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:

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.

.

They won’t find that. They will find articles that will say “intersex SHOULD be considered as a category that makes sex non binary” because that’s what certain groups are advocating for. But the consensus is that sex is binary.

[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 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.

The presence of a Y chromosome makes something male. The absence of a Y chromosome makes something female.

That’s actual science.


Sorry you’re choosing to stay in denial .

[Anonymous]

Look, I do feel its complex to allow trans women into women's sports. But that's not the issue with Imane. A lot of people misunderstood what was going on and apologized once they realized they were wrong. Has Rowling apologized for mischaracterizing the situation? Has Musk?

[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.

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

Science or nature does not care about feelings.

Is it sad that a baby boy was born without genitals? Of course.

But this is what happens occasionally.

[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 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.

The presence of a Y chromosome makes something male. The absence of a Y chromosome makes something female.

That’s actual science.


Sorry you’re choosing to stay in denial .

No actually, doctors say that's not true. Even if you go with biological gender, the DNA isn't how it's determined. Before dna testing we would have easily identified her as a female bc of her body parts.

[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 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.

If something is outside the norm, it is by definition abnormal.

Do you understand words?

[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 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.

Scientifically, they are the result of errors. They are abnormal. So are Siamese twins. So are people born with no legs.

This isn’t about feelings. It’s about science.

[Anonymous]

So I guess they should start testing for genetic mutations for athletic competition, and then exclude anyone with "abnormal" mutations (whatever that means) since it's not fair otherwise? I'd bet a very large share of olympic level athletes have some genetic mutations that favor them in competition.

[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 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.

Have you taken a basic biology class? It’s covered in that. Until the consensus changes (which it may, but I doubt it), what they are teaching in school is the accepted science.

[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 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.

The presence of a Y chromosome makes something male. The absence of a Y chromosome makes something female.

That’s actual science.


Sorry you’re choosing to stay in denial .

No, that's just your assertion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So I guess they should start testing for genetic mutations for athletic competition, and then exclude anyone with "abnormal" mutations (whatever that means) since it's not fair otherwise? I'd bet a very large share of olympic level athletes have some genetic mutations that favor them in competition.

I don’t think we need to go that far. Separate males and females, and then anything after that is fair game.

Intersex is sticky. That may need to be a separate category. With trans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I guess they should start testing for genetic mutations for athletic competition, and then exclude anyone with "abnormal" mutations (whatever that means) since it's not fair otherwise? I'd bet a very large share of olympic level athletes have some genetic mutations that favor them in competition.

I don’t think we need to go that far. Separate males and females, and then anything after that is fair game.

Intersex is sticky. That may need to be a separate category. With trans.

Why?

[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 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.

The presence of a Y chromosome makes something male. The absence of a Y chromosome makes something female.

That’s actual science.


Sorry you’re choosing to stay in denial .

No actually, doctors say that's not true. Even if you go with biological gender, the DNA isn't how it's determined. Before dna testing we would have easily identified her as a female bc of her body parts.

Except if there are Y chromosomes present, the person is in fact a male.

This isn’t disputable. It’s not subject to nuance or argument. Doesn’t matter what the anatomy looks like. This is on a genetic level. And the genetics are either male OR female. As determined by the presence or lack of a Y chromosome.

[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 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.

Rude or not, science and nature do not care about feelings, equality, or equity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I guess they should start testing for genetic mutations for athletic competition, and then exclude anyone with "abnormal" mutations (whatever that means) since it's not fair otherwise? I'd bet a very large share of olympic level athletes have some genetic mutations that favor them in competition.

I don’t think we need to go that far. Separate males and females, and then anything after that is fair game.

Intersex is sticky. That may need to be a separate category. With trans.

Why?

Because they don’t fit in neatly with make or female (I’m talking intersex). There’s nowhere else to put them. Trans should be with their biological sex but we all know what a sh¡t show that conversation is. So give them their own category and be done with it.