Recent Comments

1. about 18 hours ago on Over the Hedge

   I thought you wanted to be done? I do.

   I misunderstood you to be of the scientific mindset, one with intellectual humility, who could enter into a topic and learn about it, and adjust your preconceived conclusions based on new information.

   Instead, you wrenched things completely out of original contextual meaning, didn’t care to learn anything about the topic at all (claiming falsely the video was too vague) and chose old bias over new facts which challenge said bias.

   On the other hand, I repeatedly admitted when I was wrong. I looked up the topics at hand to learn more about them. I am not afraid to be proven wrong – right or wrong, I always learn something. Intersexuality is an interesting topic and I was glad to have the chance to expand my horizons a little.

   I wish I could share that feeling with you, but you do not seem receptive to it.

   So, regardless of whether you’re really done or not, I am. Be well. I hope you learn how to learn.

2. 4 days ago on Over the Hedge

   “This is pretty much the response I expected. Even taking direct quotes from the video you yourself pointed me to isn’t good enough. I don’t think it would serve any useful purpose to continue this discussion.”

   Don’t blame this on me. I asked you to convince me, and your arguments were objectively poor. In all sincerity, I expected better from someone who claims a career in the hard sciences.

   So yes, we can be done. I gave you too much credit, it seems. I won’t make that mistake again.

3. 5 days ago on Over the Hedge

   Interesting.

   (I use she/her because Mimi identifies as a woman, although pronouns were not specified.)

   Mimi names her condition: 17 beta hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase deficiency. This is a mutation on gene 17BHSD3. She failed to produce a particular enzyme that would have triggered testosterone production.

   1. This was always acknowledged.

   2. This was… disappointing. There is context for this statement, and it is a large part of the video and why Mimi chooses to speak, but you seem to have discarded all that as irrelevant. The context is that she was not a female in the first place – she is intersex. She does not mention not being male, because at no point in her life was she attempting to pass as a male.

   3. Sexual attraction is not limited by sex, so this point is moot.

   4. The surgery Mimi underwent was mentioned – to remove vestigial internal testes. Lacking the enzyme that promotes testosterone, it mattered not at all what physical structures Mimi had. Planting a flagstaff on her crotch would not make her a “normal boy” any more than she was a “normal girl”. The surgery was unnecessary because leaving the testes in place would have made no difference.

   5. Mimi’s “male parts” were vestigial and removing them meant nothing. She took HRT because she lacked hormone production to develop towards either male or female. They (presumably the doctors, parents, and Mimi) chose to promote the female.

   The totality of what you say you got from the video would actually be medical malpractice. You suggest twice that if left alone, she would have developed into a male somehow. But without testosterone, that was never going to happen.

   I have to say that your case is unconvincing even in the best light. Not one argument you made was valid on its face, given the details and context readily available in the video or through common knowledge.

4. 6 days ago on Over the Hedge

   Okay. You’ve proven me wrong. Apparently the technical term is “sexually undifferentiated”. I suppose I’ve been listening to people not caught up to the current state of knowledge.

   However, we seem to be stuck on the determination part. Again I will ask: how do you classify Mimi, and why? You see here that I am not afraid of being proven wrong. Prove your point to me.

5. 7 days ago on Over the Hedge

   We’ve drifted a bit. Actually, a lot.

   I wish to re-iterate what I said earlier, which was at the end of a post and you may have missed: “I know I used the word “gender” at the outset and I regret the error. I am not attempting to discuss gender at all; it’s just an old holdover to days when I ignorantly thought “gender” and “sex” were the same thing.”

   So. Let’s return to the topic at hand, and reset.

   When I first posted, I was referring to known biological facts. A zygote develops into an embryo. An embryo has only female and sex-neutral structures, and that happens regardless of what sex chromosomes are present.

   When an embryo becomes a fetus at about 8-9 weeks, if the sex chromosomes are XY, and if all the related biological machinery works as expected, then the female structures are destroyed, and replaced with male structures.

   Thus my statement. All embryos, by default, develop as females. It is only by completely removing and replacing that development in transition to the fetal stage that a male may result.

   If I understand correctly, you state that we are all male or female from conception by dint of chromosomes. Chromosomes do determine a lot, but they are not the sole factor in development. Even if we had full knowledge of the human genome, looking at a zygote’s DNA would not give us an absolute picture of the person that will result. Mutations occur. Environmental factors occur. If any part of the complex biological machinery does not perform as expected, for any reason, things change.

   So my conclusion is that we all begin female, and then develop into a being that is male, or female, or somewhere in between. Sex is not only not determined at conception, but is to varying extent mutable until development is complete.

6. 7 days ago on Over the Hedge

   Actually, before we go on, I’d like to ask: is your position on this topic based on your religion? As I recall, you are a religious person.

   If the answer is yes, then we can just dispense of the whole discussion. Rationalization serves faith poorly, and I have no interest whatsoever in debating dogma.

7. 8 days ago on Over the Hedge

   “Another thing doctors do is diagnose diseases, and sometimes they get it wrong.”

   Doctors are humans. Of course they make errors.

   Scientists are also human, and thus not immune to error.

   Trying to box all humans into the male/female dichotomy was always an error. But the thing about science is that it is capable of recognizing error, and correcting old beliefs to reflect reality as it exists.

8. 8 days ago on Over the Hedge

   I would suggest you take each article on The Conversation as a wholly separate item. Each one is written by a different person, an expert in their field. The site is just a platform for publishing scholarly articles. I personally do not agree with all their choices, especially when it comes to soft sciences; however, the hard sciences are generally well-researched and well-sourced.

   The second article is actually what I was looking for, when I found the first one. It’s more on-topic.

   “It is very rare for a visual examination of a baby’s genitalia to give an incorrect determination of the baby’s sex.”

   It may be more common than we think. It’s possible for an intersex person to go through life without ever even being aware of the fact.

   I am curious into what pigeonhole you would push Mimi. Is she male or female? In my perception, and that of the authors of what you choose to see as propaganda, the fact that Mimi and people like her exist is the proof that the strict male/female dichotomy is too limited to reflect reality. It matters not at all just how rare exceptions occur. They do occur.

   “I did read that part. I alluded to it (albeit without a direct quote) when I wrote “[the article] then goes on to say that there are more chromosomes that determine a person’s reproductive organs etc.” The reason I didn’t respond to that in any detail was that it doesn’t deny anything I’ve said.”

   It says there are more than chromosomes which determine a person’s sex at birth. Environmental factors are a pretty glaring outlier there, don’t you think? But we know for an immutable fact that the mother’s condition can influence development of a pregnancy.

   I know I used the word “gender” at the outset and I regret the error. I am not attempting to discuss gender at all; it’s just an old holdover to days when I ignorantly thought “gender” and “sex” were the same thing.

   con’t

9. 8 days ago on Over the Hedge

   The first article I named actually does have at least one link to Scientific American, but I chose not to use it as a source because it’s paywalled. The Conversation is free to all.

   But yes, the point is rather consistently made across all scientific views: the strict male/female dichotomy was always nothing more than a fantasy.

10. 8 days ago on Over the Hedge

    I reply to you because I know you are science-minded and intelligent. I apologize for the confusion regarding the references; again, I ask that you simply ask me when there is confusion, rather than assume bad faith on my part.

    You seem to be waving off the “Distinguishing sex and sex chromosomes” section of the first article.

    “For one, sex chromosomes don’t exactly determine someone’s sex. Other chromosomes, hormone receptors, neural pathways, reproductive organs and environmental factors contribute to sex determination as well, not unlike an orchestra with its ensemble of instruments. Each cello, flute, tympani and violin plays a crucial role in the performance of the final musical score. There is no single instrument that defines the entirety of the symphony.”

    “Likewise, the doctor doesn’t “assign” a sex to the baby, he just declares what was already decided months earlier.”

    You might want to go back and watch the video right smack in the middle of the article. Mimi is an intersex person, born with female genitalia, and XY sex chromosomes. She lacks an enzyme that would have promoted the testosterone activity that results in male development.

    As a botanist, you know that nature has no interest in conforming to our neat little pigeonholes. Biology is messy. We want to order our world into nice little categories, but reality just doesn’t care.

    I don’t see that you addressed the second article at all. Why is that?