JK Rowling's gender policing finally caught up to her

[Anonymous]

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.

LGBTQIA

What does the “I” stand for?

Oh.

Yep. It stands for people who have a genetic abnormality or syndrome. Doesn’t mean sex isn’t binary. Its stands for an abnormal process of development.

Sex is XX/XY. It’s binary and immutable in 99.99% of humans.

Everything beyond that - physical attributes, including sexual - are fluid and changeable.

[Anonymous]

Much ado about nothing. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/imane-khelifs-laughable-lawsuit-against-j-k-rowling/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

All available evidence is that Khelif is a biological woman. And she has in fact lost a number of times to biological women (although I guess we don't have their genetic test results either, so who knows?). How did that happen?

There's a PP who suddenly got a lot of work dumped on their desk. Get crackin', PP -- those women aren't going to regender themselves.

[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.

The science is clear: XX/XY is immutable.

Beyond that, humans have a WIDE variety of physical attributes.

No. They are mutable, because they are capable of mutation. That's ... kind of the whole subthread here.

Are you unclear on what "mutable" means?

How many people are born XX and later mutate to XY?

[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.

So people with mutations can’t be athletes?

That’s not what I’m saying. I’m merely telling PP that they’re wrong. Sex is 100% binary. There is either male or female. Genetic mutations don’t make sex “non binary.”

XO chromosomes with penis - male or female?
XO chromosomes with vagina - male or female?
XXY chromosomes with penis - male or female?
XXY chromosomes with vagina - male or female?
XY chromosomes but with no penis and a female womb - male or female?
XY chromosomes with interior testicles - male or female?
XX chromosomes with vagina but no womb - male or female?
XX chromosomes with both ovarian and testicular tissue - male or female?

You said its binary, so you should easily be able to tell me the sex in each case that holds for every person born with each profile.

What type of gametes do they produce?

Most people in these categories are sterile.

This is a good point.

So let me see if I have the Rowling defenders position correctly summarized.

In order to participate in women's sports or use the women's restroom you must have all of the following:
-XX chromosomal profile (no deviations!)
-Female external and internal sex organs
-Female gametes
-Be fertile
-Typical female levels of estrogen, androgen, testosterone, etc.
-Secondary female sex characteristics

Am I missing anything? Who gets to do the inspections?

I think the point of this thread is that the IOC needs to establish clear scientific guidelines with regard to women’s sports. Obviously there should be arguments and consensus about where the line should be drawn. But once a decision is reached, it should be applied consistently and fairly for all female Olympic athletes. Otherwise, these controversies will never go away.

The IOC standard is age and gender on the athlete's passport. That's it. If a country wants to develop its own internal standards it can. But the IOC is not in business of adjudicating the age and gender of athletes. Countries make their own decisions of which athletes to send.

If you set a scientific standard for women, you must also set one for men. For example, hormonal levels - if you set one for women then you also need one for men. Men who make too much testosterone clearly have an unfair advantage over the typical male athlete. We would need to set a cut off for them too. Further, the IOC would need to test every athlete - male and female - prior to competition.

[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.

So people with mutations can’t be athletes?

That’s not what I’m saying. I’m merely telling PP that they’re wrong. Sex is 100% binary. There is either male or female. Genetic mutations don’t make sex “non binary.”

XO chromosomes with penis - male or female?
XO chromosomes with vagina - male or female?
XXY chromosomes with penis - male or female?
XXY chromosomes with vagina - male or female?
XY chromosomes but with no penis and a female womb - male or female?
XY chromosomes with interior testicles - male or female?
XX chromosomes with vagina but no womb - male or female?
XX chromosomes with both ovarian and testicular tissue - male or female?

You said its binary, so you should easily be able to tell me the sex in each case that holds for every person born with each profile.

What type of gametes do they produce?

Most people in these categories are sterile.

This is a good point.

So let me see if I have the Rowling defenders position correctly summarized.

In order to participate in women's sports or use the women's restroom you must have all of the following:
-XX chromosomal profile (no deviations!)
-Female external and internal sex organs
-Female gametes
-Be fertile
-Typical female levels of estrogen, androgen, testosterone, etc.
-Secondary female sex characteristics

Am I missing anything? Who gets to do the inspections?

I think the point of this thread is that the IOC needs to establish clear scientific guidelines with regard to women’s sports. Obviously there should be arguments and consensus about where the line should be drawn. But once a decision is reached, it should be applied consistently and fairly for all female Olympic athletes. Otherwise, these controversies will never go away.

But they use the scientific passport method, lol.

Right?!?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

All available evidence is that Khelif is a biological woman. And she has in fact lost a number of times to biological women (although I guess we don't have their genetic test results either, so who knows?). How did that happen?

Even if you’re using steroids, you don’t necessarily win every single match.

[Anonymous]

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.

LGBTQIA

What does the “I” stand for?

Oh.

Yep. It stands for people who have a genetic abnormality or syndrome. Doesn’t mean sex isn’t binary. Its stands for an abnormal process of development.

Sex is XX/XY. It’s binary and immutable in 99.99% of humans.

Everything beyond that - physical attributes, including sexual - are fluid and changeable.

You think there is any person who was immune from the possibility of XX or XY mutation while they were being formed?

Goebbels, is that you?

[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 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.

Scientifically I absolutely do. Why does that shock you?

You would tell parents of a child with Downs Syndrome that their kid is a mistake?

Of course not. I’m doing it here. And I would anywhere else science was being discussed with other scientists.

Having a discussion in a lab, hospital or university (or online message board) about genetic mutations is different than speaking with a parent about their child. I thought that would go without saying.

You can rest easy now.

There are parents on here with children with Downs Syndrome. It’s a parenting forum, not medical.

Again, not shocked at all that bigots don’t mind being a dick.

[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.

Narrator: you also don’t want malaria

Sickle cell is a devastating condition that can impact every part of a person’s daily life and cause severe pain.

Malaria is not great either, but at least there are preventives and treatments.

[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.

Narrator: you also don’t want malaria

Sickle cell is a devastating condition that can impact every part of a person’s daily life and cause severe pain.

Malaria is not great either, but at least there are preventives and treatments.

You are under the impression that sickle cell trait is devastating, or do you think the trait doesn't carry the mutation?

[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 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.

Scientifically I absolutely do. Why does that shock you?

You would tell parents of a child with Downs Syndrome that their kid is a mistake?

Of course not. I’m doing it here. And I would anywhere else science was being discussed with other scientists.

Having a discussion in a lab, hospital or university (or online message board) about genetic mutations is different than speaking with a parent about their child. I thought that would go without saying.

You can rest easy now.

There are parents on here with children with Downs Syndrome. It’s a parenting forum, not medical.

Again, not shocked at all that bigots don’t mind being a dick.

I’m a scientist, not a bigot.

I care more about facts than feelings.

Always have, always will.

[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 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.

Scientifically I absolutely do. Why does that shock you?

You would tell parents of a child with Downs Syndrome that their kid is a mistake?

Of course not. I’m doing it here. And I would anywhere else science was being discussed with other scientists.

Having a discussion in a lab, hospital or university (or online message board) about genetic mutations is different than speaking with a parent about their child. I thought that would go without saying.

You can rest easy now.

There are parents on here with children with Downs Syndrome. It’s a parenting forum, not medical.

Again, not shocked at all that bigots don’t mind being a dick.

I’m a scientist, not a bigot.

I care more about facts than feelings.

Always have, always will.

Ooohhh, someone's social challenges slip is showing.

Wouldn't be so sad if you were actually good at science, but, you know.

[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.

LGBTQIA

What does the “I” stand for?

Oh.

Yep. It stands for people who have a genetic abnormality or syndrome. Doesn’t mean sex isn’t binary. Its stands for an abnormal process of development.

Sex is XX/XY. It’s binary and immutable in 99.99% of humans.

Everything beyond that - physical attributes, including sexual - are fluid and changeable.

You think there is any person who was immune from the possibility of XX or XY mutation while they were being formed?

Goebbels, is that you?

Obviously, I’m talking about individuals’ sex genes post-fertilization. The 0.01% accounts for mutations during fertilization.

People are born XX/XY. That remains unchanged. It’s immutable. Everything else is fluid.

[Anonymous]

And 83% of female athletes want sex testing, but the IOC doesn’t care.