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:

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)

You don't think sickle cell trait involves the sickle cell mutation? Catch up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

What did Rowling get wrong? Be specific.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People with genetic mutations don't fit in well as humans. Should there be a separate category for anyone with a genetic mutation that assists them in competition?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Same mutation, son. Just combined differently (kind of like how chromosomes can be combined differently, actually).

If you are going to call mutations "errors" without nuance, then science has a bone to pick with you.

[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.

We’re having a discussion about science. Facts. Not feelings.

You act like I walk around pointing at people with no arms yelling “you’re a mistake!” I can assure you, I do not.

Scientifically speaking, people with genetic abnormalities are mistakes. They are the outcome of something that should not have happened.

[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.

My understanding of sickle cell is that you do want to be a carrier of the gene because it protects against malaria, but you don't want to have sickle cell disease because of the illness it causes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People with genetic mutations don't fit in well as humans. Should there be a separate category for anyone with a genetic mutation that assists them in competition?

I personally don’t think so.

Sex is a pretty straightforward way to separate 98% of the population. There is a reason why we separate males from females.

If you have another mutation that gives you an advantage within your sex category, more power to you.

[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.

My understanding of sickle cell is that you do want to be a carrier of the gene because it protects against malaria, but you don't want to have sickle cell disease because of the illness it causes.

This is correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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)

You don't think sickle cell trait involves the sickle cell mutation? Catch up.

Having sickle cell trait does not give you sickle cell disease. Catch up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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)

You don't think sickle cell trait involves the sickle cell mutation? Catch up.

Having sickle cell trait does not give you sickle cell disease. Catch up.

Hey, read back. I never said "sickle cell disease, just "sickle cell mutation." You must have missed that. Be more careful.

[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, that's just your assertion.

You can assert that a dog is cat, too. It doesn’t make a dog a cat. No matter how much you want to be that way.

[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.

My understanding of sickle cell is that you do want to be a carrier of the gene because it protects against malaria, but you don't want to have sickle cell disease because of the illness it causes.

Yes, the gene carries a specific sort of genetic mutation. People with sickle cell trait have the same mutation as those with the disease, but not in the same amount.

It's a mutation. That makes it different, or "abnormal" in the technical sense. It's not automatically an error, though, as it can be protective. This is how genetic change occurs -- the sloppy process throws up changes/abnormalities, and some of them are good. Most not, but the ones that help can sometimes help a lot.

The loose management of the process that throws up multiple changes all the time is not a bug, but a feature. Having variety is why it works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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, that's just your assertion.

You can assert that a dog is cat, too. It doesn’t make a dog a cat. No matter how much you want to be that way.

Sadly that’s much of what this comes down to. It’s all about feelings, and “because I think this way you should too.” You get to call yourself a dog because that’s how you feel? We’ll then we all have to accept it (despite what science says) because if we don’t we are mean and hateful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

My understanding of sickle cell is that you do want to be a carrier of the gene because it protects against malaria, but you don't want to have sickle cell disease because of the illness it causes.

Yes, the gene carries a specific sort of genetic mutation. People with sickle cell trait have the same mutation as those with the disease, but not in the same amount.

It's a mutation. That makes it different, or "abnormal" in the technical sense. It's not automatically an error, though, as it can be protective. This is how genetic change occurs -- the sloppy process throws up changes/abnormalities, and some of them are good. Most not, but the ones that help can sometimes help a lot.

The loose management of the process that throws up multiple changes all the time is not a bug, but a feature. Having variety is why it works.

Its inherited. People with sickle cell trait got the gene from one of their parents. People with sickle cell disease got the gene from both parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People with genetic mutations don't fit in well as humans. Should there be a separate category for anyone with a genetic mutation that assists them in competition?

I personally don’t think so.

Sex is a pretty straightforward way to separate 98% of the population. There is a reason why we separate males from females.

If you have another mutation that gives you an advantage within your sex category, more power to you.

I would agree with this.

Olympians are de facto the 0.01% outliers for their respective sex categories in terms of athletic ability. It's really not straight forward since intersex individuals and/or those with genetic or physiological advantages outside the norm for their sex will be advantaged in certain ways in athletic competition and likely become the best athletes for their gender - whether that's Michael Phelps or Lance Armstrong or Khelif.