Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Yes, we can redefine biology on a whim like we do towards elements of gender. :lamo
Maybe it would be wise if you guys just stopped using this goal post shift?
It would be grown from your stem cells.
Also we transplant a heart or liver all the time. Hell we even to faces now. Dont forget the artificial heart.
So far, yes, there are limits. But biology is more than the outward appearance, and not just in a psychological way. Traits are also genetic, and markers on DNA likely influence which traits are emphasized. This can likely lead to a person who is fir all purposes female, but with male genitals. The body in conflict the person's biological makeup.
The brain is a part of ones genetics, not separate. We're speaking of a biological function and not a mental one.
You're missing the point, on purpose I'd wager.
When the genetic marker has been identified, let me know. Also, if that were to happen, there would probably be many changing from pro-choice to pro-life...
.Nope, not at all. You just don't understand human constructs and so you define everything as a human construct.
Since the start, my only argument has been that sex is more than just DNA.
This is the definition of sex from the source that you provided
In a human, the normal chromosomes complement is 46, 44 of which are autosomes ***while 2 distinct chromosomes are deemed sex chromosomes, which determine the sex of an organism and various sex linked characteristics.
According to that definition, is sex more than just DNA? Yes or no.
You might want to investigate. Recent theory is as I've explained it. Your last comment makes no sense to me btw.
Nope, not at all. You just don't understand human constructs and so you define everything as a human construct.
You would really need to think about it...
Every post on here is either anecdotal or unsubstantiated unless it links to an expert citation. What do you think an opinion is all about?
Experts huh. That usually means someone who agrees with my side while disagreeing with yours. Experts are bought and sold in courthouses all across American everyday.
I agree. When it comes to sex, it would be inaccurate to focus only on external genitalia just as it would be inaccurate to focus only on DNA. This is why I advocate acknowledging the totality of sex which includes genitalia, DNA and variety of other characteristics.What drives sexual development is not separate. As far as having a "sex change" where one attempts to say that they have changed their sex what is inaccurate is to only focus on how the external genitalia appear.
This is inaccurate. The following are links to the sites of two doctors who perform SRS and they say that they create a vagina, labia, clitoris, et al. through surgery not "imitations" of those body parts. The problem is that you are defining genitalia in terms of their origins when genitalia are actually defined in terms of their structure regardless of their origins.Sexual characteristics do include physiological characteristics brought about by sexual development, but even so a transsexual person does not have the anatomical or physiological characteristics of their desired sex. A man that has surgery to change the penis and accompanying region to appear female does not have a vagina. What is created is not a vagina, but merely something that looks like one. The same is true for a FTM transsexual. Those created "organs" are aesthetic imitations. Physiologically their characteristics are still according to their birth sex, their body unaided by treatment will function as it does according to their birth sex and they will need to be on constant hormone therapy.
See above.Let's go through this again:
Does DNA determine sex? Yes, your genetic code contains the instructions for your sexual development. XY is male and XX is female.
Are sexual organs part of what makes someone their sex? Yes, a MTF transsexual has a penis that has been surgically altered to look like a vagina, they do not have a vagina nor do they have female organs (uterus, ovaries, etc). A FTM transsexual still has a vagina that has been surgically altered to look like a penis, they do not have a penis nor do they have male sexual organs (prostate, testicles, etc). In both cases the natural sexual organs have been altered by surgery to appear different, but they are imitations of what is real as far as the opposite sex goes.
I agree. When it comes to sex, it would be inaccurate to focus only on external genitalia just as it would be inaccurate to focus only on DNA. This is why I advocate acknowledging the totality of sex which includes genitalia, DNA and variety of other characteristics.
This is inaccurate. The following are links to the sites of two doctors who perform SRS and they say that they create a vagina, labia, clitoris, et al. through surgery not "imitations" of those body parts. The problem is that you are defining genitalia in terms of their origins when genitalia are actually defined in terms of their structure regardless of their origins.
Papillon Center - Dr. McGinn SRS, HRT, and Electrolysis
Male to Female Gender Reassignment Surgery
Other sources use the same language. Unless you have a source to demonstrate that these doctors who, unlike you, perform SRS are incorrect, then your argument holds no water.
See above.
1. "Secondary characteristics", et al. are irrelevant to my argument as I have repeated. Again, you are attempting to direct the conversation towards a red herring. (By the way, genitalia are actually primary, not secondary sex characteristics, LOL - so you can't even get your red herring correct).Right, and you are siting secondary characteristics that are dependent on genetic sex, that can simply be altered, to not conform with the biological sex
Right, it's cited the secondary characteristics that are dependent on and derived from genetic sex.
see the mention of "sex linked characteristics "
we use those to determine sex because they are normally an outward expression of the possible xx and xy genetic pairing that determines sex. If you had a frog that visually looked female, it would not be female *if* genetic testing ultimately determined it was male.
Hence, pointing to the normal outward expressions of genetic sex does not make an argument for those characteristics superseding genetic sex
No, because those "characters and qualities" and "the physical distinction between male and female" are based on observational data of normal genetic expression of genetic sex.
They do not supersede genetic sex, they are simply outward expressions of it
I agree. When it comes to sex, it would be inaccurate to focus only on external genitalia just as it would be inaccurate to focus only on DNA. This is why I advocate acknowledging the totality of sex which includes genitalia, DNA and variety of other characteristics.
This is inaccurate. The following are links to the sites of two doctors who perform SRS and they say that they create a vagina, labia, clitoris, et al. through surgery not "imitations" of those body parts. The problem is that you are defining genitalia in terms of their origins when genitalia are actually defined in terms of their structure regardless of their origins.
Papillon Center - Dr. McGinn SRS, HRT, and Electrolysis
Male to Female Gender Reassignment Surgery
Other sources use the same language. Unless you have a source to demonstrate that these doctors who, unlike you, perform SRS are incorrect, then your argument holds no water.
See above.
1. "Secondary characteristics", et al. are irrelevant to my argument as I have repeated. Again, you are attempting to direct the conversation towards a red herring. (By the way, genitalia are actually primary, not secondary sex characteristics, LOL - so you can't even get your red herring correct).
2. So you are ignoring the definition of sex provided by your own source, then. That tells me all that I need to know about you, LOL. Have a nice night.
Parents want grandchildren.
Every post on here is either anecdotal or unsubstantiated unless it links to an expert citation. What do you think an opinion is all about?
So, given the fact that their DNA is still identical to their birth sex and their genitals are not genuine do you still believe that a transgendered person has truly changed their sex?I agree. When it comes to sex, it would be inaccurate to focus only on external genitalia just as it would be inaccurate to focus only on DNA. This is why I advocate acknowledging the totality of sex which includes genitalia, DNA and variety of other characteristics.
This is inaccurate. The following are links to the sites of two doctors who perform SRS and they say that they create a vagina, labia, clitoris, et al. through surgery not "imitations" of those body parts. The problem is that you are defining genitalia in terms of their origins when genitalia are actually defined in terms of their structure regardless of their origins.
Papillon Center - Dr. McGinn SRS, HRT, and Electrolysis
Male to Female Gender Reassignment Surgery
Other sources use the same language. Unless you have a source to demonstrate that these doctors who, unlike you, perform SRS are incorrect, then your argument holds no water.
See above.
You're welcome.
I think I was clear in saying that the research is pretty new... only from the last 15 years. We have no causal links to anything regarding sexuality, sexual orientation, or the like.
That's one study. There are several other studies that I do not have the links to.
Other more recent studies check people who are NOT on hormones and they found that being on hormones or not has no impact on the results. None at all.
No, and this is key. As I said above, there was no difference found in people on hormones verses people not on hormones.
One study. There are others.
The studies don't rule out anything because the information is pretty new. However, the studies have been reporting consistent findings. When you get consistent findings across several studies, you can start to draw conclusions from these findings... and the conclusions clearly point to a biological, not a psychological issue.
I a seeing a transgender specialist. If I decide to get hormones and pass I expect to be called she.
ANYTHING would be immediate for the children... divorce, an illness, money problems, moving, etc... That does NOT equate to "devastating" or "destructive".
I never did.
Because you don't by how you post. This is not a binary issue... it's not either all fine and happy or devastating and destructive and it remains that way. If you think it's black or white, then you don't understand the issue.
Experts and those in the psychological community... who would know... say it is not. Your denial is irrelevant.
It would be pretty devastating for a child for daddy to turn into a woman suddenly. That is quite easy to see.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?