Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ChairmanPoo]

I did also find this but I’m not paying £50 to read it.

You dont need to. For I provide!

https://pdfupload.io/docs/a8d25884

[feelotraveller]

Hector it's you who is hung up on the self-fertilisation stuff.  I included it somewhat light-heartedly as it was present on the wikipedia page I cited.  With respect to Max's argument, if it is theoretically possible it means that biology has not established the impossibility of viable sperm and ova in the one individual.  (The reverse does not necessarily hold true.)  And there are biologists who hold that position.  To say it the other way around, Max's 'impossible' position requires self-fertilisation to be impossible but that is not proven to be the case.

For semantics I think you are just being cantankerous for the sake of it:
Impossible means that it cannot happen.  The statement will always be false.  Eg. 2+2=5, or i dunno, the north and south pole are in exact the same place.
Theoretically possible means that it could potentially happen but we do have not any experience of it.  The truth value of the statement is unknown.  Eg. a person who has grown up on earth can experience a planet in another star system.
They are clearly very different evaluations.

Yes DSD is the new terminology, I have no problem with that (well apart from the disorder/differences prevarication).  But what the spectrum of the manifestion of human sex shows is that there are not two sexes but a multitude of variations which bring into play numerous genes and developmental processes which can lead to a huge amount of possibilities.  Its not just the SRY gene functioning as an on-off switch, or the presence or absence of a Y chromosone.  In fact the two-sex model as applied to human beings is an invention of biology which does not account for its natural spread.

If you really think sex is such a simple thing perhaps you should look into the sports stuff because it is an absolute minefield and there is no clear answer as to what should be the criteria for an individual to participate in women's sports.  (Okay some individuals are clearly ruled out but in any close case there is absolutely no agreement.)  You think that page on the sex-gender distinction will form the basis for decisions in international sport?  Better point the IOC to it then, because they, along with a bunch of other sporting authorities obviously haven't come across such a simple solution to a problem many regard as intractable.  In fact the difficulty here with deciding who is a woman, for the purpose of competing in sports, shows that the binary sex model is patently false.

[Maximum Spin]

Yes DSD is the new terminology, I have no problem with that (well apart from the disorder/differences prevarication).  But what the spectrum of the manifestion of human sex shows is that there are not two sexes but a multitude of variations which bring into play numerous genes and developmental processes which can lead to a huge amount of possibilities.  Its not just the SRY gene functioning as an on-off switch, or the presence or absence of a Y chromosone.  In fact the two-sex model as applied to human beings is an invention of biology which does not account for its natural spread.

This is simply untrue. There is no third type of gamete.

[feelotraveller]

Yes DSD is the new terminology, I have no problem with that (well apart from the disorder/differences prevarication).  But what the spectrum of the manifestion of human sex shows is that there are not two sexes but a multitude of variations which bring into play numerous genes and developmental processes which can lead to a huge amount of possibilities.  Its not just the SRY gene functioning as an on-off switch, or the presence or absence of a Y chromosone.  In fact the two-sex model as applied to human beings is an invention of biology which does not account for its natural spread.

This is simply untrue. There is no third type of gamete.

What's untrue? 

I didn't say anything about gametes.

Do you think a gamete is a human being?

[Robot Parade Leader]

@Robot Parade Leader I… don’t think you’ve been reading. The self-fertilization thing was leapt upon by feelotraveller as… some example of MaxSpin trying to stealth disseminate a hitherto unrevealed political ideology, and it’s a semantic argument about what the word “impossible” means, and pedantry over how MaxSpin is describing that.

Max also, as you quoted, was talking from a biological perspective, not social or whatever, which he again clearly stated at the end of the post you quoted, didn’t link to, and trimmed. Who was moving goalposts, again?

Max and the really far right conservatives are moving goalposts. He often does and you know it. You defend him a lot when he repeatedly gets called out for stuff here.
It doesn't matter. It is wrong. It isn't a "biological" perspective. It is what they mistakenly say is a biological perspective. Magically slapping the word "biological" in front of it doesn't make it ok or true.

There is a ton of literature on this stuff and it isn't hard to understand the far right doesn't get it. The far right just may not want to get it.
They just point and scream at whoever is opposing them lately whenever they don't get what they want, and us peons in the middle are getting tired of it.
Used to be they talked about leaving people alone, small government and all that, but now it's "let's just ban all the things." Used to be some if them made some sense. Now though I don't know.

This is simply untrue. There is no third type of gamete.

It doesn't matter. This is just restating the insistence that it's all male and female. He's beating a dead horse again with a strawman.

Again, this ignores the infertility stuff and the menopause thing. The "gamete" stuff is just sperm and eggs. Well once again, it will be ignored again.
What do you do with a guy who can't produce sperm and there are tons of reasons and little blue pills for that sometimes, or prostate cancer where they take stuff out surgically.
Hey what if you worked in a nuclear power plan and are now sterile or whatever reason? Is that person still male? If they can't have kids or produce sperm anymore?
What about women who become unable to due to age, menopause? Are they no longer women past whatever age they can't produce anymore "gametes?" (eggs).

They just want it to be true so bad that it isn't hard to see the far right just ignoring all the doctors and insisting their ideology is correct no matter what:

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/keeps-night-doctors-care-transgender-minors-brace-bans-rcna1048

"So far this year, state legislatures have considered 35 bills to ban or limit gender-affirming care for trans minors, according to the Human Rights Campaign. Physicians say that the bills negatively affect their patients’ health before they even become law and that they require doctors to go against medical standards of care. "

I'm pretty stupid on a lot of stuff and even I don't like the words, "require doctors to go against medical standards of care."

As for the intersex thing, the term is still used and at least some of the kids dealing with this are getting some help
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/intersex-surgeries-ignite-controversy-bans-gender-affirming-care/story?id=100452871

Watch that video.....
Up to 1.7% of the world's population has intersex traits.

Dude, I'm stupid but I want people suffering to have some help from a doctor if they need it. Listen to the person in the first half of that video.
That's something that sounds real and rough to deal with and like a doctor should be looking into how best to deal with it to help that person. 

Edit:

I did also find this but I’m not paying £50 to read it.

You dont need to. For I provide!

https://pdfupload.io/docs/a8d25884

Damn doc. That's pretty enlightening even though I don't know what half those words mean. So this person was both?
This person fathered a child.

"Histology of the removed 'testis' subsequently showed normal ovarian stroma with several Graafian follicles and primordial follicles containing immature ova."

Does that mean this person had eggs inside them even though they fathered a kid? Help me out understanding this doc?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

As has been shown, the ovary in this case was relatively
normal with perhaps a little more fibrous stroma than is usual.
Ovulation was assumed to have occurred at some time given
the presence of corpora albicantes. These only occur in the
presence of ovulation since they develop from the involuting
corpora lutea. The Graafian follicles which fail to mature form
atretic follicles on involution. Atretic follicles are distinguished
from corpora albicantes by the presence of haemosiderin within
the latter, the haemosiderin being derived from bleeding into
the follicle at the time of ovulation. In this case haemosiderin
was clearly present.

The presence of oogenesis and spermatogenesis at the same
time is unlikely, and in this case the testosterone was in the high
normal range. One must therefore postulate that, if both were
not proceeding at the same time, ovulation had occurred in the
past, possibly before testicular maturation.
A review of the literature reveals only one other case of
paternity in a hermaphrodite. He too appeared to be under-
going both oogenesis and spermatogenesis simultaneously.

The presence of oogenesis and spermatogenesis at the same
time is unlikely, and in this case the testosterone was in the high
normal range. One must therefore postulate that, if both were
not proceeding at the same time, ovulation had occurred in the
past, possibly before testicular maturation.
A review of the literature reveals only one other case of
paternity in a hermaphrodite. He too appeared to be under-
going both oogenesis and spermatogenesis simultaneously.
This was in a report by Shannon and Nicolaides (3). of a
hermaphrodite, fertile as a male, with a functioning ovary with
histology to show a Graafian follicle and a large haemorrhagic
corpus luteum. In their case, however, the evidence for herma-
phroditism was based on buccal smear, and not the chromo-
some studies, and hormone levels were not available.
Fertility as a female is more common in hermaphroditism
than in the male with at least two well-documented cases (4,5),
in one of which there was birth of a live child.
Whilst paternity is impossible to prove, there is every reason
in this case to assume that the patient was in fact the father of
his daughter. The seminal analysis reported above was per-
formed 3 months after oophorectomy and may have been
influenced by a change in the hormonal milieu, but it does not
explain the apparent fertility before operation. This is, there-
fore, the first case of fertility as a male where the chromosome
status has been documented.
Finally, it should be pointed out that this patient had a total
of four operations on the right groin, all of which involved
mobilization of the gonad and its blood supply. None of these
operations raised any clinical suspicion that this was other than
a normal testis. One may speculate on the number of ‘oophoro-
pexies’ rather than orchidopexies that are done in a year
without realization of the diagnosis. It was pure chance in this
case that the diagnosis was made, and one must assume that
there are other hermaphrodites with children in whom the
diagnosis is not even suspected.

Um, that last line seems to mean there may be others out there who don't even know. I mean I am absolutely no doctor though so maybe I'm wrong and it says something else doc?

[Eric Blank]

Yall make your own batshit biology thread this has gone on too long

[delphonso]

I thought I was in Ameripol.

[Maximum Spin]

Max and the really far right conservatives

You have no idea how ludicrous it is to me when people say things like this.

What do you do with a guy who can't produce sperm and there are tons of reasons and little blue pills for that sometimes, or prostate cancer where they take stuff out surgically.

Are you arguing that surgery can't change a person's sex?

Up to 1.7% of the world's population has intersex traits.

That number includes congenital adrenal hyperplasia, which hardly anyone ever even considered an "intersex condition" when the term was popular because the vast majority of cases are unmistakeably female even to superficial observation, just hairier and with high-testosterone traits in general. Somewhere along the line it got shoehorned into the category for political purposes.

[hector13]

Spoiler: 'cause people are chickens and don't want conflict in the emotion threads (click to show/hide)

Hector it's you who is hung up on the self-fertilisation stuff.  I included it somewhat light-heartedly as it was present on the wikipedia page I cited.  With respect to Max's argument, if it is theoretically possible it means that biology has not established the impossibility of viable sperm and ova in the one individual.  (The reverse does not necessarily hold true.)  And there are biologists who hold that position.  To say it the other way around, Max's 'impossible' position requires self-fertilisation to be impossible but that is not proven to be the case.

You understand that in order for Max's position to be proven true that every single human who has, does, and will exist must be examined and proven to not be capable of simultaneously producing eggs and sperm, yes?

Surely you thus also understand how ludicrous that is as a barrier for proof in any argument?

The self-fertilization part is part of what you're arguing about: the possibility that a human can have functioning organs to produce eggs and sperm at the same time.

For semantics I think you are just being cantankerous for the sake of it:
Impossible means that it cannot happen.  The statement will always be false.  Eg. 2+2=5, or i dunno, the north and south pole are in exact the same place.
Theoretically possible means that it could potentially happen but we do have not any experience of it.  The truth value of the statement is unknown.  Eg. a person who has grown up on earth can experience a planet in another star system.
They are clearly very different evaluations.

This is why I say you're arguing semantics. This forms the basis for your argument. You aren't attacking the content of the argument, you're debating the absolute meaning of the word impossible.

It's a specious argument.

It is theoretically possible that lizard people control the world and are using the human race as cattle for a grand world-eater that will consume the universe. Prove me wrong.

This is what you demand of Max.

Yes DSD is the new terminology, I have no problem with that (well apart from the disorder/differences prevarication).  But what the spectrum of the manifestion of human sex shows is that there are not two sexes but a multitude of variations which bring into play numerous genes and developmental processes which can lead to a huge amount of possibilities.  Its not just the SRY gene functioning as an on-off switch, or the presence or absence of a Y chromosone.  In fact the two-sex model as applied to human beings is an invention of biology which does not account for its natural spread.

The two-sex model is only a problem with humans when it's applied to gender. Gender /=/ sex.

If you really think sex is such a simple thing perhaps you should look into the sports stuff because it is an absolute minefield and there is no clear answer as to what should be the criteria for an individual to participate in women's sports.  (Okay some individuals are clearly ruled out but in any close case there is absolutely no agreement.)  You think that page on the sex-gender distinction will form the basis for decisions in international sport?

Good straw man, I never said a wikipedia page is a basis for sports classifications.

Max was giving the biological perspective of sex, which is male or female based on the differences in their sex cells, as per a section on that wikipedia page. There was no application of that definition to sport, to gender, or to any other aspect of the human experience.

Better point the IOC to it then, because they, along with a bunch of other sporting authorities obviously haven't come across such a simple solution to a problem many regard as intractable.  In fact the difficulty here with deciding who is a woman, for the purpose of competing in sports, shows that the binary sex model is patently false.

lol no

It shows that the binary sex model is not nuanced enough to properly classify sports categories, which I have zero problem agreeing with.

Some biologically male athletes perform with testosterone levels of that allowed to compete in women's sports, that doesn't mean they should be allowed to compete with women, but that doesn't mean that biological women should be stopped from competing against other women because their testosterone levels are, arbitrarily, "too high". More work needs to be done; I don't know what that work entails beyond hoping it treats everyone affected with care and respect... which so far it hasn't.

@Robot Parade Leader I… don’t think you’ve been reading. The self-fertilization thing was leapt upon by feelotraveller as… some example of MaxSpin trying to stealth disseminate a hitherto unrevealed political ideology, and it’s a semantic argument about what the word “impossible” means, and pedantry over how MaxSpin is describing that.

Max also, as you quoted, was talking from a biological perspective, not social or whatever, which he again clearly stated at the end of the post you quoted, didn’t link to, and trimmed. Who was moving goalposts, again?

Max and the really far right conservatives are moving goalposts. He often does and you know it. You defend him a lot when he repeatedly gets called out for stuff here.

Usually people disagree with Max because they don't like him, and it's pretty clear in their responses that's the only reason they have to be arguing with him:

Ah, the purveyor of alternate facts strikes again.

Some hide it better than saying it in the first sentence of their response, though...

I find that state of affairs to be quite stupid, frankly, whether they have a legitimate reason for not liking him or not.

Max tends to offer a perspective that I don't have, and generally isn't an asshole about it.

It doesn't matter. It is wrong. It isn't a "biological" perspective. It is what they mistakenly say is a biological perspective. Magically slapping the word "biological" in front of it doesn't make it ok or true.

He was speaking from a biological perspective, and that is the biological perspective. He made no judgment of what the definition of sex means in any other human arena.

There is a ton of literature on this stuff and it isn't hard to understand the far right doesn't get it. The far right just may not want to get it.
They just point and scream at whoever is opposing them lately whenever they don't get what they want, and us peons in the middle are getting tired of it.
Used to be they talked about leaving people alone, small government and all that, but now it's "let's just ban all the things." Used to be some if them made some sense. Now though I don't know.

I don't disagree with this, except I'm not sure how it applies to Max.

[Maximum Spin]

Spoiler: 'cause people are chickens and don't want conflict in the emotion threads (click to show/hide)

Hector it's you who is hung up on the self-fertilisation stuff.  I included it somewhat light-heartedly as it was present on the wikipedia page I cited.  With respect to Max's argument, if it is theoretically possible it means that biology has not established the impossibility of viable sperm and ova in the one individual.  (The reverse does not necessarily hold true.)  And there are biologists who hold that position.  To say it the other way around, Max's 'impossible' position requires self-fertilisation to be impossible but that is not proven to be the case.

You understand that in order for Max's position to be proven true that every single human who has, does, and will exist must be examined and proven to not be capable of simultaneously producing eggs and sperm, yes?

Surely you thus also understand how ludicrous that is as a barrier for proof in any argument?

The self-fertilization part is part of what you're arguing about: the possibility that a human can have functioning organs to produce eggs and sperm at the same time.

For semantics I think you are just being cantankerous for the sake of it:
Impossible means that it cannot happen.  The statement will always be false.  Eg. 2+2=5, or i dunno, the north and south pole are in exact the same place.
Theoretically possible means that it could potentially happen but we do have not any experience of it.  The truth value of the statement is unknown.  Eg. a person who has grown up on earth can experience a planet in another star system.
They are clearly very different evaluations.

This is why I say you're arguing semantics. This forms the basis for your argument. You aren't attacking the content of the argument, you're debating the absolute meaning of the word impossible.

It's a specious argument.

It is theoretically possible that lizard people control the world and are using the human race as cattle for a grand world-eater that will consume the universe. Prove me wrong.

This is what you demand of Max.

Yes DSD is the new terminology, I have no problem with that (well apart from the disorder/differences prevarication).  But what the spectrum of the manifestion of human sex shows is that there are not two sexes but a multitude of variations which bring into play numerous genes and developmental processes which can lead to a huge amount of possibilities.  Its not just the SRY gene functioning as an on-off switch, or the presence or absence of a Y chromosone.  In fact the two-sex model as applied to human beings is an invention of biology which does not account for its natural spread.

The two-sex model is only a problem with humans when it's applied to gender. Gender /=/ sex.

If you really think sex is such a simple thing perhaps you should look into the sports stuff because it is an absolute minefield and there is no clear answer as to what should be the criteria for an individual to participate in women's sports.  (Okay some individuals are clearly ruled out but in any close case there is absolutely no agreement.)  You think that page on the sex-gender distinction will form the basis for decisions in international sport?

Good straw man, I never said a wikipedia page is a basis for sports classifications.

Max was giving the biological perspective of sex, which is male or female based on the differences in their sex cells, as per a section on that wikipedia page. There was no application of that definition to sport, to gender, or to any other aspect of the human experience.

Better point the IOC to it then, because they, along with a bunch of other sporting authorities obviously haven't come across such a simple solution to a problem many regard as intractable.  In fact the difficulty here with deciding who is a woman, for the purpose of competing in sports, shows that the binary sex model is patently false.

lol no

It shows that the binary sex model is not nuanced enough to properly classify sports categories, which I have zero problem agreeing with.

Some biologically male athletes perform with testosterone levels of that allowed to compete in women's sports, that doesn't mean they should be allowed to compete with women, but that doesn't mean that biological women should be stopped from competing against other women because their testosterone levels are, arbitrarily, "too high". More work needs to be done; I don't know what that work entails beyond hoping it treats everyone affected with care and respect... which so far it hasn't.

@Robot Parade Leader I… don’t think you’ve been reading. The self-fertilization thing was leapt upon by feelotraveller as… some example of MaxSpin trying to stealth disseminate a hitherto unrevealed political ideology, and it’s a semantic argument about what the word “impossible” means, and pedantry over how MaxSpin is describing that.

Max also, as you quoted, was talking from a biological perspective, not social or whatever, which he again clearly stated at the end of the post you quoted, didn’t link to, and trimmed. Who was moving goalposts, again?

Max and the really far right conservatives are moving goalposts. He often does and you know it. You defend him a lot when he repeatedly gets called out for stuff here.

Usually people disagree with Max because they don't like him, and it's pretty clear in their responses that's the only reason they have to be arguing with him:

Ah, the purveyor of alternate facts strikes again.

Some hide it better than saying it in the first sentence of their response, though...

I find that state of affairs to be quite stupid, frankly, whether they have a legitimate reason for not liking him or not.

Max tends to offer a perspective that I don't have, and generally isn't an asshole about it.

It doesn't matter. It is wrong. It isn't a "biological" perspective. It is what they mistakenly say is a biological perspective. Magically slapping the word "biological" in front of it doesn't make it ok or true.

He was speaking from a biological perspective, and that is the biological perspective. He made no judgment of what the definition of sex means in any other human arena.

There is a ton of literature on this stuff and it isn't hard to understand the far right doesn't get it. The far right just may not want to get it.
They just point and scream at whoever is opposing them lately whenever they don't get what they want, and us peons in the middle are getting tired of it.
Used to be they talked about leaving people alone, small government and all that, but now it's "let's just ban all the things." Used to be some if them made some sense. Now though I don't know.

I don't disagree with this, except I'm not sure how it applies to Max.

I think the core problem is that some people have a kind of myopic view where they think that, IF there is a strict biological definition of sex, that would mean that definition is the only one allowed and it would have to apply to everything and define our social choices, so, since they don't want that, there can't be a strict biological definition of sex. It feels like the idea that people use different definitions and concepts in different contexts doesn't always connect.

[dragdeler]

cause people are chickens and don't want conflict in the emotion threads

...


trisomic folks have no sex, fight me

[hector13]

Buddy I had to look up trisomic, you’re fighting an unarmed man!

[Robot Parade Leader]

Wow, that's just some lovely denial. I'm out. This just isn't worth it and no matter what it isn't going to get anything accomplished because the facts are being ignored.
This is why I stand up for minorities, but nothing good will happen here. Some just won't listen. At this point, it's just messing up the WTF thread and I'm sorry for that. Not what I wanted.

Spoiler: 'cause people are chickens and don't want conflict in the emotion threads (click to show/hide)

Hector it's you who is hung up on the self-fertilisation stuff.  I included it somewhat light-heartedly as it was present on the wikipedia page I cited.  With respect to Max's argument, if it is theoretically possible it means that biology has not established the impossibility of viable sperm and ova in the one individual.  (The reverse does not necessarily hold true.)  And there are biologists who hold that position.  To say it the other way around, Max's 'impossible' position requires self-fertilisation to be impossible but that is not proven to be the case.

You understand that in order for Max's position to be proven true that every single human who has, does, and will exist must be examined and proven to not be capable of simultaneously producing eggs and sperm, yes?

Surely you thus also understand how ludicrous that is as a barrier for proof in any argument?

The self-fertilization part is part of what you're arguing about: the possibility that a human can have functioning organs to produce eggs and sperm at the same time.

For semantics I think you are just being cantankerous for the sake of it:
Impossible means that it cannot happen.  The statement will always be false.  Eg. 2+2=5, or i dunno, the north and south pole are in exact the same place.
Theoretically possible means that it could potentially happen but we do have not any experience of it.  The truth value of the statement is unknown.  Eg. a person who has grown up on earth can experience a planet in another star system.
They are clearly very different evaluations.

This is why I say you're arguing semantics. This forms the basis for your argument. You aren't attacking the content of the argument, you're debating the absolute meaning of the word impossible.

It's a specious argument.

It is theoretically possible that lizard people control the world and are using the human race as cattle for a grand world-eater that will consume the universe. Prove me wrong.

This is what you demand of Max.

Yes DSD is the new terminology, I have no problem with that (well apart from the disorder/differences prevarication).  But what the spectrum of the manifestion of human sex shows is that there are not two sexes but a multitude of variations which bring into play numerous genes and developmental processes which can lead to a huge amount of possibilities.  Its not just the SRY gene functioning as an on-off switch, or the presence or absence of a Y chromosone.  In fact the two-sex model as applied to human beings is an invention of biology which does not account for its natural spread.

The two-sex model is only a problem with humans when it's applied to gender. Gender /=/ sex.

If you really think sex is such a simple thing perhaps you should look into the sports stuff because it is an absolute minefield and there is no clear answer as to what should be the criteria for an individual to participate in women's sports.  (Okay some individuals are clearly ruled out but in any close case there is absolutely no agreement.)  You think that page on the sex-gender distinction will form the basis for decisions in international sport?

Good straw man, I never said a wikipedia page is a basis for sports classifications.

Max was giving the biological perspective of sex, which is male or female based on the differences in their sex cells, as per a section on that wikipedia page. There was no application of that definition to sport, to gender, or to any other aspect of the human experience.

Better point the IOC to it then, because they, along with a bunch of other sporting authorities obviously haven't come across such a simple solution to a problem many regard as intractable.  In fact the difficulty here with deciding who is a woman, for the purpose of competing in sports, shows that the binary sex model is patently false.

lol no

It shows that the binary sex model is not nuanced enough to properly classify sports categories, which I have zero problem agreeing with.

Some biologically male athletes perform with testosterone levels of that allowed to compete in women's sports, that doesn't mean they should be allowed to compete with women, but that doesn't mean that biological women should be stopped from competing against other women because their testosterone levels are, arbitrarily, "too high". More work needs to be done; I don't know what that work entails beyond hoping it treats everyone affected with care and respect... which so far it hasn't.

@Robot Parade Leader I… don’t think you’ve been reading. The self-fertilization thing was leapt upon by feelotraveller as… some example of MaxSpin trying to stealth disseminate a hitherto unrevealed political ideology, and it’s a semantic argument about what the word “impossible” means, and pedantry over how MaxSpin is describing that.

Max also, as you quoted, was talking from a biological perspective, not social or whatever, which he again clearly stated at the end of the post you quoted, didn’t link to, and trimmed. Who was moving goalposts, again?

Max and the really far right conservatives are moving goalposts. He often does and you know it. You defend him a lot when he repeatedly gets called out for stuff here.

Usually people disagree with Max because they don't like him, and it's pretty clear in their responses that's the only reason they have to be arguing with him:

Ah, the purveyor of alternate facts strikes again.

Some hide it better than saying it in the first sentence of their response, though...

I find that state of affairs to be quite stupid, frankly, whether they have a legitimate reason for not liking him or not.

Max tends to offer a perspective that I don't have, and generally isn't an asshole about it.

It doesn't matter. It is wrong. It isn't a "biological" perspective. It is what they mistakenly say is a biological perspective. Magically slapping the word "biological" in front of it doesn't make it ok or true.

He was speaking from a biological perspective, and that is the biological perspective. He made no judgment of what the definition of sex means in any other human arena.

There is a ton of literature on this stuff and it isn't hard to understand the far right doesn't get it. The far right just may not want to get it.
They just point and scream at whoever is opposing them lately whenever they don't get what they want, and us peons in the middle are getting tired of it.
Used to be they talked about leaving people alone, small government and all that, but now it's "let's just ban all the things." Used to be some if them made some sense. Now though I don't know.

I don't disagree with this, except I'm not sure how it applies to Max.

Usually people disagree with Max because they don't like him, and it's pretty clear in their responses that's the only reason they have to be arguing with him:

So he couldn't possibly be incorrect? It  just could not be, no matter what...? All that evidence, the stuff from the guy who's a doctor ... just means nothing? 
It's just people not liking him who have no point at all? And all those people have no reason for anything they're just not liking him? "Pretty clear?"
No matter what the source, it just doesn't matter?

I'm out, but before I go, Hector why and how are you defending this guy so hard and knowing all the stuff he says/means? Seems odd. Seems very odd. Something is off.

[dragdeler]

Why do advertisments exist? Because they work. I'll admit the ubiquity of this had me scrollong far enough to find myself staring at gabi garcia in bikini. In conclusion sports are boring. Has that content ever carried itself on it's own. N'eh

[hector13]

People make up BS reasons to argue with him, that’s why.

Whether or not there is indeed a human capable of producing eggs and sperm - alive, dead, not born yet - changes nothing about the biological definition of sex.

The evidence from the doctor was to post the full article that I linked to at least the name of and where I found it (I was actually hoping someone would post the article itself but don’t tell anyone because it’s technically stealing shhhh) which was a question on quora (or something like that) about whether or not there’s ever been a human that can produce both eggs and sperm.

The article wasn’t a case study, it assumed he had ovulated in the past (presumably based on medical knowledge around ovulating women) and even called into question the paternity of his child, because they didn’t actually test that beyond his fertile sperm count.

I could push my luck and ask if the article for the reference to the other person that was a fertile male with DSD could also be linked, but I also fear that’s actually going to be a slog to read.

There was a reference to another man with DSD made in the article who was producing eggs and sperm, but I haven’t looked for that beyond

Max made no move to apply that definition to anything else that has been mentioned since the argument began.

Anyway, slightly accusatory “something is off”. Mildly offended by it but whatever.

What is “off”?

Why do advertisments exist? Because they work. I'll admit the ubiquity of this had me scrollong far enough to find myself staring at gabi garcia in bikini. In conclusion sports are boring. Has that content ever carried itself on it's own. N'eh

Sports are interesting brah. Humans competing within an arbitrary framework to prove who is better (or luckier!, what’s not to like?