(Humor and Satire) Political correctness is unsexy - it's biology

I'm talking about sexual identity, not what you define as "science."

__________________

It's what is defined as science, not what "I" defined. Why do you use a computer if you take science for granted so much and view it as so flaky? You wouldn't even have one if it wasn't for science.

A person can call themselves whatever they want, but the actual scientific definition is the same thing - there wasn't any point in listing 'pansexuals' as separate from 'bisexuals' in a scientific discussion, since by the definition of the term they're the both 'bisexual'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

Don't tell us that what you say is science, by the way, because I'm pretty sure you don't have a single piece of evidence which demonstrates that you can talk with even the slightest bit of intellectual authority about "science".

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

Even if I agree with the conclusion that follows it, the phrase "according to science" gives me hives.

You're pointing out very unusual biological deviance and portraying them as rules, when rather they're very rare exceptions which result from developmental abnormalities.

If I said that "humans have 2 arms and 2 legs", would you say "that's wrong" and post an article about someone born with no legs? That's absurd.

"Some people" are born with genetic deviance causing them to develop sex-contradictory body parts, sure (this is part of what causes transexuality, and homosexual brains also develop closer to that of the opposite sex.).

However saying that "male/female" does not exist is biologically incorrect, and makes no sense. It exists and is well-defined in every species, other than a few species in the animal kingdom which reproduce asexually.

It's what scientists say is science - you're free to learn about it, nothing's stopping you.

I know how to read and learn about it and I'm not too lazy to do so, that gives me all the authority I need.

By your standard anyone who's never directed or produced a Hollywood film themselves has "no authority" to talk about movies. Nonsense.

"Research in the late 20th century indicates a growing medical consensus that diverse intersex bodies are normal—if relatively rare—forms of human biology. Milton Diamond, one of the most outspoken experts on matters affecting intersex people, stresses the importance of care in the selection of language related to such people."

Keep the bolded part in mind.

Noone said that male/female does not exist. There simply are other possibilities too. That's biologically undeniable and if you do wish to deny it, you are factually completely wrong.

I'll recopy the bolded part:

"Milton Diamond, one of the most outspoken experts on matters affecting intersex people, stresses the importance of care in the selection of language related to such people."

Would you say Milton Diamond is a scientist?

I assume your answer is "yes", because he is.

Well, you are either saying the exact opposite of what he says on purpose or you don't know how to "read and learn" or you are simply too lazy. Either way, you're contradicting yourself and you lose all your credibility.

No. I'm saying someone who actually studied science or made films/studied cinema has way more authority to talk about science/movies than someone who has not.

From what I've read from you, you're not even on high school level when it comes to science (and spelling), so telling other people that what you say is science, comes across as profoundly ridiculous.

You could just replace it with "according to history" - and a scenario in which someone was arguing that George Washington never existed, and demanding that I provide detailed research 'proving' his existence or my personal credentials as a historian.

I'm not concerned with the particular term such as 'normal/abnormal' - however it's not a typical condition or one frequent enough to automatically require mentioning in a basic discussion of sexes.

In the case of people born with both sex organs however - doctors usually end up having to remove one set of genitals (typically the one which matches the overall body the least).

And In the case though of a person such as a transgender though, it'd be hard to argue that that would be a desirable condition - it would be much better if they were born with their body and brain matching than having to go through extensive surgery just to harmonize it, right?


Miss Vicky said that pansexuals "don't see the world in terms of sexes" - I'm stating that from a biological perspective that view doesn't have validity. The fetal development is what determines the sex.

I'm not sure what 'other possibilities' you're suggesting anyway - unless you're implying that most or everyone are actually 'intersex', but that's not a supported statistic. You're welcome to whatever theory you want though.

You're derailing it onto a tangent regarding whether 'abnormality' is the best term to use.

This is a red herring and splitting hairs. Again I was simply stating that intersex is not a typical enough condition to merit automatic conclusion in a discussing about sexes.

Just like if I was discussing the human eye and describing how humans use their eyes to see - I wouldn't have to obligatorily state "well except for people born with no eyes" in order for my statement to be "correct".

And yet you're talking about it...

But since you're on a grade school level, that gives me authority over you correct?

I'm not if you're seriously using 'intersex people' as a rebuttal to the simple statement that sexes exist. If 'pansexuals' have some theory that 'everyone is actually intersex' or whatever point Miss Vicky was trying to make, that's not a scientifically supported theory.

At this point I don't even know what you're trying to argue - to me it sounds like you just have a politically correct mindset and think that no discussion of sexes should occur at all without obligatorily mentioning "homosexuals, transexuals, intersexuals", etc.

I also don't know what your "alternative theory" is, unless it's that everyone is actually intersex.

Of course it has. "Pan" simply means "all" in Greek, so, opposed to bisexuals (bi means two), they also feel sexually attracted to people who are biologically not man or woman.

What's so hard to understand about this?

It's important to people who say they're pansexual, as some of them might have relationships with people that are intersex. You said Miss Vicky was factually wrong, while she was not, so it's most certainly not a red herring. Every respectful scientist in the world would say I am right about this.

You were the one saying that it's biologically incorrect to say there is anything else besides men and women, because you opposed to Miss Vicky using and defending the term "pansexuals". I factually corrected you, because she was 100% right.

I think I won't bother discussing anything with you anymore, because even when it's proven that you're completely wrong about something, you still won't recognize it. That's extremely ironic and disappointing for someone who dares implying that he's a science enthusiast

The "Mein Kampf" reference was in response to his incomprehensible post mentioning "white privilege" in a thread which had nothing to do with race.

I could spend some spare time going over your posts one by one to prove an attention bias and I think I could make a solid case, but I don't feel like doing that. But as a few examples, as far as I know you never responded to posters like Frightened Inmate or Bluedeeds for posting annoying comments in the thread without actually contributing to it (which would be an infraction on a lot of forms since it was just trolling and derailment), yet still found time to talk about my 'arguing' style and speculation about my personal life. Even if everything you said was 100% true, the bias is revealed by what you choose to focus on so exclusively.

I was giving you credit when I said "whether you realize it or not" because I don't think you're pre-meditately being biased - but I do think you're a little fixated on certain posters, me included. The fact that you bring up arguments from other threads here in between arguing the points made in this thread leads me to think that.

Intersex people typically still "mostly" resemble one sex or the other; as I mentioned before, usually a treatment for people born with multiple sets of gentials is to remove the genitals which least resemble the rest of their body.

Intersex is also a somewhat loosely defined term, and while recognized as a condition is not recognized as a "separate sex" altogether.

The biological attraction is still based on the sexual characteristics the person finds attractive, not "because they're intersex". So yes bisexual is the correct medical and scientific term.

If you're talking about having an "exclusive" preference for intersex or transgendered people, that's not a recognized sexuality.

It's not a scientifically recognized term, the scientific term would still be bisexual. It's a neolgism used exclusively by members of the LGBT community.

What's so hard to understand about this? Just like there are hundreds of words for "water" in hundreds of languages, the correct chemistry term is "H2O". So arguing that there's a difference between "H2O" and "water" in a discussion on chemistry is completely redundant.

You misinterpreted my statement as saying that "intersex people do not exist" which was not the case - Miss Vicky's statement was ambiguous, and was along the lines of stating that "sexes do not really exist at all" - but that is not correct. Why's this so complicated?

Incorrect - I apparently read Miss Vicky's statement as stating that "sexes don't really exist" (there are some fringe theories suggesting this) - I'm completely aware that intersex people exist - at the same time they don't exist in significant enough amount to merit automatic conclusion in a discussion on sexes.

You misquoted me which is why you felt I was wrong - I was not denying that "intersex people exist at all".

In fact I had already mentioned transgender and other people born with characteristics of both sexes in this thread. So I don't know why you're arguing this tangent in such an OCD fashion here.

You should be more concerned with Miss Vicky mentioning "pansexuals" as a separate medically recognized sexuality from "bisexual" when it is not recognized as different in the scientific community - it's a neologism exclusive to LGBT individuals.

stop acting like i ruined your thread, i made one ****ing post. then i realized that arguing with you was pointless because you are hopelessly delusional and seemingly incapable of empathy. i'm done with this thread, so feel free to continue bashing me.

The type of science that invents and improves machines is wholly different than the "science" of psychology (which is little more than theory supported by research) and I'm not taking anything for granted. I'm not even saying that there isn't value to the work of psychologists. I'm saying simply that psychologists have been wrong before about human sexuality and attraction, there's no reason to believe they couldn't be wrong again.

This is a scientific discussion? Really? I've yet to see any actual science presented in your posts. All I see is theory and opinion.

No, I didn't. I said that people who identify as pansexual - or at least those I've spoken to on the matter - recognize more genders than just biological males and biological females and are attracted to all. Not being pansexual myself, I don't claim to have a full understanding of it, but that doesn't mean I can't recognize it as being something separate from bisexuality.

...in other words, you have no idea what the phrase "white privilege" means. Maybe you should ask what people mean instead of immediately assuming they're Nazis.

So? I don't deny that I've paid more attention to your posts. I do this because you stir up a lot of trouble and I know you're disproportionately likely to say something I strongly disagree with. Not only does this not conflict with the idea that your method of argumentation is antisocial--it's actually the explanation for it.

There's also an asymmetry, because a lot of the derision you've received is a response, not an instigation.

Quoted for truth. People need to stop using "science" to refer to physical and social sciences interchangeably.

And this was the first time, and the first thread you've done this in? Right... I don't plan on messing with you any further - just wanted to you to get a message that you can't show up and make personal attacks and walk away, because it seems like you're used to doing that

Sounds like a Freudian slip there - as bitter as you are I'm surprised empathy's in your vocabulary - so this sounds more like a Jimmy Swaggart-esque it attempt to cover up a self-conscious lack of it to me.

Every time 90sAce compares something someone says to some completely unrelated group or person he doesn't like, do a shot.

Drink!

.

I've mentioned biology, not just psychology. I agree that biology is a 'harder' science than psychology.

Still just stating that "we could be wrong" without providing a theory or evidence to the contrary is kind of a cop out.

I've used a lot of references to biology and science to back it up.

As far as I'm aware of there's no recognized biological difference - that's more of just a personal or metaphorical description.

I misinterpreted your statement? This is exactly what you wrote:

I think there's a problem with your formulation, rather than my interpretation, wouldn't you agree?

Scientists already use the term extensively and frankly, a real thinker doesn't care about what's "recognized" or not. They care about what makes sense.

Anyway, I'm off watching a film. You can't seem to handle a discussion without talking in circles and you certainly don't seem to be able to admit that you are just plain wrong on practically everything you're saying, even when I confronted you with the opinions and thoughts of one of the most important scientists on the subject a couple of posts ago.

It's actually painful to see you trying to defend your positions, even when people clearly indicate they're factually wrong or simply inconsistent.

Have a good night!