Woke Science...

[Starlight]

National Science Teachers Association’s ‘Gender-Inclusive Biology’ Calls Women ‘People with Ovaries’

The guide, titled “Gender-Inclusive Biology: A framework in action,” provides teachers “practical strategies for teaching about gender, sex, and sexuality in biology.” Among the guiding principles is a pronounced belief in “affirmation” and “anti-oppression.” “Sex verification in sports” is one of the practices that is listed as an example of oppression.

The guide includes a section titled “Building Continuity in Gendered Language.” The section explicitly tells teachers to avoid terms like “mother,” instructing them to substitute it for “gestational parent.” The word “males” is also disposed of in favor of “XY individuals.”

Obviously those are pretty silly guidelines. It's sure not the first time someone has suggested using silly words in the name of political correctness, and I'm sure it won't be the last.

So, sure, we can have a laugh at the guide. It's quite funny. But it's not harmful. I suspect it will be ignored by pretty much everyone. And for those who don't ignore it and do follow it, the effect will be basically zero.


So, this claim from you is lunacy:

These leftists will destroy all they touch, and our children in the process.

[tabibito]

? There are a variety of variations on the common XX and XY types, including, but not limited to X, XXX, XXY, XYY, XXXX, XXXY, XXYY, XXXXY, XXXXX.

Furthermore the expression of those chromosomes can be hugely affected by hormonal factors, so you can get people who look like women and spend all their lives with everyone including themselves believing their DNA is female, but who are actually XY.

Here is a chart of some of the variations that can occur scientifically. On the far left is typical biological females, on the far right is typical biological males. The spectrum in between is a set of variations that can cause people to develop atypically, which includes having a different set of chromosomes, or mutations in certain genes that affect sexual development, or variations in hormone levels and receptibility to those hormones.

All of which suggests that a claim to being non-binary is subject to scientific verification. So - a person identifies as non-binary, the first port of call (logically) should be to conduct tests to determine whether there is a physical/genetic condition underlying the claim. I suspect that the overwhelming majority of non-binary claims would fail to be verified as having an underlying genetic aberration.

[rogue06]

? There are a variety of variations on the common XX and XY types, including, but not limited to X, XXX, XXY, XYY, XXXX, XXXY, XXYY, XXXXY, XXXXX.

Furthermore the expression of those chromosomes can be hugely affected by hormonal factors, so you can get people who look like women and spend all their lives with everyone including themselves believing their DNA is female, but who are actually XY.

Here is a chart of some of the variations that can occur scientifically. On the far left is typical biological females, on the far right is typical biological males. The spectrum in between is a set of variations that can cause people to develop atypically, which includes having a different set of chromosomes, or mutations in certain genes that affect sexual development, or variations in hormone levels and receptibility to those hormones.


from here

Which is why we have to completely restructure our society around accommodating if not lauding that considerably less than 1% of the population.

Yes that was a tiny bit hyperbolic

[seer]

I think your source is confused. The whole point is that it's not just women who are to be called 'People with Ovaries'.

Only women have ovaries as far as I know. I bet even you don't call your mom a gestational parent.

[seer]

Obviously those are pretty silly guidelines. It's sure not the first time someone has suggested using silly words in the name of political correctness, and I'm sure it won't be the last.

So, sure, we can have a laugh at the guide. It's quite funny. But it's not harmful. I suspect it will be ignored by pretty much everyone. And for those who don't ignore it and do follow it, the effect will be basically zero.

That is nonsense Star, the National Science Teachers Association, I believe, has the largest membership of teachers and educators in the field of science. So they have real influence.

[seer]

? There are a variety of variations on the common XX and XY types, including, but not limited to X, XXX, XXY, XYY, XXXX, XXXY, XXYY, XXXXY, XXXXX.

What percentage of any given population fall into those other categories? You don't redefine the normal by the abnormal. Some children are born without arms and legs, we don't then redefine humans as beings which are arm less or leg less.

[Stoic]

Only women have ovaries as far as I know.

Ah, that may be why your source was confused.

[rogue06]

Ah, that may be why your source was confused.

There seems to be more than enough confusion to go around. We had a witness testifying before Congress last week that men can get pregnant and have an abortion.

[seer]

Ah, that may be why your source was confused.

Do you call your mom your gestational parent?

[Starlight]

All of which suggests that a claim to being non-binary is subject to scientific verification.

You're confusing things. The claim I was responding to was that scientifically there are only two sexes. Scientifically, there are not only two. Scientifically it is a very complicated spectrum. Conservatives seem to like to falsely claim that it is a scientific fact that there are two sexes, but they are just wrong.

A person's gender identity need not match to their biological sex. But that is a social issue, not a scientific one. Many, perhaps most, societies in history have recognized 3 to 5 genders and given people freedom to change their gender to one of the others. How our particular society chooses to structure its accepted gender identities is thus fairly arbitrary, but we should be mindful of the effects our choices of social structure have on people and be mindful that we might be denying people freedoms they have traditionally had in other human societies if we try and restrict people to 2 genders.

So - a person identifies as non-binary, the first port of call (logically) should be to conduct tests to determine whether there is a physical/genetic condition underlying the claim.

Why? If you have a genetic abnormality in your sex chromosomes it's not like there's anything doctors can do about it, so what exactly is the point of looking?

Are you implying it would in some way '(in)validate' their gender identity if it corresponded to a real scientific abnormality in their biological sex (or failed to)? It seems to me that if you would consider some gender identities to be scientifically validated in this way, and you are prepared for society to compassionately provide the freedom for these people to try and best align with their gender self-identity, and have social constructs such people can use to change their publicly identified gender in order to better align with both their mental gender identity and the scientific truth of their biological sex of their in this way... why not provide that same freedom to everyone? Surely you might as well have more freedom rather than less? If you're going to have social constructs in society to allow these 'deserving' and 'scientifically validated' individuals to change their gender, what do you lose by providing everyone else the freedom to use them?

[tabibito]

Are you implying it would in some way '(in)validate' their gender identity if it corresponded to a real scientific abnormality in their biological sex (or failed to)? It seems to me that if you would consider some gender identities to be scientifically validated in this way, and you are prepared for society to compassionately provide the freedom for these people to try and best align with their gender self-identity, and have social constructs such people can use to change their publicly identified gender in order to better align with both their mental gender identity and the scientific truth of their biological sex of their in this way... why not provide that same freedom to everyone? Surely you might as well have more freedom rather than less? If you're going to have social constructs in society to allow these 'deserving' and 'scientifically validated' individuals to change their gender, what do you lose by providing everyone else the freedom to use them?

If there is a scientifically validated cause to believe that the person is "other," that would show that they were in fact NOT choosing or changing their gender. In suc cases there would be a scientifically validated reason for assigning a different gender, but the fact still is that in cases where no scientific basis for a male to be a female the person should not be identified as female - though a case might (conceivably) be made for assigning "other." It also seems rather strange that all this talk of a gender spectrum is negated when people behave as though the only alternative to being male is to be female or vice versa. That seems diametrically opposed to the concept of non-binary.

[seer]

You're confusing things. The claim I was responding to was that scientifically there are only two sexes. Scientifically, there are not only two. Scientifically it is a very complicated spectrum. Conservatives seem to like to falsely claim that it is a scientific fact that there are two sexes, but they are just wrong.

No we are correct, there are only two sexes - there may be abnormalities, but those deformities don't change the norms.

[rogue06]

Do you call your mom your gestational parent?

Home life of Stoic:


https://www.facebook.com/NetflixFami...6749269161377/

Hmm. I guess we are no longer support Facebook videos.

[rogue06]

If there is a scientifically validated cause to believe that the person is "other," that would show that they were in fact NOT choosing or changing their gender. In suc cases there would be a scientifically validated reason for assigning a different gender, but the fact still is that in cases where no scientific basis for a male to be a female the person should not be identified as female - though a case might (conceivably) be made for assigning "other." It also seems rather strange that all this talk of a gender spectrum is negated when people behave as though the only alternative to being male is to be female or vice versa. That seems diametrically opposed to the concept of non-binary.

For years we were told that there is a wide spectrum of behaviors for both male and females and that not conforming to a particular stereotype (a boy not interested in sports but a girl who is, for example) did not mean anything.

Now we're being told such behavior indicates that they are really trans.

That the boys are really girls and the girls are boys.

It looks like the narrow-minded bigots won in the end.

[tabibito]

For years we were told that there is a wide spectrum of behaviors for both male and females and that not conforming to a particular stereotype (a boy not interested in sports but a girl who is, for example) did not mean anything.

Now we're being told such behavior indicates that they are really trans.

That the boys are really girls and the girls are boys.

It looks like the narrow-minded bigots won in the end.

I always thought that when people have interests that aren't common to their group, they have uncommon interests. I'm not sure that I was wrong, but majority consensus and all that.