Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Muda69

The New Normal, round 2

Recommended Posts

IDK.......I guess I have based my understanding of sex on the actual evidence at birth.......internal or external plumbing and all that......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

https://www.livescience.com/27248-chromosomes.html

https://www.who.int/genomics/gender/en/index1.html

Are there outliers and abnormalities?  Sure...but the science is still there.

It's all science. Per the point specifically made in the first article you linked to, recent scientific advances have disclosed that there are multiple genetic and biological factors beyond the (so called) sex chromosomes that create and influence development of the multiple sex phenotypes (the physical characteristics  associated with human males and human females, including -- but certainly not limited to-- the parts that make up the  "plumbing", as SF puts it). Modern science tells us that these multiple genetic factors mean that humans can have multiple combinations of sex phenotypes that place individuals on a spectrum that goes far beyond simply who has twigs and berries at birth and who doesn't.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Wabash82 said:

It's all science. Per the point specifically made in the first article you linked to, recent scientific advances have disclosed that there are multiple genetic and biological factors beyond the (so called) sex chromosomes that create and influence development of the multiple sex phenotypes (the physical characteristics  associated with human males and human females, including -- but certainly not limited to-- the parts that make up the  "plumbing", as SF puts it). Modern science tells us that these multiple genetic factors mean that humans can have multiple combinations of sex phenotypes that place individuals on a spectrum that goes far beyond simply who has twigs and berries at birth and who doesn't.  

OK..I understand...but you do realize the links I provided you are from science and medical based sources....not from a British pub known for political leanings....and in the livescience.com source for sure is more current than what you provided......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Statesman

The New Statesman is a British political and cultural magazine published in London.[2] Founded as a weekly review of politics and literature on 12 April 1913, it was connected then with Sidney and Beatrice Webb and other leading members of the socialist Fabian Society, such as George Bernard Shaw who was a founding director. They had supported The New Age, a journal edited by A. R. Orage, but by 1912 that journal moved away editorially from supporting Fabian politics and women's suffrage. Today, the magazine is a print-digital hybrid. According to its present self-description, it has a liberal, sceptical, political position.[3]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Wabash82 said:

It's all science. Per the point specifically made in the first article you linked to, recent scientific advances have disclosed that there are multiple genetic and biological factors beyond the (so called) sex chromosomes that create and influence development of the multiple sex phenotypes (the physical characteristics  associated with human males and human females, including -- but certainly not limited to-- the parts that make up the  "plumbing", as SF puts it). Modern science tells us that these multiple genetic factors mean that humans can have multiple combinations of sex phenotypes that place individuals on a spectrum that goes far beyond simply who has twigs and berries at birth and who doesn't.  

OK..I understand...but you do realize the links I provided you are from science and medical based sources....not from a British pub known for political leanings....and in the livescience.com source for sure is more current than what you provided......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Statesman

The New Statesman is a British political and cultural magazine published in London.[2] Founded as a weekly review of politics and literature on 12 April 1913, it was connected then with Sidney and Beatrice Webb and other leading members of the socialist Fabian Society, such as George Bernard Shaw who was a founding director. They had supported The New Age, a journal edited by A. R. Orage, but by 1912 that journal moved away editorially from supporting Fabian politics and women's suffrage. Today, the magazine is a print-digital hybrid. According to its present self-description, it has a liberal, sceptical, political position.[3]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

OK..I understand...but you do realize the links I provided you are from science and medical based sources....not from a British pub known for political leanings....and in the livescience.com source for sure is more current than what you provided......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Statesman

The New Statesman is a British political and cultural magazine published in London.[2] Founded as a weekly review of politics and literature on 12 April 1913, it was connected then with Sidney and Beatrice Webb and other leading members of the socialist Fabian Society, such as George Bernard Shaw who was a founding director. They had supported The New Age, a journal edited by A. R. Orage, but by 1912 that journal moved away editorially from supporting Fabian politics and women's suffrage. Today, the magazine is a print-digital hybrid. According to its present self-description, it has a liberal, sceptical, political position.[3]

Yes, and the science and medical sources you linked to supported the info in the article I linked to... which was a book review describing things in a new book written by a well-respected historian who studies the history of science. So books somehow are now tainted by the supposed politics of their reviewers?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wabash82 said:

Yes, and the science and medical sources you linked to supported the info in the article I linked to... which was a book review describing things in a new book written by a well-respected historian who studies the history of science. So books somehow are now tainted by the supposed politics of their reviewers?

 

I am talking about a publication that is known to have a political agenda, information can and is commonly skewed in a given direction.  So yes, I am suspect.  The article I provided (including the one more recent that your Statesman LiveScience 2017) does not dismiss what you provided, but clearly indicate "a few births out of a thousand babies".  This is what I stated originally.  

There are some variations, though. Recent research has found that a person can have a variety of different combinations of sex chromosomes and genes, particularly those who identify as LGBT. For example, a certain X chromosome called Xq28 and a gene on chromosome 8 seem to be found in higher prevalence in men who are gay, according to a 2014 study in the journal Psychological Medicine

A few births out of a thousand of babies are born with a single sex chromosome (45X or 45Y) and are referred to as sex monosomies. Others are born with three or more sex chromosomes (47XXX, 47XYY or 47XXY, etc.) and are called sex polysomies. "In addition, some males are born 46XX due to the translocation of a tiny section of the sex determining region of the Y chromosome," said WHO. "Similarly some females are also born 46XY due to mutations in the Y chromosome. Clearly, there are not only females who are XX and males who are XY, but rather, there is a range of chromosome complements, hormone balances, and phenotypic variations that determine sex."

Additional source

https://www.genome.gov/26524120/

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

White Woman Slammed For Opening 'Clean' Chinese Restaurant: https://www.dailywire.com/news/45792/white-woman-slammed-opening-clean-chinese-paul-bois

Quote

A new Chinese restaurant in Greenwich Village, New York, has faced heavy backlash in recent days because the owner used the word "clean" to describe the food.

According to Eater, nutritionist Arielle Haspel wanted to create a Chinese-American restaurant for "people who love to eat Chinese food and love the benefit that it will actually make them feel good." Since many of Haspel's clients could not eat mein, fried rice, and kung pao chicken, she developed items with different ingredients, free of additives in order to "healthify" them. She has since been denounced as a racist for saying that lo mein makes some people feel "bloated and icky."

"We heard you’re obsessed with lo mein but rarely eat it," Haspel said in the now-deleted post. "You said it makes you feel bloated and icky the next day? Well, wait until you slurp up our HIGH lo mein. Not too oily. Or salty."

Haspel told Eater that her restaurant Lucky Lee avoids MSG because people claim to have negative reactions to it. The article noted that no scientific evidence exists for that.

"There are very few American-Chinese places as mindful about the quality of ingredients as we are," she told Eater. "We’re excited to offer it to people who want this type of food, and it can make them feel good and they can workout after and they can feel focused after and it will add to their health."

Haspel added that her restaurant celebrates Chinese-American food and has no desire to "put down a culture."

"I love love love American Chinese food. I made some tweaks so I would be able to eat it and my friends and other people would be able to eat it," she said. "I am by all means never ever looking to put down a culture at all. I am very inclusive, and we’re here to celebrate the culture."

People on social media quickly denounced Haspel for supposedly not properly appreciating Chinese food, saying she stereotyped it as being greasy and MSG-filled.

"This white woman just opened a ‘clean’ Chinese food restaurant," said one user, "not only is she using Chinese food stereotypes/naming, she is shaming traditional Chinese food cooking with MSG/grease/starch."

Lucky Lee’s Yelp page has now been flooded with a string of negative reviews, though Haspel does have her share of supporters.

"Love to watch a Becky go bankrupt for racist appropriation," one Yelp user wrote.

"This restaurant uses racist tropes to position itself as better than a traditionally Chinese-owned restaurant for no good reason," said another.

Despite the intense backlash, Haspel issued no apology. Instead, Lucky Lee posted a defense of their position as a "clean" Chinese-American restaurant on the restaurant's Instagram account.

.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/9/2019 at 5:10 PM, TrojanDad said:

I am talking about a publication that is known to have a political agenda, information can and is commonly skewed in a given direction.  So yes, I am suspect.  The article I provided (including the one more recent that your Statesman LiveScience 2017) does not dismiss what you provided, but clearly indicate "a few births out of a thousand babies".  This is what I stated originally.  

There are some variations, though. Recent research has found that a person can have a variety of different combinations of sex chromosomes and genes, particularly those who identify as LGBT. For example, a certain X chromosome called Xq28 and a gene on chromosome 8 seem to be found in higher prevalence in men who are gay, according to a 2014 study in the journal Psychological Medicine

A few births out of a thousand of babies are born with a single sex chromosome (45X or 45Y) and are referred to as sex monosomies. Others are born with three or more sex chromosomes (47XXX, 47XYY or 47XXY, etc.) and are called sex polysomies. "In addition, some males are born 46XX due to the translocation of a tiny section of the sex determining region of the Y chromosome," said WHO. "Similarly some females are also born 46XY due to mutations in the Y chromosome. Clearly, there are not only females who are XX and males who are XY, but rather, there is a range of chromosome complements, hormone balances, and phenotypic variations that determine sex."

Additional source

https://www.genome.gov/26524120/

 

The limiting statement "a few births out of a thousand", refers specifically to instances of people being born with a single sex chromosome.  The article does not say anything about how common it is to have the "variety of different combinations of sex chromosomes and genes" discovered in recent research. 

Again, the whole point of the book discussed in the New Stateman review is that the recent research has overturned the traditional focus on the X and Y chromsomes being the the "sex chromosomes", and thus the traditional view that only mutations/variations affecting those two chromosomes are relevant to determining a person's sex. Rather, the new research shows exactly what the last sentence of your quoted article says: 

"Clearly, there are not only females who are XX and males who are XY, but rather, there is a range of chromosome complements, hormone balances, and phenotypic variations that determine sex."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Wabash82 said:

The limiting statement "a few births out of a thousand", refers specifically to instances of people being born with a single sex chromosome.  The article does not say anything about how common it is to have the "variety of different combinations of sex chromosomes and genes" discovered in recent research. 

Again, the whole point of the book discussed in the New Stateman review is that the recent research has overturned the traditional focus on the X and Y chromsomes being the the "sex chromosomes", and thus the traditional view that only mutations/variations affecting those two chromosomes are relevant to determining a person's sex. Rather, the new research shows exactly what the last sentence of your quoted article says: 

"Clearly, there are not only females who are XX and males who are XY, but rather, there is a range of chromosome complements, hormone balances, and phenotypic variations that determine sex."

 

Can you show me any statistics that demonstrates anything other than outliers and low probability events from the traditional view.  Again, not arguing variation....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.dailycaller.com/2019/04/10/democrats-equality-act-transgender-girls-sports/

Every House Democrat but one has co-sponsored a bill requiring schools to allow male athletes who identify as transgender girls to compete on female sports teams.

Democrats’ Equality Act would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to make “sexual orientation and gender identity” protected characteristics under federal anti-discrimination law. Among other things, the bill would force public schools to expand female athletic teams to include biological males who identify as transgender girls.

Sarah Warbelow, director of the left-wing Human Rights Campaign, praised the bill’s impact on high school sports in written testimony submitted to a House subcommittee on Tuesday.

“Opponents of equality in athletics for transgender athletes have argued that girls who are transgender have unfair physiological advantages over cisgender girls and as a result, will dominate women’s competitive sports,” Warbelow wrote, calling it not “rooted in fact” that biologically male athletes will outperform their female counterparts.

House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, a Democrat from New York, made a similar argument during an April 2 hearing his committee held on the legislation. (RELATED: Biological Male Is Top-Ranked NCAA Track Star)

“Many states have sexual orientation and gender identity nondiscrimination laws, and all of them still have women’s sports. Arguments about transgender athletes participating in sports in accordance with their gender identity having competitive advantages have not been borne out,” Nadler said in his opening statement.

 

And now this debate starts.........................XXXX & YYYYYY's ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, swordfish said:

And now this debate starts.........................XXXX & YYYYYY's ?

Is it gonna change to "Xaviers and Yvonnes, not Xs and Ys" instead of "Jimmys and Joes not Xs and Os?"

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, gonzoron said:

Is it gonna change to "Xaviers and Yvonnes, not Xs and Ys" instead of "Jimmys and Joes not Xs and Os?"

I have not seen that guy around here in YEARS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Notre Dame's first female leprechaun: 'Who says the Fighting Irish can't fight like a girl?': https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/2019/04/17/notre-dame-fighting-irish-picks-first-female-leprechaun-mascot/3496112002/

Quote

For 54 years as the band has blared the "Victory March" and the storied magic of Notre Dame football has played out, a leprechaun has wielded a shillelagh — leading cheers, pumping up the blue and gold with a legendary superstition the spirited elf brings magical powers and good luck to team.

Known only as the Notre Dame leprechaun, he has always been a male.

Lynnette Wukie is not. And this season, she will be the first women to don the green suit and Irish persona of glee for Notre Dame.

9c24de9b-d295-4f7a-ab36-4006f40fe105-lyn

I'm kind of surprised it took this long.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

Notre Dame's first female leprechaun: 'Who says the Fighting Irish can't fight like a girl?': https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/2019/04/17/notre-dame-fighting-irish-picks-first-female-leprechaun-mascot/3496112002/

I'm kind of surprised it took this long.

 

When I was a junior there, and living in the dorm, my next door neighbor was the leprechaun. She’s a lot better looking than he was.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bobref said:

When I was a junior there, and living in the dorm, my next door neighbor was the leprechaun. She’s a lot better looking than he was.

is this your former next door dorm neighbor?

hqdefault.jpg

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

is this your former next door dorm neighbor?

hqdefault.jpg

Similar, but the leprechaun is much shorter. 😅😂🤣

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...