Some things I am noticing

[We Never Know]

You acknowledge this as a phenomenon and yet disregard or call into question the phenomenon of transgenderism? Really?
We can scan for such a phenomenon on the brain these days, you know?
Hell I remember learning about people transitioning (as it is a known recommendation by medical experts in various fields) in my actual high school biology class. As in it was in a freaking science text book

Yeah what was that about following the science even if it conflicts with your feelings again?

I am acknowledging these two genetic disorders are real.

For females- Androgen insensitivity syndrome: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia.

For males-
Klinefelter syndrome - Symptoms and causes

However they only happen in very rare occasions, less than 1% of births.

 

[Polymath257]

“Father Heathen said:
I knew a girl who by all physical appearances was a female, vagina and all. When she became a teenager, she went to the doctor because she never starting having periods. She discovered that not only was she sterile but had Xy chromosomes. In spite of this, she continued living and identifying as a girl; she looked, behaved, and felt like one.”

To answer your questions polymath

“Is this person male because they are XY? Or female because they have all female physical characteristics?”

I would assume they have a genetic disorder called adrogen syndrome. I would think their case could be supported with science either way.
Androgen insensitivity syndrome: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia.

For males its Klinefelter syndrome
Klinefelter syndrome - Symptoms and causes

OK, and why is it so different than a transgendered person who has completed the transition?

“Would this person be wrong to identify as female?”

I would assume they have a genetic disorder called adrogen syndrome. I would think their case could be supported with science either way.

"Are you denying the *science* that this situation can occur?"
“And with this, do you agree that chromosomes do NOT determine sex?”

As clearly stated here "the simplest thing DNA can tell you is whether someone is male or female apart from some very rare cases"
What DNA can tell us

And why is it so different than someone who is transgendered and has completed the transition?

“Which restroom do you think this person should use?”

The one they are plumbed for

And would this apply to transgendered people as well who have completed the transition?

“Should they be allowed to play on a women's sports team?”

Sure. They were born that way. If they had been born with web feet instead should they be disqualified from competing. Nope.

What does being born that way have to do with it?

 

[Polymath257]

I am acknowledging these two genetic disorders are real.

For females- Androgen insensitivity syndrome: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia.

For males-
Klinefelter syndrome - Symptoms and causes

However they only happen in very rare occasions, less than 1% of births.

And what percentage of people are transgendered?

 

[We Never Know]

OK, and why is it so different than a transgendered person who has completed the transition?



And why is it so different than someone who is transgendered and has completed the transition?



And would this apply to transgendered people as well who have completed the transition?



What does being born that way have to do with it?

Now you're moving the goal post from "thinking" to "completed the transition"

In my opinion two different topics.


"What does being born that way have to do with it?"

Oh maybe because its not about thinking, choice or want, its how they were born.

 

[We Never Know]

And what percentage of people are transgendered?

Who knows. Some still keep it hidden.
How many/what % of transgenders are born with..
Androgen insensitivity syndrome: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia.
-or-
Klinefelter syndrome - Symptoms and causes

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Many people claim to "be about science" only if science agrees with them. When it doesn't agree, then its isn't about science at all, its about how they feel.
That was shown in my DNA" thread.

Whether I agree with science or not, I stick with science. I don't bounce around depending whether or not it agrees with me or not.

Science is learning process and as we learn, science advances and we learn even more. Its a tool that has brought us out of the stone ages and isn't based on feelings.

There are limitations to what DNA can tell you about a complete and unique organism like a human. Yes, it can tell you what colour their eyes might be, or whether they have wet or dry ear wax. But there is no link known at all between DNA and "state of mind" or "self-identification."

Sometimes, the best science available is just to ask somebody, "how do you feel?" or "how do you identify as a human in terms of gender?" Yes, DNA can tell you whether you should have testicles or ovaries, but it can't tell you a damned thing about how you will feel about that for the rest of your entire life.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Many people claim to "be about science" only if science agrees with them. When it doesn't agree, then its isn't about science at all, its about how they feel.
That was shown in my DNA" thread.

Whether I agree with science or not, I stick with science. I don't bounce around depending whether or not it agrees with me or not.

Science is learning process and as we learn, science advances and we learn even more. Its a tool that has brought us out of the stone ages and isn't based on feelings.

People also pick the scientists they like. Ignore scientists that have contrary findings with their personal views and opinions.

We see that on climate and covid issues.

 

[Heyo]

However they only happen in very rare occasions, less than 1% of births.

Is that a reason to discriminate against them?

 

[We Never Know]

Is that a reason to discriminate against them?

Really? I don't discriminate agaist them.

See these posts, #58 and #61

 

[Polymath257]

Who knows. Some still keep it hidden.
How many/what % of transgenders are born with..
Androgen insensitivity syndrome: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia.
-or-
Klinefelter syndrome - Symptoms and causes

And the point is that science doesn't determine social interaction. Someone who is trans and goes to a doctor needs to let the doctor know everything going on. And it isn't just the chromosomes that are relevant.

Just because someone is XY doesn't mean they are physically male. Just because they are physically male doesn't mean their brains are wired in the male style.

The question of how to assign gender and what role gender identity plays is not a scientific one. It is a social one. It is a social classification, not a scientific one.

 

[We Never Know]

There are limitations to what DNA can tell you about a complete and unique organism like a human. Yes, it can tell you what colour their eyes might be, or whether they have wet or dry ear wax. But there is no link known at all between DNA and "state of mind" or "self-identification."

Sometimes, the best science available is just to ask somebody, "how do you feel?" or "how do you identify as a human in terms of gender?" Yes, DNA can tell you whether you should have testicles or ovaries, but it can't tell you a damned thing about how you will feel about that for the rest of your entire life.

• "Yes, DNA can tell you whether you should have testicles or ovaries, but it can't tell you a damned thing about how you will feel about that for the rest of your entire life."

Exactly what I have been saying. With DNA it isn't about feelings.

 

[We Never Know]

And the point is that science doesn't determine social interaction. Someone who is trans and goes to a doctor needs to let the doctor know everything going on. And it isn't just the chromosomes that are relevant.

Just because someone is XY doesn't mean they are physically male. Just because they are physically male doesn't mean their brains are wired in the male style.

The question of how to assign gender and what role gender identity plays is not a scientific one. It is a social one. It is a social classification, not a scientific one.

You just hits the nail on the head. Its not scientific, its social.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

• "Yes, DNA can tell you whether you should have testicles or ovaries, but it can't tell you a damned thing about how you will feel about that for the rest of your entire life."

Exactly what I have been saying. With DNA it isn't about feelings.

The question is, however -- to you, do feelings count at all, or are you condemned to go with your gonads and scrap your brain?

 

[Father Heathen]

But what does the Bible say about this?

I'm paraphrasing, but something along the lines of "Yabba dabba doo!"

 

[Bird123]

Many people claim to "be about science" only if science agrees with them. When it doesn't agree, then its isn't about science at all, its about how they feel.
That was shown in my DNA" thread.

Whether I agree with science or not, I stick with science. I don't bounce around depending whether or not it agrees with me or not.

Science is learning process and as we learn, science advances and we learn even more. Its a tool that has brought us out of the stone ages and isn't based on feelings.

Yes, you are right. Real Truth will never always be an agreeable thing. On the other hand, one can shape Beliefs into always being agreeable.

Our choices show God and the world what we know and what we need to learn. Perhaps, a good choice is to always be true to ourselves then question why we believe what we believe.

I find many people aren't even true to themselves. When one wanders from Real Truth for any reason, doesn't one also wander from Intelligence?

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Father Heathen]

People also pick the scientists they like. Ignore scientists that have contrary findings with their personal views and opinions.

We see that on climate and covid issues.

There's only one science, and most scientists come to a consensus if they follow the methodology objectively. The odd ones out are usually in lobby pockets.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm paraphrasing, but something along the lines of "Yabba dabba doo!"

You sure it's not "Hoyven Glayven!"?

 

[SomeRandom]

I am acknowledging these two genetic disorders are real.

For females- Androgen insensitivity syndrome: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia.

For males-
Klinefelter syndrome - Symptoms and causes

However they only happen in very rare occasions, less than 1% of births.

That’s actually more frequent than red heads in our species, last I checked.
Did you know that?

 

[Left Coast]

Many people claim to "be about science" only if science agrees with them. When it doesn't agree, then its isn't about science at all, its about how they feel.
That was shown in my DNA" thread.

Whether I agree with science or not, I stick with science. I don't bounce around depending whether or not it agrees with me or not.

Science is learning process and as we learn, science advances and we learn even more. Its a tool that has brought us out of the stone ages and isn't based on feelings.

What is the bottom line point you're trying to make here about trans people? It should be socially acceptable to misgender them? We should oppose gender-affirming treatment for them? What?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I am acknowledging these two genetic disorders are real.

For females- Androgen insensitivity syndrome: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia.

For males-
Klinefelter syndrome - Symptoms and causes

However they only happen in very rare occasions, less than 1% of births.

There's a lot more intersex conditions than just these two. With estimates at 1.7%. Intersex conditions highlight that trying to overgrneralize sex into binaries excludes millions of people who don't conform to this rigid group.
Rare does not mean ignorable, especially when, as pointed out, that's more than people with naturally red hair.

• "Yes, DNA can tell you whether you should have testicles or ovaries, but it can't tell you a damned thing about how you will feel about that for the rest of your entire life."

Exactly what I have been saying. With DNA it isn't about feelings.

You just hits the nail on the head. Its not scientific, its social.

Neverminding that social science is also a science, so far you've been ignoring study after study that shows gender identity having physiological basis. For reasons it seems to be your personal feelings and social upbringing being against the idea that 'male' and 'female' don't just have to do with DNA. But also endocrinology, epigenetics, psychology and neurology.