Non binary and that sort of thing.

If I look at the next 100 people, how likely is it that I will find a right handed person? The infrequency of a given condition in a person does not invalidate what they are or have. Furthermore, since intersex and similar conditions are not looked for unless a medical issue shows up, they can go unknown until the needs arises. Transgenders and non-binaries are not checked for DNA variations and such. Even less checked for is for human chimera, since that would require taking multiple samples at different places on the body. What do you think would be the effect if male DNA made the brain, but female DNA made the genitals?

 

That is not what I'd call a "man jaw".

 

Did you notice that I used the words "in principle" in my response. Do you know what the words "in principle" mean??

There will, of course, be freak exceptions to any of this sort of stuff, as development doesn't always occur perfectly in an imperfect world. This has no bearing on how biology works in principle though. Did you know that humans are sometimes born with nine toes? Does this truth all of a sudden mean that humans biologically only have nine toes?? Of course not!! Humans, IN PRINCIPLE, have ten toes.

Likewise, humans are sometimes born with messed up chromosomes and etc. (e.g. hermaphrodites). Does this truth all of a sudden mean that humans biologically don't have two distinct sexes (or "genders")? No, of course not!! Humans, IN PRINCIPLE, are born male (XY, penis, "pollinator") and female (XX, vagina, "pollen receiver").

Birth defects do not in any way alter the principle of the matter. Birth defects do not in any way alter biology. You are choosing to deny biology. You are choosing to be a science denier.

There is no such thing as "gender", outside of using the term as a synonym for one's sex. There are only two sexes ("genders"); male and female. To deny this is to deny biology. To deny this is to be dishonest.

 

You are either misunderstanding me, or misrepresenting me, to present a different argument of your own. I thanked you for the new information about Adam's apples. I'm sorry if my question, that followed, made you think I was trying to, "invalidate," the thing for which I had just expressed my gratitude. I was simply thinking-- but I never paid close enough attention to know this, for sure, & you seemed to be a good person to ask-- that this must be a rather rare thing. Not like, to use your example, left-handedness, which applies to roughly 10% of the population. So that was all I was asking-- how rare is this thing, that I had not been aware existed? Apparently you do not consider that a valid curiosity. Rather, you seem to regard the mere question as something offensive. I had not realized the length of the stick you carry with you, and in which orifice you store it. I will, in the future, try to recall this, before asking you any sincere, simple, straight-forward questions that I can conceive of your possibly twisting into some offensive contortion.

 

At this point I am going to say that it was misunderstanding given what you said further in the post.

I did indeed take the question as if you were raising a counter point in the form of a question, a valid debate tactic. The implication being that rarity means that the incidences can be dismissed. I did appreciate and recognize the sincere gratitude for the new information I was able to provide you.

I did not find out the actual frequency of the Adam's Apple variation at a level that identification could be mistaken. The article I did link noted that the size can vary greatly, even to almost not noticeable, as well as not seen, in men, and barely noticeable to prominent to women (paraphrasing).

With regards to rarity, homo/bisexuality and transgenderism runs about 5% (rounded) as compared to left handed being at 10% (rounded). Overall that isn't that much of a difference in trying to dismiss a population of people, especially given the large number of people that even 1 % would generate. That said, I did run across an article that noted that Americans tend to overestimate the population of LBGT to as high as 25%, with 20% being the most common perception. I am willing to bet that their overestimation is due to people like Drag Queens, who are not transgender, as well as those people of straight orientation who are willing to engage in homosexual act for reasons other than sexual attraction (usually, but not limited to, porn).

Again, I perceived the question as a counter argument and responded accordingly. I do accept the curiosity as valid in and of itself. For that matter, I did not even perceive the question as counter argument as offensive, simply counter argument. I would hope that in seeing how I misinterpreted your post, you can see how you also misinterpreted mine. To my memory, while we do not always agree on conclusions or even the logic path, I have yet to see anything of yours that I find offensive. Maybe it's a lack of exposure to each other, but I can't recall you ever posing an ad hom argument or otherwise insult another poster, not even in the post I am responding to. Close, but not there.

 

I admit my missing your listing of the healthline website, from which came your information. Had I noticed it, I would have looked for myself, not expected you to do that research for me. Unfortunately, as you say, the article does not go into the frequency of these occurrences.
<SNIP>
Girls also undergo changes to their voice box during puberty. The degree of laryngeal growth in females isn’t as significant as in males, so most women don’t have Adam’s apples. Some women with a larger larynx do, but this indicates the size of the voice box only. In some women, a larger larynx may be caused by an increased amount of testosterone, which is also responsible for other body changes, such as body hair.
<SNIP>

I repeat, I was only interested in this phenomenon in and of itself, because I had long believed, because one hears this idea presented as factual, in society, that the Adam's apple is a sure indicator of a person's gender. It is not surprising, however, that an excess of testosterone in a female, or a deficiency of it in a male, could lead to aberrations of this typical rule.

I was not trying to make an argument that the rarity of this would have any implications as far as the LGBTQ community; that would be quite a stretch. I was only trying to confirm that, generally speaking (if not absolutely), this method of distinguishing, if ever one was uncertain, is effective. If, for example, I were to find that even 1% of women have Adam's apples & 1% of men do not, I would consider that to be far too common of a divergence from the rule, to have full confidence in it. On the other hand, even if this atypical condition exists in 1 out of every 100,000 people, that would make it sufficiently rare for me to have high confidence in the Adam's apple test, as it would not be likely I would ever encounter the exception, in a situation in which this was a consideration, or in which I had reason to wonder.

There are a couple of surprising stats, there. I had always heard, which more & more clearly seems a poor thing to rely upon

 

@Maquiscat
Continued from last post, which was posted accidentally, before I'd finished. I tried to rush in the rest, during the editing window, but I'm a slow typist. I only wish I had copied what I'd added, before trying to save changes.

There are a couple of surprising stats, there. I had always heard-- which more & more clearly seems a poor thing to rely upon-- that roughly 10% of the population was gay. So to now hear that only 5% is either homo- or bisexual, I am not sure that I believe it. (BTW, I do not mean to imply that I am dismissing the transgendered part of that total, only that I assume it to be, by far, the smallest of the 3 and so, pragmatically, to not significantly alter the overall result.) Since I did get my 10% figure from numerous times seeing it in the public media-- reading it in magazine & newspaper articles, & hearing it on t.v. (although those were as often as not, entertainment programs)-- I am very surprised, as well, to hear that the public would estimate the LGBT(Q) community to be as large as 20 or 25% of the population, which seems preposterous. Might I trouble you for your sources for these two statistics?

I'm unfortunately now under a time pressure, but want to post this addendum to my premature post, without delay, so must rush through this bit, which I'd hoped to take my time with. I appreciate the diplomacy of your response to my post which, admittedly, was a bit provocative. It got under my skin, that you would assume I was trying to, "dismiss," transsexuals, or anyone else, simply because I was interested in further details about what you had posted, in response to my post, which I had begun by specifically saying:

At any rate, I'm glad to hear that I haven't lost a potential friend with my irritated remark; and I'm sorry that I even came close to stepping over the line of offense. I will, as you indicated, chalk this up to a simple misunderstanding.

 

I do keep forgetting that this site doesn't show links very well. HEY MODS! How about we change the link color from slightly contrasting to major contrast. Say the standard blue?


I was not trying to make an argument that the rarity of this would have any implications as far as the LGBTQ community; that would be quite a stretch. I was only trying to confirm that, generally speaking (if not absolutely), this method of distinguishing, if ever one was uncertain, is effective. If, for example, I were to find that even 1% of women have Adam's apples & 1% of men do not, I would consider that to be far too common of a divergence from the rule, to have full confidence in it. On the other hand, even if this atypical condition exists in 1 out of every 100,000 people, that would make it sufficiently rare for me to have high confidence in the Adam's apple test, as it would not be likely I would ever encounter the exception, in a situation in which this was a consideration, or in which I had reason to wonder.[/QUOTE]

When you first wrote it, I did see that you were not equating it directly to the argument. So part of my post was to point out that it wasn't as reliable as you seemed to have thought. But I was also using it as a point that there really isn't an absolute indicator that serves the average person on the street. Any person on the street actually. Even those who can read DNA can't do it on the fly out in public. So I always have to wonder about those who claim that any given transperson has the DNA the anti-trans person claims they do.

Happens to the best of us. I've done it. No biggie. I had suspected as much, and would have asked when I got home tonight if you hadn't replied before hand. Ive got $10 that says it will happen to you again someday.

T

I'm with you here on 10%. I have often compared LBGT occurrence with left handedness as far as frequency goes. Granted I was not far off, and I think my principle still holds. It shocked me too that about 1/3 of those polled assumed that LBGT comprised 1/5 to 1/4 of the US population. I do have to wonder what some people were counting within this LBGT population. I mentioned Drag Queens before (which would include Drag Kings, but they are lesser known). Many are gay, but quite a few are also straight, and all (except those later who stop hiding from themselves) identify as their birth sex. Some people might also be inflating the number based on gender fluids and demisexuals and all of those other labels, when they are actually a part of the 5%.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/259571/americans-greatly-overestimate-gay-population.aspx

Found it using "homosexuals as portion of population" in Google. The Guardian article on where the 10% figure might have come from is interesting.

Thank you. I must admit that I would prefer to debate at odds against one as yourself that can admit error or misunderstanding, than with someone who shares my conclusion but doubles down on errors. We all will misunderstand or misspeak/mistype from time to time. If you remain patient with me, I will do so with you.

Your misunderstanding of my misunderstanding. LOL. Even so, I didn't get the impression of dismissal of their existence, but of the cause or frequency. I'm sure you've seen it with gfm and his "principle" issue, but too many times I am seeing the argument that the rare event doesn't count in showing that the rare person exist. That is what that one question looked like, as others have argued in that manner before, and why I answered as I did.

Ditto. And glad we can be understanding to each other, even on topics we do not agree on.

 

Yes it means:

It has nothing to do with what we are talking about. "In practice" would be closer to accurate. The ability of a person to biologically do or not do something has nothing to do with principle. Which is why that argument failed in the other threads you tried that in.

Fixed it for you. The problem with this argument is that you are trying to dismiss an exception to the statistical norm to show that something that is not the statistical norm doesn't exist. But that is the entire point. Not being a statistical norm does not mean it's not natural, nor that it doesn't exist.

The whole point of the argument is that such doesn't always happen and such would be at least one source of the existence of transgenders. We both agree that intersex conditions exist. What you seem to dismiss is that an intersex condition isn't always visible and may never show signs during one's lifetime. Many intersex people have never known, and were only discovered during an autopsy, or something happened late in life before they learned of their condition.

Whether you call them defects or variants or whatever, to deny that they occur and can have the effects that the medical community is saying they do is the denial of science and biology. Hell, for all we know this is an evolutionary mutation.

Look up the word's history of use. "Gender" was in use long before it was turned into a synonym for one's physical sex, and no it wasn't as a label for identity. It evolved into such a synonym and now it is evolving into something else again; referring to one's sense of self/identity. Very much like the word "gay". At first it meant festive or joyful, then it was a homosexual slur, and now it is a simple label for homosexuals.

 

Brow ridge and jawline, mostly. It's very obvious once you know what it is - we even know it subconsciously, in our animal hardwiring.

 

The hips are fake, and the photo is manipulated. Hands and face, always look at those.

 

I would love for you to come to one of our local munches and see if you really can pick out all of the trans genders we have. And we have both trans men and transwomen at varying stages of transition. I'm willing to put down money that you couldn't even hit a 50% success rate. Of course with my luck, if you could, you'd pick the day none of them show up.

 

One could do it with one's eyes closed simply by smell.

 

I would still love to put you to the test.

 

On a relatively minor point, science doesn't say that. Don't take my word for it. Look it up.

But the more important point is that biological sex and gender aren't the same thing. What's true of biological sex need not be true of gender.

 

To be frank, the thought of seeing people who willfully mutilated themselves to trick me into thinking they are a sex that they are not isn't appea;ing

 

No. It has everything to do with what we are talking about. Nothing is being practiced here, so "in practice" is not accurate. We are talking about fundamental biological truths, so "in principle" is the proper terminology to make use of.

WRONG. In fact, I am saying that it DOES exist, but that its existence is irrelevant since it doesn't affect the fundamental biological truth that humans only have two sexes (or "genders") [male and female].

I didn't make any mention of "natural"; I've been speaking about what is normal. "Normal" means to 'conform to a standard', in this case 'male' and 'female'. It is not normal to be a hermaphrodite. It DOES occur naturally, however (albeit extremely rarely).

I'm not making this argument, dude. I agree with you that it exists.

Irrelevant, as it doesn't change biological truth that, in principle, humans have two sexes and are either male or female.

I call them 'abnormalities', as you can clearly read what I typed. I have never once denied that abnormalities occur. Abnormalities do not alter biological truth.

One's feelings about oneself does not alter biological truths.

 

Not all of the have had the surgery, and you still wouldn't be able.to tell the difference.

 

How many sexes there are is beside the point if we are discussing gender. But also, science doesn't tell us that about sex at all. Look it up!

 

Define "sex".
Define "gender".

If "gender" isn't a spectrum, how many "genders" are there?
If "gender" IS a spectrum, define the boundaries of this spectrum and provide step by step instructions as to how my "gender" is determined.

What is your "gender"?

 

Sex is biological. Gender is a social role, like nationality.

It works the same as other social roles. You can make up whatever social roles you want with whatever boundaries you want.

 

Okay, so "gender" is just made up hooey then... got it.

 

I disagree. If gender, that part of a person we are referencing when talking about a transgender person, really was only a social role, then there would not be dysphoria that results from being transgender. The presentation of that gender, the expectations and roles of that gender, those are social constructs. But not the gender itself.

 

Here's how the World Health Organization defines "gender".

"Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed."

https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender#tab=tab_1

 

Understood. However I am willing to bet that that definition, like most, falls under that same lag as almost all words do when undergoing a shift in common usage. Keep in mind that initially the term "gender" was not a synonym of sex (adj). And when people did start using gender as a synonym (initially slang), it wouldn't have been reflected in dictionaries right away, but only after it became common use. The use is once again shifting, and a new common use is being established.

But regardless of what word ends up being the label for it, my point still stands. That aspect of a person that the word "gender" is being applied to, especially in the context of transgenders, is not a construct or social anything, but an innate trait as much as being left-handed, or sexual orientation is. The expectations of behavior or roles for any given gender is a social construct.