Excellion wrote:Christen57 wrote:Excellion wrote:
"
Klinefelter syndrome is a chromosomal condition in boys and men that can affect physical and intellectual development." - your medlineplus.gov source
This would mean you having XXY chromosomes still makes you male.
Then why would it matter what they put as their gender?
Because there are still only 2 genders. Male and female.
Right... then why shouldnt gender be any different?
Because there's no need to allow any additional genders to be added besides the 2 already displayed: Male and Female.
"Lost third gender of japan" covers it.
Could you link to it?
Not genetically... which was the point youre bith trying to make, if its a binary system then there are only xy or xx, if its xxy or xyy or yy, it is not, by your definition, a male or female, thats the point.
If it's XXY or XYY, either of those would still make you male as you still have at least 1 Y chromosome, and YY hasn't existed as a chromosome pair in anyone so far.
Yes, they can artifical incemination can be done between 2 females using bone marrow to inceminate an egg
Even if you extract sperm and put it in the woman to impregnate her, the sperm still requires a male to produce and donate to begin with, no?
First off who decides what is considered "new" and "old" and who said north america sets the standards for social norms?
"New" meaning, compared to the Roman, Greek, and Japanese locations you listed (which you
said had this for hundreds of thousands of years or so), it hasn't been widely done before in America.
Social norms can vary somewhat from country to country and can also overlap somewhat. It can be the "social norm" in one country to make up and accept additional genders besides male and female but not in another country.
The decriptor given for "male" and "female" as provided by genexwrecker is "xy" or "yy" which they are not.
Genexwrecker gave no such descriptor. She said there are only "male" and "female" genders and that if you have something like XXY or XYY you're still ultimately male.
Also no if you read what i stated insimination is between 2 females they extract bonemarrow to then fertilize an egg no sperm, no Male, no nothing.
How much does this stuff cost (because here it's saying the price ranges from $1,700 to $7,000)?
https://www.mdsave.com/procedures/bone-biopsy-or-aspiration/d783fdc4Other places say it's more than that, like, tens of thousands of dollars.
Who's realistically gonna spend
that much money just to have some of their own bone marrow extracted for a pregnancy when, with a help of just a fully grown male, getting pregnant can be done for free?
And you are using completely subjective and arbitrary dates for what is "new" and "old" the newest nation is still roughly 40-50 years, in that tike non binary persons were a thing in egypt, in europe and in asia. Thatw left than a life time, not "new" enough for you?
I'm basing this purely off of what you said earlier:
In order words, you're saying that, for hundreds of thousands of years, most continents but North America practiced this stuff, no? In that case, this would be considered "new" (or "newer") in North America compared to those other continents.
You guys have yet to actually give any reason or source for any of your bigotry
You can't be bigoted towards that which does not exist. There is no real "attack helicopter" gender for us to be bigoted towards, and ScottyAdams in this thread
clarified that "Wakashu" isn't a gender either but rather an orientation.
meanwhile ive provided 4 medical journals, 2 reports from the DoA, and several reputable articles regarding the history of nonbinary persons
You've provided nothing of the sort. The only things you cited so far in this thread are these 6:
None of which have anything to do with any history of a truly nonbinary person existing, while some of them only say that some males can be born with some female-looking genitalia, and vice versa. However, in those cases, your gender is still still either "male" or "female" (just with said genitalia that looks like that of the opposite sex), not "neither gender" or "non-binary".
if by now you dont see the problem replace what youve said so far about non binary persons with any ethnic race of your choosing and see how it sounds.
I
said this before and I'll say it again: Unlike the genders you're making up, races and colors
do exist and can be visibly observed.
YES humans HAVE changed gender via hormone therapy the same process as other animals in the wild
Humans can change the chromosomes and chromosome combinations they were born with through a little "therapy"?
BoomerDuels wrote:Christen57 wrote:Excellion wrote:Exactly, then entitled binary people dont need to display their heterosexuality either, thats why im saying remove the gender selector all together if someone wants their gender to be known.
You
do have the option to hide your gender as multiple people already pointed out that you can leave the thing blank instead of picking male or female. That counts as "removing it" and thus fits your criteria of it being "removed".
Non binary prefix in rome and greese
Some parts of the world doing it a long time ago doesn't make it valid today. I'm sure Rome and Greece also, for a long time, believed in their Gods and pseudosciences, and believed in witches/witchcraft, human sacrifices/rituals, preserving the corpses of pharaohs so they could have the appropriate body needed to move on to the afterlife, and so on, and I bet that they abandoned all of this once science and technology were introduced and evolved to disprove many of these things.
Genexwrecker is saying gender is "biological" then ignores intersex persons people of "Yy" or "xxy" chromosome pairings
No one in history has ever had either of those chromosome combinations as far as I'm aware.
You miss the point entirely. No-one has ever claimed in history that we should adopt every practice from ancient Rome or Greece. This was merely a way of showing that LGBT rights isnt just an entirely modern thing. You really do go out of your way to attack a strawman
I'm claiming we shouldn't adopt the practice of sexually identifying as "attack helicopter" and whatnot just because some Romans and Greeks may have done so in the past.
Secondly, not showing your gender, is different than showing your lack of a gender. These are different concepts. Someone who identifies as neither a male or a female is different than a male who would rather not show his gender
No evidence was shown yet by either you or Excellion that a person with a true "lack of a gender" exists. Simply choosing to "identify as neither a male nor a female" doesn't automatically make you neither "male nor female" just like how simply choosing to identify as an attack helicopter doesn't automatically transform you into an attack helicopter.
What does make you male or female is the chromosome combination you were born with. If you were born with the chromosome combination "XX," you're female (regardless of what other "defects" might've come along with that). If you were born with the chromosome combination of "XY," "XYY," or "XXY," you're male, at least according to the sources shown so far by Excellion. Funny how, so far, every source he's cited to "debunk" me has either supported my case instead or at least failed to support his case that there's some third real gender out there.
It just seems to me that the experts in this topic seem to all agree that transgender people's identity are valid, so I really don't see a reason to disbelieve them
I would rather see those experts "prove" it or provide evidence of it (instead of just blindly "agreeing" that it's valid to pander to the entitled and make themselves look good). Them simply "seeming to all agree" on it doesn't automatically make it valid. An example of what would make it valid is if a new chromosome combination was discovered and shown in some born humans that hasn't yet been classified as belonging to the male or female gender.