do I understand the definition of a woman?

[Markk]

Before 8 weeks I am not sure one can tell any sex…but I could be wrong. Are you talking about a certain disorder that is detected early? If so a better context is required. If the fetus/baby is diagnosed with PAIS or CAIS…it will be genetically male, if TS, then genetically female. If with ovo-testi that becomes more difficult I suppose, which why many with this disorder are upset with doctors and parents, although trying to their best, who make gender identifications for them at birth, in that some want to identify later as women, some as men, and some as neither…the videos I linked discuss this fairly well.

Thanks

I believe by 8 weeks sexual development has started, but say 4 weeks the fetus is neither male or female at this point. To me when looking at genetic male or female it makes more sense to look at the genetic information on the chromosomes then looking at their shape. Society has always tended to define biological sex by phenotype or what characteristics a new born has. Your definition of women does not seem to have consistency, and in some cases you say yes they are a women, but not technically. Or a woman is XX, or a woman is one who can get pregnant, implying if one does not fit that they are not real women.

It is very consistent, it aligns with science, and It has a benchmark, and is what makes life possible. Yours, as i understand it, is very inconsistent and subjective.

Like the video I shared with you about a “mother” not “defining what their child is in regards to sex, because “she” wants the child to make that call. If the child is a perfectly healthy XX, or XY they have no choice to be what they naturally are. They can alter their natural being by surgeries and hormone treatments, but that is not what they biologically are, it is altering their natural biological make up. If the child has a disorder, then I understand the mothers concern is it is a disorder like PAIS or ovo-testi.

In dealing with, and finding cures for the disorders we have been discussing, the XX and XY model is and will always be the benchmark for accurate research and science, and again finding cures for individuals that suffer from these diseases and disorders.

[Themis]

It is very consistent, it aligns with science, and It has a benchmark, and is what makes life possible. Yours, as i understand it, is very inconsistent and subjective.

You mean a benchmark XX that would include a few males, or needing to be able to have kids to be a women. It would be more consistent to just go with biological/phenotype sex than a shape of a chromosome. Outside of environmental factors looking at what is on the chromosomes will consistently better tell you what sex a fetus will develop into.

Like the video I shared with you about a “mother” not “defining what their child is in regards to sex, because “she” wants the child to make that call. If the child is a perfectly healthy XX, or XY they have no choice to be what they naturally are. They can alter their natural being by surgeries and hormone treatments, but that is not what they biologically are, it is altering their natural biological make up. If the child has a disorder, then I understand the mothers concern is it is a disorder like PAIS or ovo-testi.

I don't know if any person is going to be perfectly healthy when it come to sex or gender identity, and we do see people who are healthy XX and XY who can have or have had children, choose different genders than what you would consider them to be. Maybe there is some biochemistry going on.

In dealing with, and finding cures for the disorders we have been discussing, the XX and XY model is and will always be the benchmark for accurate research and science, and again finding cures for individuals that suffer from these diseases and disorders.

I don't think they would choose to describe it that way, and while they are researching ways to help people with these conditions, they are also researching ways to change our genetics and biology. I can tell you are exited that one day women who change their sex to men will be getting a women pregnant and a man who becomes a women getting pregnant.

[Markk]

It is very consistent, it aligns with science, and It has a benchmark, and is what makes life possible. Yours, as i understand it, is very inconsistent and subjective.

You mean a benchmark XX that would include a few males, or needing to be able to have kids to be a women. It would be more consistent to just go with biological/phenotype sex than a shape of a chromosome. Outside of environmental factors looking at what is on the chromosomes will consistently better tell you what sex a fetus will develop into.

Like the video I shared with you about a “mother” not “defining what their child is in regards to sex, because “she” wants the child to make that call. If the child is a perfectly healthy XX, or XY they have no choice to be what they naturally are. They can alter their natural being by surgeries and hormone treatments, but that is not what they biologically are, it is altering their natural biological make up. If the child has a disorder, then I understand the mothers concern is it is a disorder like PAIS or ovo-testi.

I don't know if any person is going to be perfectly healthy when it come to sex or gender identity, and we do see people who are healthy XX and XY who can have or have had children, choose different genders than what you would consider them to be. Maybe there is some biochemistry going on.

In dealing with, and finding cures for the disorders we have been discussing, the XX and XY model is and will always be the benchmark for accurate research and science, and again finding cures for individuals that suffer from these diseases and disorders.

I don't think they would choose to describe it that way, and while they are researching ways to help people with these conditions, they are also researching ways to change our genetics and biology. I can tell you are exited that one day women who change their sex to men will be getting a women pregnant and a man who becomes a women getting pregnant.

Themis wrote…You mean a benchmark XX that would include a few males, or needing to be able to have kids to be a women. It would be more consistent to just go with biological/phenotype sex than a shape of a chromosome. Outside of environmental factors looking at what is on the chromosomes will consistently better tell you what sex a fetus will develop into.

No I don’t. I mean XX/XY is the model for human life. Billions of people have been born, and will continue to be born everyday, because of this biological fact. What you are doing, again, is taking a minutely very very very small sample of XX/XY abnormalities, and trying to construct it as the norm…when in fact they are biological disorders that scientists and researchers are trying to cure, to indirectly build a stronger XX/XY model.

I don't know if any person is going to be perfectly healthy when it come to sex or gender identity, and we do see people who are healthy XX and XY who can have or have had children, choose different genders than what you would consider them to be. Maybe there is some biochemistry going on.

I disagree whole heartedly.

They might choose to identify as something they are biologically not. And again, you are taking a small sample of people, trying to force this into the norm, which it not even close to being.

I don't think they would choose to describe it that way, and while they are researching ways to help people with these conditions, they are also researching ways to change our genetics and biology. I can tell you are exited that one day women who change their sex to men will be getting a women pregnant and a man who becomes a women getting pregnant.

How would they describe it then? These are diseases…and i suggest you read some of the symptoms many of these people live with and deal in the many links I have given on this thread. Cancers, stunted growth, life long hormone treatments, heart defects, genital surgery’s to live a normal life, infertility, mentally slow, webbed neck, kidney issues…. and many others I can’t readily recall. I am sure they take this at heart searching for cures to these diseases. Have you read what these DSD’s actually are?

And yes, medically speaking… people choose to be medically and surgically altered from their natural being…which has been one of my points.

[Themis]

No I don’t. I mean XX/XY is the model for human life. Billions of people have been born, and will continue to be born everyday, because of this biological fact. What you are doing, again, is taking a minutely very very very small sample of XX/XY abnormalities, and trying to construct it as the norm…when in fact they are biological disorders that scientists and researchers are trying to cure, to indirectly build a stronger XX/XY model.

You say XX/XY is the model or benchmark for male and female, yet we can find those with XX and XY who do not fit that, so no it cannot be the model/benchmark. You say XX/XY is the model or benchmark for human life, meaning ability to have kids, yet we can find even more XX and XY that cannot have kids, so it cannot be the model/benchmark. I've hinted many times and even been blunt you cannot simply look at a shape of a chromosome to define this benchmark/model. Try defining it more by what the genetic information on the chromosome is when you look to indentify ones biological sex.

Keep in mind that even when we look at those you would call healthy male and females the genetics of sex characteristics still has variability and lots of crossover. Think women with deep voices and men with high.

I disagree whole heartedly.

They might choose to identify as something they are biologically not. And again, you are taking a small sample of people, trying to force this into the norm, which it not even close to being.

I haven't forced anything into the norm, what ever you mean by norm. I do notice your response fits what many extreme religious people like to think that it is just a choice. Right? Just like homosexuals, but not heterosexuals. Certainly that cannot be a choice. It's definitely biochemistry right?

How would they describe it then? These are diseases…and i suggest you read some of the symptoms many of these people live with and deal in the many links I have given on this thread. Cancers, stunted growth, life long hormone treatments, heart defects, genital surgery’s to live a normal life, infertility, mentally slow, webbed neck, kidney issues…. and many others I can’t readily recall. I am sure they take this at heart searching for cures to these diseases. Have you read what these DSD’s actually are?

Your description just seems nonsensical, so I doubt I could rephrase it better until I know what you mean. The rest of your post I don't know what your point is. I have no problem with people with these conditions and their use of medicine to make their lives better.

And yes, medically speaking… people choose to be medically and surgically altered from their natural being…which has been one of my points.

So? People makes choices based on facts, feelings, thoughts, beliefs, etc. I don't think I can stop being attracted to a hot female, but I can make a choice whether to pursue that female. Factors that may come into play may be will she likely be attracted to me, will my wife mind, etc. The interesting question is if heterosexuals are biologically attracted to the opposite sex, could homosexuality have a biological source. Could people who feel their sex does not fit their gender identity have biology as a source of those thoughts and feelings?

[canpakes]

I don't think I can stop being attracted to a hot female, but I can make a choice whether to pursue that female.

[Markk]

Themis wrote…You say XX/XY is the model or benchmark for male and female, yet we can find those with XX and XY who do not fit that, so no it cannot be the model/benchmark. You say XX/XY is the model or benchmark for human life, meaning ability to have kids, yet we can find even more XX and XY that cannot have kids, so it cannot be the model/benchmark. I've hinted many times and even been blunt you cannot simply look at a shape of a chromosome to define this benchmark/model. Try defining it more by what the genetic information on the chromosome is when you look to indentify ones biological sex.

Keep in mind that even when we look at those you would call healthy male and females the genetics of sex characteristics still has variability and lots of crossover. Think women with deep voices and men with high.

Well again, you are forcing disorders and the abnorm into the norm. XX/XY that can’t have children does not make them another gender, it means they have a medical issue that makes them infertile and unable to reproduce, not to mention age does this naturally, for both very young and the older, especially women.

Your taking the side of an argument that you cannot possibly “win” by saying that the XX/XY is not the model for Human life and the furthering of it. Science and life in general disagree with this new theory being pushed.

Think women with deep voices and men with high.

That is why choirs create a very beautiful sound and it is normal with in the XX/XY spectrum…and you hit the nail on the head when said some “men” have high voice and some “women” have low voices (defining a man and women). Some are tall, and some are short…this does not mean they are male or female, it simply means some men/women are tall and some are shorter.

So do you think a young child male or female with a high or low voice, should be given puberty blockers, hormone treatments for life, and possible genital altering surgeries, many if not most unreversable? This is happening and promoted?


More later

[Themis]

Well again, you are forcing disorders and the abnorm into the norm. XX/XY that can’t have children does not make them another gender, it means they have a medical issue that makes them infertile and unable to reproduce, not to mention age does this naturally, for both very young and the older, especially women.

Your taking the side of an argument that you cannot possibly “win” by saying that the XX/XY is not the model for Human life and the furthering of it. Science and life in general disagree with this new theory being pushed.

Actually I am just showing that not all XX are women or XY all male. It's what on the chromosomes that is important.

That is why choirs create a very beautiful sound and it is normal with in the XX/XY spectrum…and you hit the nail on the head when said some “men” have high voice and some “women” have low voices (defining a man and women). Some are tall, and some are short…this does not mean they are male or female, it simply means some men/women are tall and some are shorter.

Male and females have a fair bit of overlap when it comes to many sexual characteristics.

So do you think a young child male or female with a high or low voice, should be given puberty blockers, hormone treatments for life, and possible genital altering surgeries, many if not most unreversable? This is happening and promoted?

I am unaware of any children being given any gender type treatments for having things like a high or low voices. You think it might be something else? You still seem to be more on the side of it being a choice expect for heterosexuality.

[Themis]

I don't think I can stop being attracted to a hot female, but I can make a choice whether to pursue that female.

That's a close one

[Markk]

]Actually I am just showing that not all XX are women or XY all male. It's what on the chromosomes that is important.

Only by asserting that diseases and disorders are somehow the norm, when any variation of the XX/XY model and benchmark are actually abnormal and rare. I have shown this from the beginning, from respected medical links. You are arguing against science in order to carry a hollow narrative pushed by a small minority with a much larger platform.

Male and females have a fair bit of overlap when it comes to many sexual characteristics.

As humans we share many characteristics, but sexually, men and women are obviously very different. Each serve a role in the furthering of the human race. Left alone, without meddling, nature will continue to prove what you are trying to assert is just not true.

…I am unaware of any children being given any gender type treatments for having things like a high or low voices. You think it might be something else? You still seem to be more on the side of it being a choice expect for heterosexuality.

You brought up the voice range in regards to gender identification, I just carried your example further along and questioned it…but read this…do you agree with this…do you believe a 8-13 year old can make a rational decision to take puberty blockers, based on their feelings?


https://health.clevelandclinic.org/what ... -blockers/

[doubtingthomas]

do you believe a 8-13 year old can make a rational decision to take puberty blockers, based on their feelings?

But there is nothing wrong with newborn male circumcision.

And Mary was old enough to be a mother at 12, right Markk?