I'll just leave this right here.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/11/08/transgender-issues-divide-republicans-and-democrats/
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/11/08/transgender-issues-divide-republicans-and-democrats/
Pew Research: 77% of College Educated Democrats Think Sex is Not Determined at Birth
- Thread starter GunsOfFrankEaton
- Start date
More accurately, those people do not believe gender is determined by sex assigned at birth. They believe gender and biological sex are two different things.
Only 50% of college educated Republicans (n=2) can accurately repeat a Pew poll question.
Now I'm really confused. So gender is not determined at birth but sexual preference is? Isn't one of the beliefs of the LGBT community that you are born that way?
I would argue that biological sex (what we used to call gender) is all that is relevant. In these cases, we are segregating men and women on the basis of physiological differences. Any other use case for gender separation is by definition sexism. Thus creating a new 'descriptor' or title for gender, in and of itself, is a sexist act and propagates the continued inequality between peoples.
Maybe read it again. It was intended to reduce your confusion.
I understand that would be your argument.
It's an argument I don't agree with or find particularly compelling.
Do boys still have to register for the military draft when they turn 18? Is the military draft based on physiological circumstances only?
If a boy says he's a girl would that get him out of a military draft?
If a girl says she's a boy would that make her eligible for the military draft?
I'm not trying to be cute. I'm seriously curious.
There is nothing in your original quote that indicated any attempt at satire. Just a completely inaccurate characterization of what the cited article actually said.
Furthermore, given your follow up post that "biological sex" is all that matters indicates to me that you meant what you said in your first post not as satire, but rather an accurate statement.
Finally, which "bigger college words" are you referring to in my post?
Was it..."accurately"? Biological? Gender?
No sticker needed, your clear displeasure with what I said is reward enough.
Like the various bathroom statutes requiring people to go to a particular bathroom based upon their biological sex rather than gender, selective service registration requirements are based upon biological sex, not gender.
I'm staying out of this one, but I'm pretty sure he was talking to 07pilt.
I did a poor job with my posts. My first response was irony. I should have used blue. I assumed the thought that we are not genetically predisposed to gender yet are genetically predisposed to sexual preference would be clearly ironic, obviously I was mistaken. My second was in response to your statement about the difference between "gender" and "biological sex". To me, only the physiological differences matter and are the only basis of segregation. Everything else is behavioral, and I won't judge individual's behavior unless or until it interferes with the rights of others. (Such as biological males competing against biological females in sporting events simply because they believe they should have been female).
My 3rd post regarding the sticker comment was actually responding to Pilt and not you JD. He had changed my original quote to use such college words as: epigenics. I just failed on the reply quote.
If science has taught us anything, it's that scientists will bend the actual science if it gets them published and on the lecture circuit.
How many epigenitcists are there?
How many epigenitcists are there?
I’d like to read the results of a study on how many fewer trannies there would be if people just ignored them and minded their own business.
I find the fraternal birth order effect to be compelling evidence of a epigenetic influence on sexuality.
Discussed on page 173
Compelling evidence? Surely you jest. You do realize the odds that they are suggesting, correct? Those are nearly in line with the general population.
"Although this may seem like a large increase, the probability of a gay son reaches 50% only after 10 older brothers. The birth-order effect only holds true if all the brothers are from the same mother—if the older brothers are from another mother, there is no effect. The number of older sisters does not have an effect either."
Even a blind squirrel can find a nut.
To be fair, I'm very familiar with the Ngun paper. I'm also familiar with its criticism. Some good stuff being looked at, but it's waaaay far away from being "compelling evidence." One observation is a good start though.
I haven't found anything about epigenetics that doesn't read like "blame your parents" pop psychology.
That whole, 'it's not your fault' branch of science.
Definitely not anything close to settled science.
That whole, 'it's not your fault' branch of science.
Definitely not anything close to settled science.
50% after the birth of 10 older brothers, which makes #11 have a 50% chance, hypothesized but not proven of course. That's a lot of births to get 50% odds. How many women have 10 sons, and then an 11th? Did you not read page 173? I even quoted the quoted passage for you.
Hardly compelling, at least to me, but I'm not the type to think one hypothetical observation is generally compelling regardless of topic.
Not hypothesized, observed. "The fraternal birth order effect is one of the most replicated and robust findings in sexual orientation research." "Each son increases the odds of homosexuality in the next son by 33% relative to the baseline population rate." The 50% for son #11 is just an illustration of the compounding of those 33% odds increases.
If you want to dispute that it is an epigenetic phenomenon, fine by me, case not closed. But to claim that the effect itself is only hypothesized is really stretching it.
Yes, because God Forbid those who are college (or for that matter non-college) educated understand the SCIENTIFIC BIOLOGICAL FACT that certain chromosome and genetic anomalies show that there are in fact more than two genders. That not everyone fits neatly in the two boxes marked male & female. Wouldn't want anyone to actually understand this or know about it, much better to be ignorant on the topic.
BTW, it's generally accepted as being less than 1 in 500 births where the actual "biological" sex of a person is not the common XY or XX karyotype.
https://www.joshuakennon.com/the-six-common-biological-sexes-in-humans/
BTW, it's generally accepted as being less than 1 in 500 births where the actual "biological" sex of a person is not the common XY or XX karyotype.
https://www.joshuakennon.com/the-six-common-biological-sexes-in-humans/
Well, I'm just thankful that conservatives won't try to use it as a wedge issue to stoke fear.
Is the GOP working on a ballot measure yet to get it on the Oklahoma ballot? They're trying to keep marijuana off the general election ballot, they probably see an opportunity here to triangulate another vulnerable sub-demographic to preserve their political power.
Is the GOP working on a ballot measure yet to get it on the Oklahoma ballot? They're trying to keep marijuana off the general election ballot, they probably see an opportunity here to triangulate another vulnerable sub-demographic to preserve their political power.
