"Pregnant man" and "pregnant nonbinary person" are actual real-world things that happen. They exist. Sure, they're uncommon, but they are absolutely 100% real world people.
To not intentionally not include them would be incredibly bigoted.
Trans women are women. Trans men are men. Right wing nutjobs are easily offended snowflakes.
Left-wing nutjobs, on the other hand, are oppurtunist zeitgeist surfers who are anxious to say what is supposedly in vogue at the right time and always swim with the current of what is supposedly good and true. For them, minorities are merely projection surfaces, interchangeable freaks in the circus of do-gooders. Yesterday the gays, today transgender and tomorrow the fluids. It doesn't matter at all, the main thing is to be able to sail onto the next higher cloud of do-gooderism with the free-spirited utterance of cheap propaganda slogans. These people don't give a damn about the actual needs of those affected. Transwomen are Transwoman and not women because biological women are unique human beings. But they are also not because they themselves are unique as transgender people. If one ignores this for idelogical reasons, one not only takes away biological women their uniqueness and degrades them to persons with certain characteristics, one also takes away transwomen their history. Because where there is no trans, there is no life in the wrong body. Where there is no trans, there are no trans people and therefore no trans rights. The same is true of course for trans men.
JustSomeGuy1 said: You have a very narrow view based mostly on genetics (but not entirely, as there are rare people born as "obviously female" who have XY genes).
That is flatly untrue. You must mean “have a Y chromosome” but even that is inaccurate.
I hate when people with no understanding of genetics or even basic biology attempt to talk about this subject with authority. So annoying.
JustSomeGuy1 said: You have a very narrow view based mostly on genetics (but not entirely, as there are rare people born as "obviously female" who have XY genes).
That is flatly untrue. You must mean “have a Y chromosome” but even that is inaccurate.
I hate when people with no understanding of genetics or even basic biology attempt to talk about this subject with authority. So annoying.
Some people are born 'intersexed' -- with their sex organs ambiguous or worse -- despite their actual genes.
It is hormones that cause certain body structures to exist or not exist as well as to develop. Genes just set the stage for those hormones to do their work -- but sometimes things don't go as planned.
Intersex one of the clearest cut examples where sex reassignment surgery can improve lives.
JustSomeGuy1 said: You have a very narrow view based mostly on genetics (but not entirely, as there are rare people born as "obviously female" who have XY genes).
That is flatly untrue. You must mean “have a Y chromosome” but even that is inaccurate.
I hate when people with no understanding of genetics or even basic biology attempt to talk about this subject with authority. So annoying.
I was speaking loosely because, in my experience, people more often understand the word "gene" than "chromosome".
In fact, you are the one who is ignorant. There are a range of conditions that can produce XY women. Most often, they appear unremarkably female at birth but have conditions that need treatment later (such as Swyer syndrome). In a very few (perhaps requiring genetic mosaicism), successful pregnancy is possible. See for example https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190741/ . My recollection, which may be inaccurate, is that these conditions collectively have an incidence rate of about 1 in 100k, meaning that in the USA alone there are about 3500 such people. Rare, but far from nonexistant.
There is a wide range of genetic defects that can produce this sort of outcome. Some do not involve defects in the Y chromosome - for example, the AR gene on the X chromosome can be defective. (Perhaps unusual conditions in the womb may also produce this outcome - I don't have to time to research this but vaguely recall reading something like that once. That memory may be incorrect however.)
If you'd like to be less of an ignoramus, finding info on this on the web is not hard. Ask google if there are XY women and you'll find a bunch of useful links. Then you can be less foolish online. Getting rid of the supercilious attitude and underlying Dunning-Krueger syndrome is likely to be much more challenging, however.
Actually, I've fairly certain they *do* care about it. But they are angry, and most likely damaged from getting the sh*t end of the stick all their life- or close to someone for whom that's true.
Sometimes, you're just angry, and being persuasive just isn't on the agenda that day. I get that... I've been there.
I’ve been close to two people for whom that is true. One, currently. One, formerly. The first is a family member, and the second an old friend no longer with us.
Jason - despite all your verbiage, most people are fairly confident that a) gender is real and everyone has one and b) a pregnant man is impossible. So this is nonsense at the most obvious and fundamental level.
The good thing about this woke lunacy is the eventual whiplash on the return volley...
Jason - despite all your verbiage, most people are fairly confident that a) gender is real and everyone has one and b) a pregnant man is impossible. So this is nonsense at the most obvious and fundamental level.
The good thing about this woke lunacy is the eventual whiplash on the return volley...
Learn to read. Just *two* posts before yours I provided a documented example of a pregnant man (he had something like Swyer syndrome, I don't recall the details but the link is right there). More to the point, the emoji *looks like* a man and is pregnant. There are a number of such people, as discussed a bit earlier.
As usual, the most ignorant people are the most certain of their knowledge. See my answer to lalafresh, it's entirely applicable to you as well.
[Edit: Deleted question, now I see why this was bumped]
There is nothing logical about a pregnant man. Nice attempt to write thousands of words to legitimize it, but a pregnant man emoji is as useful as a emoji of a fish riding a bicycle. Both are pure fantasy.
Whereas a pile of poop with a face, unicorns, and cats with red hearts instead of eyes are all real and not pure fantasy.
Jason - despite all your verbiage, most people are fairly confident that a) gender is real and everyone has one and b) a pregnant man is impossible. So this is nonsense at the most obvious and fundamental level.
The good thing about this woke lunacy is the eventual whiplash on the return volley...
Learn to read. Just *two* posts before yours I provided a documented example of a pregnant man (he had something like Swyer syndrome, I don't recall the details but the link is right there). More to the point, the emoji *looks like* a man and is pregnant. There are a number of such people, as discussed a bit earlier.
As usual, the most ignorant people are the most certain of their knowledge. See my answer to lalafresh, it's entirely applicable to you as well.
[Edit: Deleted question, now I see why this was bumped]
Abstract
Anne Fausto-Sterling s suggestion that the prevalence of intersex might be as high as 1.7% has attracted wide attention in both the scholarly press and the popular media. Many reviewers are not aware that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia. If the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling s estimate of 1.7%.
Every time a LGBT+ issue comes up in here I'm amazed at the ignorance, bigotry and general nastiness on display. So many people seem to thing that their belief in an unprovable magic man in the sky allows them to dictate how the rest of the world lives. You know what? If you don't like that emoticon, don't use it. And yes, there should be one for drag queens, and bearded women -- WHY DO YOU CARE SO MUCH?
Jason - despite all your verbiage, most people are fairly confident that a) gender is real and everyone has one and b) a pregnant man is impossible. So this is nonsense at the most obvious and fundamental level.
The good thing about this woke lunacy is the eventual whiplash on the return volley...
Learn to read. Just *two* posts before yours I provided a documented example of a pregnant man (he had something like Swyer syndrome, I don't recall the details but the link is right there). More to the point, the emoji *looks like* a man and is pregnant. There are a number of such people, as discussed a bit earlier.
As usual, the most ignorant people are the most certain of their knowledge. See my answer to lalafresh, it's entirely applicable to you as well.
[Edit: Deleted question, now I see why this was bumped]
Abstract
Anne Fausto-Sterling s suggestion that the prevalence of intersex might be as high as 1.7% has attracted wide attention in both the scholarly press and the popular media. Many reviewers are not aware that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia. If the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling s estimate of 1.7%.
My response was to a person claiming "a pregnant man is impossible". I said nothing about how rare intersex is.
Though honestly, my earlier post was more relevant - the one I referred to was mostly a response to some overstuffed idiot who claimed that women with a Y chromosome 23 didn't exist (they do though they're rare). So, my bad. To summarize: Nobody gets exclusive say over what words mean. Whether you agree with the definition or not, a significant portion of the population says that "men" includes people who identify as men, regardless of internal plumbing. And those men occasionally do get pregnant. But even if you insist on your definition of "men" as specifically people with a Y chromosome, there's at least one documented case of a woman with a Y chromosome who gave birth normally (and that's what I linked to above).
None of this matters anyway. Until you ban unicorn and poop with eyeballs emojis, any argument about "reality" is clearly irrelevant nonsense.
Oh, and lastly, I was too careless in my last post, and I made a glaring error: I implicitly bought into the restrictive view of sex being dependent only on chromosomes, by referring to the woman in the linked article as "man" and "he". She is clearly a woman, and I'm sorry about that mistake.
Jason - despite all your verbiage, most people are fairly confident that a) gender is real and everyone has one and b) a pregnant man is impossible. So this is nonsense at the most obvious and fundamental level.
The good thing about this woke lunacy is the eventual whiplash on the return volley...
Learn to read. Just *two* posts before yours I provided a documented example of a pregnant man (he had something like Swyer syndrome, I don't recall the details but the link is right there). More to the point, the emoji *looks like* a man and is pregnant. There are a number of such people, as discussed a bit earlier.
As usual, the most ignorant people are the most certain of their knowledge. See my answer to lalafresh, it's entirely applicable to you as well.
[Edit: Deleted question, now I see why this was bumped]
Abstract
Anne Fausto-Sterling s suggestion that the prevalence of intersex might be as high as 1.7% has attracted wide attention in both the scholarly press and the popular media. Many reviewers are not aware that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia. If the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling s estimate of 1.7%.
My response was to a person claiming "a pregnant man is impossible". I said nothing about how rare intersex is.
Though honestly, my earlier post was more relevant - the one I referred to was mostly a response to some overstuffed idiot who claimed that women with a Y chromosome 23 didn't exist (they do though they're rare). So, my bad. To summarize: Nobody gets exclusive say over what words mean. Whether you agree with the definition or not, a significant portion of the population says that "men" includes people who identify as men, regardless of internal plumbing. And those men occasionally do get pregnant. But even if you insist on your definition of "men" as specifically people with a Y chromosome, there's at least one documented case of a woman with a Y chromosome who gave birth normally (and that's what I linked to above).
None of this matters anyway. Until you ban unicorn and poop with eyeballs emojis, any argument about "reality" is clearly irrelevant nonsense.
Oh, and lastly, I was too careless in my last post, and I made a glaring error: I implicitly bought into the restrictive view of sex being dependent only on chromosomes, by referring to the woman in the linked article as "man" and "he". She is clearly a woman, and I'm sorry about that mistake.
"Identifying" as a man and becoming pregnant and saying "men can come pregnant" are vastly different things.
Biologically, a "man" is unable to become pregnant.
If you are equating "identification" and "pregnant men" with unicorns and poop, we are in agreement.
Jason - despite all your verbiage, most people are fairly confident that a) gender is real and everyone has one and b) a pregnant man is impossible. So this is nonsense at the most obvious and fundamental level.
The good thing about this woke lunacy is the eventual whiplash on the return volley...
Learn to read. Just *two* posts before yours I provided a documented example of a pregnant man (he had something like Swyer syndrome, I don't recall the details but the link is right there). More to the point, the emoji *looks like* a man and is pregnant. There are a number of such people, as discussed a bit earlier.
As usual, the most ignorant people are the most certain of their knowledge. See my answer to lalafresh, it's entirely applicable to you as well.
[Edit: Deleted question, now I see why this was bumped]
Abstract
Anne Fausto-Sterling s suggestion that the prevalence of intersex might be as high as 1.7% has attracted wide attention in both the scholarly press and the popular media. Many reviewers are not aware that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia. If the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling s estimate of 1.7%.
My response was to a person claiming "a pregnant man is impossible". I said nothing about how rare intersex is.
Though honestly, my earlier post was more relevant - the one I referred to was mostly a response to some overstuffed idiot who claimed that women with a Y chromosome 23 didn't exist (they do though they're rare). So, my bad. To summarize: Nobody gets exclusive say over what words mean. Whether you agree with the definition or not, a significant portion of the population says that "men" includes people who identify as men, regardless of internal plumbing. And those men occasionally do get pregnant. But even if you insist on your definition of "men" as specifically people with a Y chromosome, there's at least one documented case of a woman with a Y chromosome who gave birth normally (and that's what I linked to above).
None of this matters anyway. Until you ban unicorn and poop with eyeballs emojis, any argument about "reality" is clearly irrelevant nonsense.
Oh, and lastly, I was too careless in my last post, and I made a glaring error: I implicitly bought into the restrictive view of sex being dependent only on chromosomes, by referring to the woman in the linked article as "man" and "he". She is clearly a woman, and I'm sorry about that mistake.
"Identifying" as a man and becoming pregnant and saying "men can come pregnant" are vastly different things.
Biologically, a "man" is unable to become pregnant.
If you are equating "identification" and "pregnant men" with unicorns and poop, we are in agreement.
Again, you seem incapable of acknowledging that you are not the ultimate arbiter of meaning. You don't get to decide what "man" means.
Since you lack sufficient capacity to reason, I'm retiring from this argument.
Some people think this issue will be like gay rights and will just take time to resolve but this issue will be controversial until the end of time because there will never be a consensus on whether biological or gender identity is the more important one in every circumstance.
I think you missed what I wrote a couple days ago here.
It will likely NOT be until the end of time, because technology will catch up with this problem and render it moot. As long as we don't destroy ourselves first (nukes, climate change, etc.), we're likely to have perfect functional sex-changes, within the lifetime of many (most?) reading this site. Not to mention horns, tails, gills, extra limbs, etc. When bodies and sex become that fluid, I expect it's going to get harder to motivate people to hate based on sex. A lot of that energy will probably be directed against people taking on animal characteristics. Because while humans progress, we also like our petty moralizing and religious narrowmindedness. :-(
While I'm not a religious person, there is a lack of respect exhibited in the last sentence that is ironically dismissive, narrow-minded and denigrating
The supposition is that people or societies "don't have the right to define things" is not only objectively wrong, it is, as a position, attempting to define how others think, which is counterintuitive to the argument posited.
For example - you will never "convince" vast numbers of people that a homosexuality is "understandable,", yet there are countless efforts to push hard on those with this viewpoint - from a political/social engineering/media perspective. Why is one PoV ok but not the other? This is not to say this lack of understanding should permit such people treat homosexuals with any less respect in any facets of life or work - that's a very different issue. But trying to "convince" people who have a certain belief system to the point of derision and denigration is as, or more, guilty than the supposed offense.
If one says "it's all ok - everyone is different", then one needs to apply that thinking as well to those who actually have very different/opposing thoughts about a subject. This is one of the main issues with wokeism and the extreme extension of such thought (horns, tails, gills and such, or perhaps transgender males performing in female athletics). A different example - The Florida's law to prevent non-parents (teachers) from talking to K-3 kids about sexual orientation/gender issues is not only completely reasonable (this is not the role of a school or teacher), it in fact does not go far enough (from an age perspective), and is thoroughly mis-represented as "Don't Say Gay" legislation. An abhorrent distortion. It's also a law that, quite sadly, is needed, given the nature of what a school curriculum should be focused on but too often completely veers off the rails (ie preparing children to read, write, perform math, and develop free thinking minds not subject to indoctrination).
So bringing it back to this topic, no one should be surprised when a vast majority of people factually and objectively say a pregnant man emoji is stupid. Nor should one attempt to school them very much, given the obvious nature of the distortion.
The same people who claim they're "Following the science" also believe men can get pregnant. Dumb. No, that's not a man, that's a woman with unresolved psychological issues treated by doctors who should lose their license. You don't treat anorexics with weight loss surgery. You help them to accept their body. We should be doing the same with those diagnosed with gender dysmorphia, not surgically mutilating their bodies because its the trendy thing to do, then pretending men are women or women are men.
Sure, because clearly you're better qualified to decide what to do with their bodies than they are.
Comments
... and "The Bible" tells us...
That is flatly untrue. You must mean “have a Y chromosome” but even that is inaccurate.
The good thing about this woke lunacy is the eventual whiplash on the return volley...
Abstract
Anne Fausto-Sterling s suggestion that the prevalence of intersex might be as high as 1.7% has attracted wide attention in both the scholarly press and the popular media. Many reviewers are not aware that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia. If the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling s estimate of 1.7%.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/
Oh, and which men are getting pregnant?
Biologically, a "man" is unable to become pregnant.
If you are equating "identification" and "pregnant men" with unicorns and poop, we are in agreement.
The supposition is that people or societies "don't have the right to define things" is not only objectively wrong, it is, as a position, attempting to define how others think, which is counterintuitive to the argument posited.
For example - you will never "convince" vast numbers of people that a homosexuality is "understandable,", yet there are countless efforts to push hard on those with this viewpoint - from a political/social engineering/media perspective. Why is one PoV ok but not the other? This is not to say this lack of understanding should permit such people treat homosexuals with any less respect in any facets of life or work - that's a very different issue. But trying to "convince" people who have a certain belief system to the point of derision and denigration is as, or more, guilty than the supposed offense.
If one says "it's all ok - everyone is different", then one needs to apply that thinking as well to those who actually have very different/opposing thoughts about a subject. This is one of the main issues with wokeism and the extreme extension of such thought (horns, tails, gills and such, or perhaps transgender males performing in female athletics). A different example - The Florida's law to prevent non-parents (teachers) from talking to K-3 kids about sexual orientation/gender issues is not only completely reasonable (this is not the role of a school or teacher), it in fact does not go far enough (from an age perspective), and is thoroughly mis-represented as "Don't Say Gay" legislation. An abhorrent distortion. It's also a law that, quite sadly, is needed, given the nature of what a school curriculum should be focused on but too often completely veers off the rails (ie preparing children to read, write, perform math, and develop free thinking minds not subject to indoctrination).
So bringing it back to this topic, no one should be surprised when a vast majority of people factually and objectively say a pregnant man emoji is stupid. Nor should one attempt to school them very much, given the obvious nature of the distortion.
Learn to read. I'm not telling you how to use the word. I'm telling you, don't tell others how to use the word.