when it's not binary. So it's not actually binary.

You guys clearly don’t understand science but like to pretend that you do.

SEX IS BINARY. There is no NATURALLY OCCURRING category other than XX or XY.

Um, yes there is. There are many other NATURALLY OCCURRING categories, including XXY and XXX and others. There are also XX with male genitalia and XY with female genitalia. You can call them "errors" if you want, but they are 100% natural. And these people actually really exist.

You are misinterpreting. Yes they are natural in terms that these things happen in nature, but they happen when something goes wrong. It is not what is “supposed” to happen. It is not the outcome of the “correct” process. There are not three categories of that TYPICALLY happens during conception and development. There are two. The third is things that went wrong.

I’m not sure how else to explain it.

Is the sickle cell mutation an "incorrect" blood type?

What about in places with endemic malaria, where it increases survive?

Yes. Sickle cell is a genetic mutation. The cells should be round. In sickle cell disease they are not.

This does not mean that there are two categories of normal blood cells - round or sickle shaped. Normal is round. Sickle shaped is abnormal. You do not want this.

No, you DO want this, if you live in certain contexts.

Comparing the most affected to least affected areas, malaria may have been responsible for a ten percentage point difference in the probability of surviving to adulthood.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6171532/

The world does not present itself to us with de novo conclusions already established. You have to actually do the work, PP, and look at context.

Why don’t you check the mortality rate of sickle cell anemia and get back to me.
(Sickle cell trait is different)

Sickle cell anemia and sickle cell trait are not the same things. Please stop embarrassing yourself. We’re getting tired of laughing at you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A laboratory test seems like the easiest way to put this to rest.

If there are any “Y” chromosomes detected, the boxer is male. If not, the boxer is female. This is a binary outcome. One or the other. And then we’ll know the answer.


I trust science.

According to science, it is possible for females to have Y chromosomes. It is not binary.

Are you a scientist? Because you are misreading this. It is binary. The only time it isn’t is when there is a mutation.

It's binary, except when it's not binary. So it's not actually binary.

You can keep saying this, but that doesn’t make it true. It is binary. There are only two options. An error in transcription or translation is just that - an error.

So you are saying that someone is a man, a woman, or an “error”? First, that’s not binary (bi meaning two, and even if “error” were an okay think to say about a human being, it’s still a third option) . Second— WTF is wrong with you?

An intersex person is 100% an error of nature. I am a scientist. It is what it is. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be here, or don’t count. But they are literal errors. Sorry that hurts your feelings.

+1
It’s hilarious that all the “trust the science!” people are all about science UNTIL science says something that disagrees with their feelz.

Then it becomes “it’s complicated” or “no one can really say for certain”.

Yeah, NO.

I think the objection is calling people with these "abnormalities" abnormal. Or a mistake. Or an error. It's mean. Unnecessary. And rude af. Would you call someone with other "abnormalities" resulting in physical or mental disabilities a mistake?

No. You wouldn't.