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:

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.

So you must think Rowling is a POS for posting her feelings, not facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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


I trust science.

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

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

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.

You think other parts of the genetic code can get mutated after fertilization? For real, you think this?

[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.

I have a child with a disease which, similar to sickle, is caused by a gene mutation that protects carriers but results in disease of varying degrees of severity when the mutation is expressed. I would never take exception to a doctor who described this is an error because in fact the mutation results in an error in the gene.

[Anonymous]

It's a change in the gene, PP. That change is an error if it's in a context where it is unhelpful, but it's an improvement if it's in a context where it helps.

Depends on context, just like sickle cell trait.

[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:

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.

Believe me what I’ve forgotten about science you’ll never know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It's a change in the gene, PP. That change is an error if it's in a context where it is unhelpful, but it's an improvement if it's in a context where it helps.

Depends on context, just like sickle cell trait.

+1
There is no genetic mutation involving sex chromosomes that is advantageous.

[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:

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.

I have a child with a disease which, similar to sickle, is caused by a gene mutation that protects carriers but results in disease of varying degrees of severity when the mutation is expressed. I would never take exception to a doctor who described this is an error because in fact the mutation results in an error in the gene.

How rational of you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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


I trust science.

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

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

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.

Except those people with the well documented XXY but…you don’t think these people?

[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.

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.

You think other parts of the genetic code can get mutated after fertilization? For real, you think this?

Now you’re just being trollishly pedantic.

Acquired mutations can occur post-fertilization but that’s not what we are discussing here.

We are discussing sex genes present at birth. XX/XY for almost everyone. Those remain unchanged. Immutable.

Physical characteristics, including sexual, exist on a spectrum and are fluid. Not immutable.

[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:

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.

Believe me what I’ve forgotten about science you’ll never know.

And you’ll always be a dick. Proudly, it seems.

[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:

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.

Believe me what I’ve forgotten about science you’ll never know.

And you’ll always be a dick. Proudly, it seems.

Yep. That comes with having facts on my side.

[Anonymous]

You know intersex people aren’t actually rare right? It’s the same percentage as redheads. You definitely know some intersex people even if you haven’t examined their genitals.

[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:

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.

Believe me what I’ve forgotten about science you’ll never know.

And you’ll always be a dick. Proudly, it seems.

Right. Because “ Ooohhh, someone's social challenges slip is showing.
Wouldn't be so sad if you were actually good at science, but, you know” isn’t dickish. At all.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand how any of this is an issue. There are a tiny percentage of human beings that are born intersex. Which, fine. All accommodations should be made. But - scientifically - men are stronger, faster, have more endurance etc. Sure, Sydney McLauglin is going to beat your grandpa at anything. But she is not beating the times of the best male athletes. Intersex athletes like Caster Semenya and Imane Khalif have an unfair advantage. We all know that. They should compete with the men.

And running is one thing. But using that testosterone advantage for boxing? I mean, c'mon. Not remotely fair. It is abusive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how any of this is an issue. There are a tiny percentage of human beings that are born intersex. Which, fine. All accommodations should be made. But - scientifically - men are stronger, faster, have more endurance etc. Sure, Sydney McLauglin is going to beat your grandpa at anything. But she is not beating the times of the best male athletes. Intersex athletes like Caster Semenya and Imane Khalif have an unfair advantage. We all know that. They should compete with the men.

And running is one thing. But using that testosterone advantage for boxing? I mean, c'mon. Not remotely fair. It is abusive.

But that’s “mean” or something.