to point out that one Y chromosome does not make you a male

[Nimbostratus100]

In response to other posts insisting that one genetic test and one Y chromosome makes an athlete indisputably male with no room for error, I just want to point out that it not true.

There is always genetic exchange, for example, between a mother and baby, so anyone who has had a son will still have Y chromosomes in some cells in their body, and that will possibly show up in a genetic screening.

I am all for keeping men out of women's sport, and defining them genetically, but please lets not go over the top - one test does not prove you are male

If you really want to know, I have a good real life friend of many years who has met the OP.

*FatFucker
I normally can't be assed with these type of threads as they are so obviously TRAs, but this one is just hilarious!!

He's meant to be a geneticist, who's had a female friend who wasn't allowed to race as she tested as male!

I'm loving it! I knew NOTHING about genetics but suspect a hell of lot more than the OP, after reading some of the really interesting PPs.*

The OP is female. Whether you agree with her or not.

---

Yeah of course they are 🙄

How would you know that your friend has met the op?

Yes. She is.

I'm not prepared to elaborate on that on here. It's potentially outing, as I said. I have though passed the relevant information to MNHQ given the troll hunting on the thread.

TBF, women are not immune to posting poorly thought through comments online!

I have no problem accepting OP is a real, non troll-y human, even an adult female human, but I remain utterly baffled as to how someone can be so stubbornly wrong in the face of irrefutable evidence.

I don’t expect people to admit it or apologise when they are wrong (slinking away is fine!) but continually arguing up is down and grass is blue is something you usually only see in teenagers (who finally admit they were in the wrong when they get to 23-25 ish 😆)

I have noticed on MN that if you give statements of facts then they really do need to be backed up. A person saying "because I said so" isn't really helpful in a discussion.

Just so we are clear, this post isn't aimed at anyone in particular. An opinion is personal, facts need to be able to be confirmed by others.

It doesn’t really matter if the op is female. The pp contacting mnhq to say this means very little.

It’s pretty clear the op gives a variety of professions for whatever reason and is making something up along the way

I contacted MNHQ in the light of submitting several reports of troll hunting.

I don't know enough about genetics to comment on whether the OP is right or wrong though my instinct is that she's wrong and several posters have argued that point effectively.

However she can be wrong without being what some posters are accusing her of.

Well. This thread has been quite the embarrassment, hasn't it?

For the record I'm not a geneticist. And I still know not one homo sapien in the history of recorded modern humans has ever possessed a body capable of producing both large and small gametes.

And as a PP wittily points out, if you've ever given birth that's pretty unassailable evidence of your (immutable) sex.

Claiming scientific expertise simply to make a prize Charlie of yourself really would make me want to name-change and/or disappear. Ouch ...

She's variously said she's a maths teacher, a geneticist and a virologist. All those things can't be true at once.

I'm so confused. I thought the op was a teacher?

An anatomist, not to mention medical doctor with a reasonably high SM profile has been known to use this argument. It runs along the lines of 'I am right, because I'm a scientist and have the credentials to prove it, and human sex exists on a spectrum because I say so and because .... clownfish'.

IME, it's your actual arguments (not citing ancient, already-debunked research) which stand or fall by their own merit or lack of same.

Saying 'I'm a scientist' gives you no additional clout if what you're talking about is so obviously complete balderdash. It also makes you look very silly, and leads people to the inevitable conclusion that you're perhaps not the authority in your discipline you like to think you are.

Academics are as good as their last research project or peer-reviewed piece of research. When they try this approach I really do cringe for them.

NB. And that's the genuine ones.

A maths teacher that didn’t know that you can still do AS levels …

She's variously said she's a maths teacher, a geneticist and a virologist. All those things can't be true at once.

Maybe she's read a few things on Facebook and decided it makes her an expert

She has also said she does 'a huge amount for child slaves'.

Some people just have very busy, full lives, I guess.

So if you think she isn't posting in good faith you can report.

I really don't understand why people feel the need to pick posters apart in public.

In theory she could be science teacher who picked some random bits of knowledge here and there.

Posters who start inflammatory threads blatantly parading their self-identified expertise in something, and furiously accusing everyone who disagrees with them as toxic evil ignoramuses, are going to face questions about said "expertise."

Maybe if being questioned on this is such a distressing experience, don't start a thread on that very basis?

Tbf it is a bit of a gaff to confidently state you’re a geneticist when other posts say not

Amazing. So can you actually confirm that the OP is the geneticist they are claiming to be? And also a maths teacher?

It’s important. Because they’ve come on here claiming specialist, professional knowledge in a way that is seeking to persuade others on the basis of that apparent expertise. So it’s entirely in order for others to question their story when there are glaring inconsistencies, not only in what they’re alleging to be true, but also in their own back story, which they are leaning on to claim expert status.

And a virologist and a statistician.

Wasn’t there an extensive career working with sex offenders as well

There is a difference between simply being wrong, and being wrong but representing yourself as somebody who has expertise.