I've just been called "unscientific" for saying that you cannot change sex

[CloudyMoment]

It's just a rant really, but also fishing for possible counter-arguments.

I thought that nobody really properly argues against the fact that sex is something you are born with, and that his cannot be changed.

Apparently those people think sex is not immutable. That it actually can change- because apparently also eye colour can change throughout life. I tried arguing against, that we are still born with a coded expression hair or eye colour, and that this does not change. I feel that this is very much a philosophical discussion to be had.. but meanwhile. How do you show robustly and scientifically that sex is immutable?

@334bu

Unfortunately up here in Scotland behind included in the alphabet soup has meant DSD charities losing funding money to LGBT+ groups who are "supposed to be looking after the " I" interests.

I will never understand how organisations get to assert that without checking in with the specialist groups as to whether they: – concur; – find it acceptable; – have appropriate power in the umbrella organisation's steering groups for their own topic etc.

Look at the collapse in spending on lesbians in post 2015 Stonewall.

I think everyone should watch this Bertrand Russell clip once a week until they come to their senses :

Thanks for the clip Wbeezer

@merrymouse

*To some people, belief in a man who could and did produce more fish is a protected belief. Amen.*

Yeah. I think he is supposed to have used a different method.

😁

As a complete digression from the point of the thread ... when you read that particular miracle in a decently translated version of the NT, such as Lattimore, it becomes very apparent that loaves and fishes are not actually loaves and fishes, they are a wobbly metaphor for the process of disseminating radical ideas: i.e. you give a crowd of people an idea ("a fish" or "a loaf"), they will go and tell another set of people your idea, and those people will tell another set of people your idea ... and before you know it, your "fish" has multiplied to "feed" a horde.

There's a lot of food and drink metaphors in the NT, and they are all pretty much about how to spread an ideology or about how an ideology is an embodiment of the self: i.e. your existence has a direct correlation to the ideology you hold. Hence the nature of the whole Last Supper language.

nods sagely

Unfortunately, as a rule, Peter never gets any of the metaphors. He strikes me as being a rather unimaginative apostle.

"Also the earth is round and when you die you stay dead. Hope that helps."

The Earth isn't round. It's elliptical. Hope that helps! :)

"Erm... Babies? Anyone ever heard of any male animal suddenly growing ovaries and uterus?"

Good point. And re uteruses: I think that we should all accept that a woman who's had her uterus removed during a hysterectomy is no longer a woman. :)

@Ides

"Also the earth is round and when you die you stay dead. Hope that helps."

The Earth isn't round. It's elliptical. Hope that helps! :)

You know full well that the comment is refuting that the earth is flat. Which I note you agree with.

@Ides

"Erm... Babies? Anyone ever heard of any male animal suddenly growing ovaries and uterus?"

Good point. And re uteruses: I think that we should all accept that a woman who's had her uterus removed during a hysterectomy is no longer a woman. :)

What an offensive thing to say. You know full well that the only way to have a uterus that needs removing is to be a woman (or girl). Removing a body part from a woman doesn't make them a man.

Mishy

Or anyone else

I've never seen a news story in my whole life about a bog standard male or female spontaneously changing sex during their life.

Has anyone got any?

I'm sure it would be big news.

@Ides

"Erm... Babies? Anyone ever heard of any male animal suddenly growing ovaries and uterus?"

Good point. And re uteruses: I think that we should all accept that a woman who's had her uterus removed during a hysterectomy is no longer a woman. :)

Of course only a woman would require a hysterectomy, and only women go through menopause either following hysterectomy or when the ovaries stop producing ova.

But never let obvious facts get in the way of a sneery response, especially if you can make it as offensive as possible.

Galileo wouldn't last 5 minutes with this mob. Good job he was only up against the Vatican.

There was a fascinating OU /BBC series a few years ago about development of unborn babies. www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06dsmn1
There's a particular condition where male babies are not exposed to a testosterone surge in the womb and their genitalia doesn't develop. They appear female at birth, but when they reach puberty the hormones kick in and they become male.
That's quite close to changing sex, but is obviously to do with genes etc rather than feelings.

Lol rabhan

Recant!!!

"But never let obvious facts get in the way of a sneery response, especially if you can make it as offensive as possible."

Then don't blunder into such simple traps when making your simplistic distinctions. If 'a woman' is to be defined as 'a person with a cervix', you're going to have to have something to say regarding a person who's just had hers removed, for instance.

As a general rule one person's smugness will always lead to another's sneering in the end, I'm afraid. Try to think ahead.

There are animals (mostly fish) that change their sex.

There are jellyfish that live forever (immortal-jellyfish.com/). This means that human beings can live forever. isn't that great?

Uni biology prof here. I haven't read the whole thread, but did want to support all those who say sex is real.

The sexual arrangements of invertebrates or crocodilians or fungi or fish or plants vary in many interesting ways. In mammalian vertebrates there are always and only two sexes and we can't change between them.

It's gender that's in the brain....

If it was sex, then how would a jellyfish, erm, "identify" since it doesn't have a brain? How would liverworts "know" whether to produce antheridia or archegonia?

It's such utter bollocks, you'd have to be a flat earther to even imagine how anyone could fool themselves so badly.

@Pallisers

There are animals (mostly fish) that change their sex.

There are jellyfish that live forever (immortal-jellyfish.com/). This means that human beings can live forever. isn't that great?

This is correct and I am quite the expert in the area (I have watched that Octonauts episode TWICE and hardly even looked at my phone whilst doing it) so I can confidently assert humans can live forever and any who don’t are just not trying hard enough.

"In mammalian vertebrates there are always and only two sexes and we can't change between them."

Can I ask where you're a university professor in Biology, Quixote9?

Myself, I only have a GCSE in Biology. Yet I'm able to google. This article seems to express the standard view: www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

... that there aren't, in fact, just two sexes. What would you say to it?

I get so tired of this stuff. Of course you aren't a Biology professor. You aren't even an academic ... I can see that from the simplistic tone in which you write.

This is embarrassing. Please don't do this again.

Ides it may interest you to know that the author of that article explained that she wasn't saying that there were more than two sexes:

She was asked: 'In your piece 'Sex Redefined' are you making the claim there are more than 2 sexes?'

Her reply: 'No, not at all. Two sexes, with a continuum of variation in anatomy/physiology.'

twitter.com/ClaireAinsworth/status/888365994577735680

Myself, I only have a GCSE in Biology. Yet I'm able to google.

Sums the entire thing up really. I have a GCSE in Biology and I can GOOGLE! (as well as the misplaced "myself")

This is embarrassing. please don't do this again.

I’d say Ides has a rather prejudiced expectation of how a uni biology professor should write a post on MN.

Pity you didn’t do further research on Claire Ainsworth’s article. She has clarified as per Old Crone’s post. Two sexes.

By all means though, please tell us what the names of these other sexes are, and could you please tell us what they contribute to reproduction?

Ides it may interest you to know that the author of that article explained that she wasn't saying that there were more than two sexes:

My guess is it wouldn't interest Ides in the slightest.

And of course, as @NecessaryScene pointed out upthread, the fact that something is not a simple binary does not therefore make it a spectrum.

It seems to be a very common idea amongst gender ideologues that there are only two possible forms of genetic variation: discrete binary or continuous spectrum. That in itself is a fundamental logical fallacy. There might for example be two sexes and (for the sale of argument) say, 12 different DSD variants, but that still doesn’t make them a spectrum, any more than the existence of other chromosomal abnormalities means that we all exist on a chromosomal spectrum of those either.

Then don't blunder into such simple traps when making your simplistic distinctions. If 'a woman' is to be defined as 'a person with a cervix',

A woman isn't defined as a "person with a cervix". A woman is simply an adult human female, and a female body normally has a cervix as part of the female reproductive system. The absence of it either means there is a developmental disorder or the woman has undergone surgery to remove it.

As them what is on their chromosomes are they xx or xy in their cells. Ask them what biological natural sex organs they have / had - then explain you can remove these but you can’t remove dna