Popular Post Guy Chamberlin Posted November 18 Popular Post Share Posted November 18 Biology is a s#!tshow Rebecca Helm, a biologist and an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina, Asheville US writes: I see a lot of people are talking about biological sexes and gender right now. Lots of folks make biological sex seem really simple. Well, since it’s so simple, let’s find the biological roots, shall we? Let’s talk about sex...[a thread] If you know a bit about biology you will probably say that biological sex is caused by chromosomes, XX and you’re female, XY and you’re male. This is “chromosomal sex” but is it “biological sex”? Well... Turns out there is only ONE GENE on the Y chromosome that really matters to sex. It’s called the SRY gene. During human embryonic development the SRY protein turns on male-associated genes. Having an SRY gene makes you “genetically male”. But is this “biological sex”? Sometimes that SRY gene pops off the Y chromosome and over to an X chromosome. Surprise! So now you’ve got an X with an SRY and a Y without an SRY. What does this mean? A Y with no SRY means physically you’re female, chromosomally you’re male (XY) and genetically you’re female (no SRY). An X with an SRY means you’re physically male, chromsomally female (XX) and genetically male (SRY). But biological sex is simple! There must be another answer... Sex-related genes ultimately turn on hormones in specifics areas on the body, and reception of those hormones by cells throughout the body. Is this the root of “biological sex”?? “Hormonal male” means you produce ‘normal’ levels of male-associated hormones. Except some percentage of females will have higher levels of ‘male’ hormones than some percentage of males. Ditto ditto ‘female’ hormones. And... ...if you’re developing, your body may not produce enough hormones for your genetic sex. Leading you to be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally non-binary, and physically non-binary. Well, except cells have something to say about this... Maybe cells are the answer to “biological sex”?? Right?? Cells have receptors that “hear” the signal from sex hormones. But sometimes those receptors don’t work. Like a mobile phone that’s on “do not disturb’. Call and cell, they will not answer. What does this all mean? It means you may be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally male/female/non-binary, with cells that may or may not hear the male/female/non-binary call, and all this leading to a body that can be male/non-binary/female. Try out some combinations for yourself. Notice how confusing it gets? Can you point to what the absolute cause of biological sex is? Is it fair to judge people by it? Of course you could try appealing to the numbers. “Most people are either male or female” you say. Except that as a biologist professor I will tell you... The reason I don’t have my students look at their own chromosome in class is because people could learn that their chromosomal sex doesn’t match their physical sex, and learning that in the middle of a 10-point assignment is JUST NOT THE TIME. Biological sex is complicated. Before you discriminate against someone on the basis of “biological sex” & identity, ask yourself: have you seen YOUR chromosomes? Do you know the genes of the people you love? The hormones of the people you work with? The state of their cells? Since the answer will obviously be no, please be kind, respect people’s right to tell you who they are, and remember that you don’t have all the answers. Again: biology is complicated. Kindness and respect don’t have to be. Note: Biological classifications exist. XX, XY, XXY XXYY and all manner of variation which is why sex isn't classified as binary. You can't have a binary classification system with more than two configurations even if two of those configurations are more common than others. Biology is a s#!tshow. Be kind to people. 5 4 5 1 Link to comment
teachercd Posted November 19 Share Posted November 19 Ha...well if they did vote they clearly voted for Trump. 1 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted November 19 Author Share Posted November 19 Trump doesn't have a mandate - yet he claims one. This sets up for him to do a big overreach. This in turn could lead to potentially large changes in Congress from the 2026 congressional election. Article quoted in part below goes into greater detail: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-mandate-democrats-history-b2648099.html Trump claims he has an ‘unprecedented’ mandate. Experts say it’s actually very small Trump doesn’t have the mandate he thinks he does, presidential historians tell Richard Hall — and Democrats should stop acting like he does Quote As the votes were tallied and the Electoral College map turned red, Donald Trump declared to supporters at his election night victory party that the American people had given him “an unprecedented and powerful mandate.” A wave of cabinet nominations consisting of MAGA loyalists and fringe figures in the days that followed showed he really believed it. There was to be no reaching across the aisle. But Trump’s margin of victory, historically speaking, is very small. Although he may have won handily in the Electoral College by 312 to 226, he is estimated to win the popular vote by around 1.6 percent. That puts him in 16th place among post-Second World War presidential victories, just behind Jimmy Carter, but ahead of his 2016 performance when he lost the popular vote but still won the keys to the White House. Trump can claim the title of being the first Republican to win the popular vote in 20 years — but that says more about the quirks of the Electoral College and the popularity of Republicans than it does about the man himself. Quote But presidents have historically used real mandates to bring about revolutionary changes. Thomas Whalen, an author and presidential historian at Boston University, said Trump’s claim of an unprecedented mandate was “laughable” when compared to landslides won by Ronald Reagan and Johnson. “Johnson’s victory against Barry Goldwater in 1964 was a historic landslide, and the Democrats had huge gains in the House and Senate,” Whalen said. “It allowed the Great Society to sail through the next two years. That’s how we got Medicare and Medicaid, federal funding for education, PBS — a whole litany of things.” Quote Whalen said that Trump’s tendency to inflate the size of his successes, and make the most of what he is given, is what makes him unique. “He’s able to make chicken salad with chicken you-know-what. And that’s part of the huckster management style. That’s what he learned from Roy Cohn. Deny reality, never stop fighting, always make your accomplishments seem bigger. And that’s what you’re seeing here,” he said. Quote What surprised Whalen was how the Democratic Party appears to be going along with the idea that Trump won a great victory: “They’re wringing their hands, they’re crawling up in a fetal position, and they’re afraid to be the loyal opposition. Given what he said he’s going to do so far, and that it would seem radical to many Americans, it would suggest there should be a pushback from Democrats.” Updegrove told The Independent that Trump’s own perception of a sweeping mandate, fiction though it is, could have big implications for the future of the country. 3 1 1 Link to comment
Guy Chamberlin Posted November 19 Share Posted November 19 3 hours ago, TGHusker said: Trump doesn't have a mandate - yet he claims one. This sets up for him to do a big overreach. This in turn could lead to potentially large changes in Congress from the 2026 congressional election. Article quoted in part below goes into greater detail: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-mandate-democrats-history-b2648099.html Trump claims he has an ‘unprecedented’ mandate. Experts say it’s actually very small Trump doesn’t have the mandate he thinks he does, presidential historians tell Richard Hall — and Democrats should stop acting like he does Perception is everything. And the perception is that Trump totally spanked the libs. Since his victory made inroads that many didn't predict or expect, it's the Dems doing the rethinking of their own mandate. Every administration should consider its duty to the millions of Americans who didn't vote for them. In the past there has been a lot of common ground, so it's not constantly adversarial, but that model went out the window. Still, things could get interesting. I think Democrats will have to get tougher on immigration, treating it not as a political litmus test but an active crisis that is straining the resources at federal, state and local levels. Trump may end up treating tariffs like the border wall; a campaign promise that makes a lot less sense in the real world. If he doesn't screw up the economy, Dems will have to give him credit for it. Conservatives have gone anti-green on virtually everything, including EVs and EV infrastructure. That will immediately test the alliance with Elon Musk, who stands to profit from his relationship with Trump --- the very definition of the swamp MAGA supposedly wants to drain. Abortion isn't going anywhere. Russia will split the conservatives. Israel will split the liberals. Those are all real world policies that affect millions of lives, and there's a good chance they will be drowned out by social media pearl clutching over idiotic culture war memes. 1 2 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted November 19 Author Share Posted November 19 59 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said: Perception is everything. And the perception is that Trump totally spanked the libs. Since his victory made inroads that many didn't predict or expect, it's the Dems doing the rethinking of their own mandate. Every administration should consider its duty to the millions of Americans who didn't vote for them. In the past there has been a lot of common ground, so it's not constantly adversarial, but that model went out the window. Still, things could get interesting. I think Democrats will have to get tougher on immigration, treating it not as a political litmus test but an active crisis that is straining the resources at federal, state and local levels. Trump may end up treating tariffs like the border wall; a campaign promise that makes a lot less sense in the real world. If he doesn't screw up the economy, Dems will have to give him credit for it. Conservatives have gone anti-green on virtually everything, including EVs and EV infrastructure. That will immediately test the alliance with Elon Musk, who stands to profit from his relationship with Trump --- the very definition of the swamp MAGA supposedly wants to drain. Abortion isn't going anywhere. Russia will split the conservatives. Israel will split the liberals. Those are all real world policies that affect millions of lives, and there's a good chance they will be drowned out by social media pearl clutching over idiotic culture war memes. Well stated. Whether Trump won by one vote or one electoral college vote - it wasn't going to matter. Trump is Trump and he doesn't care about his duty to those who didn't vote for him. He's only concerned about his voters - that up to the point that they agree with and support him. The Musk/Trump alliance seems very strange. We got Mr 'drill baby drill' and Mr Environmental Conscious shaking hands - both for self serving ways. Trump gets the electoral help of the world's richest guy who owns a media outlet trump wants to take advantage of, and Musk get's access to govt finances. 1 1 Link to comment
Guy Chamberlin Posted November 20 Share Posted November 20 On 11/18/2024 at 10:01 AM, Guy Chamberlin said: Biology is a s#!tshow Rebecca Helm, a biologist and an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina, Asheville US writes: I see a lot of people are talking about biological sexes and gender right now. Lots of folks make biological sex seem really simple. Well, since it’s so simple, let’s find the biological roots, shall we? Let’s talk about sex...[a thread] If you know a bit about biology you will probably say that biological sex is caused by chromosomes, XX and you’re female, XY and you’re male. This is “chromosomal sex” but is it “biological sex”? Well... Turns out there is only ONE GENE on the Y chromosome that really matters to sex. It’s called the SRY gene. During human embryonic development the SRY protein turns on male-associated genes. Having an SRY gene makes you “genetically male”. But is this “biological sex”? Sometimes that SRY gene pops off the Y chromosome and over to an X chromosome. Surprise! So now you’ve got an X with an SRY and a Y without an SRY. What does this mean? A Y with no SRY means physically you’re female, chromosomally you’re male (XY) and genetically you’re female (no SRY). An X with an SRY means you’re physically male, chromsomally female (XX) and genetically male (SRY). But biological sex is simple! There must be another answer... Sex-related genes ultimately turn on hormones in specifics areas on the body, and reception of those hormones by cells throughout the body. Is this the root of “biological sex”?? “Hormonal male” means you produce ‘normal’ levels of male-associated hormones. Except some percentage of females will have higher levels of ‘male’ hormones than some percentage of males. Ditto ditto ‘female’ hormones. And... ...if you’re developing, your body may not produce enough hormones for your genetic sex. Leading you to be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally non-binary, and physically non-binary. Well, except cells have something to say about this... Maybe cells are the answer to “biological sex”?? Right?? Cells have receptors that “hear” the signal from sex hormones. But sometimes those receptors don’t work. Like a mobile phone that’s on “do not disturb’. Call and cell, they will not answer. What does this all mean? It means you may be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally male/female/non-binary, with cells that may or may not hear the male/female/non-binary call, and all this leading to a body that can be male/non-binary/female. Try out some combinations for yourself. Notice how confusing it gets? Can you point to what the absolute cause of biological sex is? Is it fair to judge people by it? Of course you could try appealing to the numbers. “Most people are either male or female” you say. Except that as a biologist professor I will tell you... The reason I don’t have my students look at their own chromosome in class is because people could learn that their chromosomal sex doesn’t match their physical sex, and learning that in the middle of a 10-point assignment is JUST NOT THE TIME. Biological sex is complicated. Before you discriminate against someone on the basis of “biological sex” & identity, ask yourself: have you seen YOUR chromosomes? Do you know the genes of the people you love? The hormones of the people you work with? The state of their cells? Since the answer will obviously be no, please be kind, respect people’s right to tell you who they are, and remember that you don’t have all the answers. Again: biology is complicated. Kindness and respect don’t have to be. Note: Biological classifications exist. XX, XY, XXY XXYY and all manner of variation which is why sex isn't classified as binary. You can't have a binary classification system with more than two configurations even if two of those configurations are more common than others. Biology is a s#!tshow. Be kind to people. It's a complicated subject, but I don't think it's really laugh-out-loud funny. If any of the four laughing emojis want to offer their expertise on the subject, I'll listen. Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted November 20 Share Posted November 20 2 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said: It's a complicated subject, but I don't think it's really laugh-out-loud funny. If any of the four laughing emojis want to offer their expertise on the subject, I'll listen. I’m guessing it’s the same reason a GOP congresswoman has tweeted 120+ times about bathroom use in the Capitol in a 24 hour period. For some people it just feels better not to be kind. Or their career demands it. The victim of said attacks is handling it pretty gracefully IMO. 1 1 1 Link to comment
PasstheDamnBallGuy Posted November 20 Share Posted November 20 3 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said: It's a complicated subject, but I don't think it's really laugh-out-loud funny. If any of the four laughing emojis want to offer their expertise on the subject, I'll listen. They just to believe that everything they learned in a very incomplete high school education was the complete end of the story. It's so simple. The world is simple and they can remain ignorant. It's a nice world to live in I'm sure. 1 Link to comment
Lorewarn Posted November 20 Share Posted November 20 5 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said: It's a complicated subject, but I don't think it's really laugh-out-loud funny. If any of the four laughing emojis want to offer their expertise on the subject, I'll listen. You're confused, and I can help. The laughing emojis are not the result of reading through, processing, and then finding laughable levels of criticism. These are cowards and/or people unwilling and uninterested in learning or having any amount of open mindedness once one of their triggers is activated. They might know your posting history, and/or they might have read far enough to see biology, sex, and gender mentioned and not reinforced in the way they liked, and rather than engage, they hide behind anonymous derision. If gender was simple in the way that some folks want it to be simple, these would be people with vaginas. 2 1 1 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted November 20 Share Posted November 20 7 hours ago, Lorewarn said: If gender was simple in the way that some folks want it to be simple, these would be people with vaginas Why? Are people with vaginas somehow not good? 1 1 Link to comment
Nebfanatic Posted November 20 Share Posted November 20 1 hour ago, Archy1221 said: Why? Are people with vaginas somehow not good? Well according to the incoming administration they don't deserve rights over their own body, the decision should be made for them by men. So by their view, yes people with vaginas aren't as good, smart or informed as men. 4 2 Link to comment
teachercd Posted November 20 Share Posted November 20 1 hour ago, Nebfanatic said: Well according to the incoming administration they don't deserve rights over their own body, the decision should be made for them by men. So by their view, yes people with vaginas aren't as good, smart or informed as men. I mean...there are probably posters here that also think that. Link to comment
Guy Chamberlin Posted November 20 Share Posted November 20 Just for scale: there are roughly 40 women identifying as trangender among the 500,000+ women competing in collegiate sports at any level. So we're talking about a tempest in a .007% teapot. The San Jose State volleyball player who outed her teammate and immediately became a Fox News celebrity cited safety reasons for her concern. The article I read actually name-checked Nebraska as an example of a women's volleyball team that regularly spiked the ball at higher speeds than anyone at San Jose State. The transgender player had been playing at SJS for two years with no protests or forfeits or any notoriety whatsoever before the election year came calling and outside conservative organizations started promoting the whistelblowers and funding their lawsuits. I still think it's a complex issue worthy of thoughtful consideration. What I recently learned is that the various sports governing bodies -- I think the NCAA is among them -- do have testosterone testing for women athletes. Transitioning females significantly lower their testosterone and increase their estrogen levels as part of the process. They do lose some of the biological advantages attributed to gender. I mean, Doug Flutie is also playing God when he takes Nugenix. If the floodgates do open, we may be on the slippery slope to doubling the number of transgender female athletes, an eye-popping .015% of total participants. San Jose State is currently ranked #115 in the country. 2 3 Link to comment
knapplc Posted November 20 Share Posted November 20 20 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said: The San Jose State volleyball player who outed her teammate and immediately became a Fox News celebrity cited safety reasons for her concern. The article I read actually name-checked Nebraska as an example of a women's volleyball team that regularly spiked the ball at higher speeds than anyone at San Jose State. The transgender player had been playing at SJS for two years with no protests or forfeits or any notoriety whatsoever before the election year came calling and outside conservative organizations started promoting the whistelblowers and funding their lawsuits. What's wild about Slusser complaining that Fleming is a danger to players across the net is, Slusser is the Setter. If Fleming is too dangerous, don't set her. But Slusser does, to the tune of 717 attack attempts for Fleming this year alone. After Slusser found out Fleming is transgender. And when Fleming gets a kill, guess who's in the huddle high-fiving Fleming and celebrating the point? Slusser. It's clearly not about safety. It's political, and performative. And that article is correct. Beason, Jackson and Murray, off the top of my head, hit harder than Fleming. For sure Skinner from Texas does. Londot from Ohio State, Franklin from Wisconsin, Babcock from Pitt all hit harder. If anyone's watched an SJSU match, they're not particularly good, and Fleming does not stand out as a player. 1 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts