re: Famed atheist and biologist calls the idea of more than two genders “utter nonsense”

quote:

---

.if you’ve ever been on a construction site you have probably seen this.

---

I'm on construction sites all the time. No, I don't see this. However, I do see them at festivals or large outdoor events but not really on construction sites. Again, I thought it was a courtesy to women.

quote:

---

You deserve an OT award (whatever that is worth) for engaging people who disagree with you with respect. I do have a question for you. We know that genotype and phenotype find expression in biological sex and outward physical appearance. And I am not saying gender is a genotypical trait. But you did say that gender is socially and culturally constructed. I guess I am wondering if you think that society and culture just totally winged it in their construction of gender? Or is it remotely possible that the construction of gender was informed or influenced in some way by biology and biological sex?

---

Fascinating question. Damn…. Ima have to think about that for a minute LOL.

Off the top of my head I’d say that the idea of gender and gender roles evolved as society evolved. The societal and cultural expectations of gender are , in my opinion, based on a couple of factors….religion and the near domination of men over women in most societies based on physical strength.

In the absence of an entity capable of preventing it a physically superior animal will force their will upon a less physical animal. Men are capable of physically subjecting women to their will due to biology. I do not know if this has always been the case but I assume it has. If so it’s conceivable that man concluded his less physical counterpart could be relied on to complete the biological function of reproduction and, when not thusly occupied, gather and prepare food and generally do anything he didn’t want to do. In exchange he would pay the bill by protecting the woman. Over time this became the norm and both sexes accepted it. If this is in any manner true the physical differences in physical strength, undeniably biological, are at the foundation of gender expectations. Man, an animal at his base, is likely to follow the path of least resistance and, being physically superior to women, established gender roles that favored him and woman, physically incapable of meaningful resistance, survived.

It is an interesting idea. Man is the only animal with gender expectations. All other animals merely have sex. It may be as simple as man’s need to overcomplicate life. What’s you thoughts?

quote:

---

WOW, this whole time I thought they were all built the same and it was a courtesy to add the ladies emblem to the outside to keep the seat and stall cleaner and so men wouldn't have to see sanitary napkins. It's for women with penises?

---

Careful suggesting the sign on the door of a bathroom is what makes it a ladies or men’s room….you’re liable to catch some flack. Many are convinced it’s biology

quote:

---

This is a total straw man, and it's all the left has in this argument. Same as free speech - you have the right to say what you want, but be ready for people to react the way they want. In this case, the fallacy is the conflation of "identity" and truth. All we're saying is that there is truth, and beyond that it doesn't matter. No one has to accept anyone else's pretend-world, that's not what freedom means. Forcing others to do so is spitting in the face of truth, it is not nearly equivalent to supporting liberty. For animals and humans, gender and sex are the same. For anything else it is irrelevant, mere personification, or just adjectives. Getting hung up on whether an adjective is generally more male or female is just stupid, and it changes and establishes nothing. It's like saying someone who loves swimming is a fish, it means nothing. They are who they are, they're different how they are different. This whole "gender is a construct" thing as a basis for defining one's identity is counter to reality and truth, and thus should not be taught or embraced. It's psychological delusion.

---

The issue is akin to free speech. The difference is that there is a concerted effort currently in this country where the ability to identify one’s self is under legislative attack based on ignorance and irrational fear. You are correct you have the right to say what you think, you have no right to dictate others reaction to what you say, short of them resorting to violence. Man does not need a constitution to identify himself. Even in the most draconian of societies this could not be legislated. It has often been oppressed but it has never been removed from the mind of man. That basic human right, to identify one’s self, is being oppressed by legislation today in the US.

Wrong

quote:

---

Even when that man identifies as something that is impossible due to his DNA? Why should we cater to delusion?

---

I am not advocating catering to anyone….I am advocating against legislating against them. Trans people are free to do what they will and you and I can react as we will as long as none of us negatively impacts the other. Passing laws aimed specifically at one group that does not apply to everyone is a bad idea.

For example Tennessee has either passed or is considering a law against lewd drag shows when children are present. Prior to hearing that ida bet that it was against the law in Tennessee as well as the rest of the country to have children at a lewd show of any kind, drag or otherwise. If it ain’t it oughta be. Passing another law aimed solely at drag queens is just wrong. It is also part of a bigger picture to oppress a basic fundamental human right, the right to one’s own identity as defined by the individual, not the masses.

quote:

---

Passing another law aimed solely at drag queens is just wrong. It is also part of a bigger picture to oppress a basic fundamental human right, the right to one’s own identity as defined by the individual, not the

---

Reality is the drag queen world is drenched in overly sexuality and drugs. Children have no business being around drag shows. I've been around the drag world so I'm basing my opinion on real life experience.

quote:

---

Nope, my knowledge, based on facts which are undeniable, is a public restroom has no biological sex. We designate that bathrooms gender because gender is soicietal and cultural….sex is a biological fact

---

So all those long lines for women’s bathrooms in superdome weren’t about not having pee troughs along the walls???

The 19th amendment and the long attempted ERA must have included “on the account of gender”…

Societies make laws, and besides the above up until some recent judicial attempts to redefine sex and legislate the term sex has had some important usage in the Title Civil Rights Acts and in other laws. Guessing you would agree that a judge redefining long standing term like sex in these laws goes against biological facts. Hoping Title IX challenges are handled better by the Supremes than the federal work place Title decision. Just because words can be redefine by the elites in power doesn’t mean it’s correct or accurate.

In studies, articles, reports, and so on Gender has included cultural and societal influences within one’s biological sex including roles or expectations that might or might not fit within biological differences, advantages, or limitations, but gender’s basis was biological sex which is why transgender was used to describe those who self-identified as something different than their gender. A male or female’s Gender fluidity including roles and culture defined masculine/feminine traits stopped at its respective biological sex, and that also makes sex the better term to use in law and to apply with any mention of men or women in laws and regulations. Using gender in a law shouldn’t supersede one’s biological sex, but it can add confusion to which party’s view of definition of gender traits or roles should take precedence in a dispute over law as well when one can change said definition (individuals, businesses, corporations, and so on not political parties).

quote:

---

Gender is assigned at birth but it is not due to chromosomes. Many babies are assigned a gender based on physical traits at birth that are later found to have been mistakenly identified. Biology is a fact, gender is an opinion

---

Sex/gender is learned at birth or at ultrasounds before. They aren’t assigned unless you consider all words in every language assigned.

Claiming that many babies are intersex at birth is misleading. You are talking about .02%s to slightly higher based on estimates.

It’s also classified as a disorder. Doctors did made a mistakes in declaring a sex when physical traits at birth were ambiguous especially before dna and other non-intrusive testing like ultrasound, but more has been learned just like any disorder. It’s doesn’t prove your gender definition. If anything it proves biology wins out when doctors screwed these up in past.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5866176/