JK Rowling's gender policing finally caught up to her

[Anonymous]

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.

Then they (whoever “they” might be) should routinely test EVERY Olympic athlete — not just the ones that some random people decide don’t meet their personal Eurocentric standards for “femininity”.

[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.

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.

Right. And the fact that it is different from the norm doesn't automatically make it an error. It's even possible for this change to become the norm. That has happened many times in the past.

I know there's a PP or two that feels the human genetic code was written on gold tablets, and that any change after that is "error," but that's a value judgement -- it has always been variant and changing, and there are things that are commonplace or "normal" in the code now that weren't there thousands of years before, or which were only there in small proportion, even if now the norm.

That's just how it works.

[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.

Then they (whoever “they” might be) should routinely test EVERY Olympic athlete — not just the ones that some random people decide don’t meet their personal Eurocentric standards for “femininity”.

Dp- But it wasn’t some “random people”. It was another athletic organization that disqualified her for being intersex/male/?
We don’t have the details, and it is sketchy.
But it’s not like Musk and Rowling were retweeting Catturd or libs of TikTok.
The boxer doesn’t have a strong case.

[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.

This exactly. Just look at some of the Olympic female shot put throwers. They are very manly looking.

[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:

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.

Right. And the fact that it is different from the norm doesn't automatically make it an error. It's even possible for this change to become the norm. That has happened many times in the past.

I know there's a PP or two that feels the human genetic code was written on gold tablets, and that any change after that is "error," but that's a value judgement -- it has always been variant and changing, and there are things that are commonplace or "normal" in the code now that weren't there thousands of years before, or which were only there in small proportion, even if now the norm.

That's just how it works.

Dp- and none of that negates binary sex. Outside of xx / xy is abnormal. It’s a mistake in the code.
Unless you believe humans are evolving to stop reproduction I guess. This is all a glorious mistake to end the human race.

[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:

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.

Right. And the fact that it is different from the norm doesn't automatically make it an error. It's even possible for this change to become the norm. That has happened many times in the past.

I know there's a PP or two that feels the human genetic code was written on gold tablets, and that any change after that is "error," but that's a value judgement -- it has always been variant and changing, and there are things that are commonplace or "normal" in the code now that weren't there thousands of years before, or which were only there in small proportion, even if now the norm.

That's just how it works.

Yes - in terms of evolution you are correct. Many mutations proved to be advantageous and those with the mutation went on to reproduce and thrive. It’s been like this since the beginning. It’s what Darwin’s theory is based on.

However, male and female genetic errors are not, and never have been, advantageous. In fact many of them render the individual sterile. That makes them a negative error, not one with the possibility to reproduce and thrive.

Since the beginning (as far as we know) there have been XX and XY animals that are capable of reproducing. This has been the accepted scientific consensus for centuries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is her deal? I have seen some of her posts and truly do not understand. Why so hateful?

It's truly baffling to me. She was the one that defended a stage production having a black Hermione, and confirmed that Dumbledore was gay. The trans hate, I really do not understand at all.

I don’t understand it either.

My wild theory:

She was assaulted by a man in the past and now has an irrational fear of penises. Transgender women are triggering for her.

TERFs also seem aggressively anti-penis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And no biological woman can fairly compete with Michael Phelps, Lance Armstrong, or Imane Khelif no matter how hard they train. Which is why women's sports should be separate.

[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:

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.

Right. And the fact that it is different from the norm doesn't automatically make it an error. It's even possible for this change to become the norm. That has happened many times in the past.

I know there's a PP or two that feels the human genetic code was written on gold tablets, and that any change after that is "error," but that's a value judgement -- it has always been variant and changing, and there are things that are commonplace or "normal" in the code now that weren't there thousands of years before, or which were only there in small proportion, even if now the norm.

That's just how it works.

Dp- and none of that negates binary sex. Outside of xx / xy is abnormal. It’s a mistake in the code.
Unless you believe humans are evolving to stop reproduction I guess. This is all a glorious mistake to end the human race.

"Abnormal" doesn't automatically mean "error." There is no intentionality in this, unless you think there was some grand design carved into those gold DNA tablets. "Abnormal" just means "outside of normal" -- whether that is useful or not depends on contexts, not on your personal feelings of discomfort or disgust.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And no biological woman can fairly compete with Michael Phelps, Lance Armstrong, or Imane Khelif no matter how hard they train. Which is why women's sports should be separate.

Imane Khelif is a biological woman. Which is why JK Rowling is being sued, will have to pay money and issue an apology. Those are the consequences of libel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And no biological woman can fairly compete with Michael Phelps, Lance Armstrong, or Imane Khelif no matter how hard they train. Which is why women's sports should be separate.

If Imane Khelif were to be tested genetically as XX, would your response be that you were wrong, or not?

Hint: for a scientist, the conclusion would be that you were just wrong.

[Anonymous]

PS: But if you can't be wrong, then this isn't anything at all like "science," is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Troll.

Sounds like you can’t find anything incorrect about her statements. You just hate her because she supports women. Typical.

She supports bigots.

[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.

I wouldn’t be shocked if they do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Troll.

Sounds like you can’t find anything incorrect about her statements. You just hate her because she supports women. Typical.

She supports bigots.

It's not even that. It's that she posted false information and sent online hoards after a woman athlete in the middle of a competition watched by the world. Probably the most stressful moments in the Khelif's life and there's billionaire strangers defaming her on social media and digitally bullying her.

It's worse than merely consorting with bigots. It's purposefully trying to harm a total stranger all for some ideological crusade.