Rigged: How Voter Suppression Threw Wisconsin to Trump

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

I don’t think so.

yeah i think so, you cancelled your own question out. i can't answer it.

[bcking 3,157]

12 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Are you mixing biology or genetics with psychology?  

They are all related

 

Your genotype (Mostly XX/XY) usually defines your sex genetically.

 

Unfortunately it is far more complicated for your sexual characteristics. The presence of "secondary sex characteristics" that match what we consider a normal "Male" or "Female" is dependent on a lot more than just your genotype. There are people who are XX that have the secondary characteristics of a male (or more fitting to a male), and there are XY that match the characteristics of a female. One of the more simple explanations is the SYR gene (Testis-determining factor) that typically resides on the Y chromosome but can be translocated to another chromosome. Or it can be completley absent. 

 

So you can be "Male" (XY) but look "Female" (As far as all outward appearances are concerned). You may even have organs that are more closely related to ovaries than testes (though most commonly they aren't fully functioning, so unfortunately wouldn't be fertile).

 

All of that is separate from what you may see yourself as. Now for obvious reasons if you "look" female you are more likely to grow up thinking you are. In part because other people will identify you that way (your parents), and also because you will inevitably self-identify that way. That isn't always true.

 

So you can be "Male" (XY) that looks "Female" externally, but feels Male - In that scenario to everyone else you are a female, but you feel male

You could also be "Male" (XY) that looks "Female" externally but feels Female - That would "match up" with people's expectations more, even though your identification would go against what most people would define as your "true sex" based on your genotype. 

 

Bottom line - Gender can act independently from Sex, both your genotype and your secondary sex characteristics. The only person who can answer the question "What gender are you?" is yourself.

 

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/swyer-syndrome - One example (XY Female)

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/46xx-testicular-disorder-of-sex-development - "Opposite" example (XX Male)

Edited October 20, 2017 by bcking

[bcking 3,157]

7 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So that is scientific, but biological gender is not?

"Biological gender" would be your sex, but honestly it should be broken down further as I explained in my prior post. There are people out there whose sex is male (XY), but who are phenotypically female. Vice versa as well. Both of those scenarios says nothing about what gender those people are.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

11 minutes ago, bcking said:

They are all related

 

Your genotype (Mostly XX/XY) usually defines your sex genetically.

 

Unfortunately it is far more complicated for your sexual characteristics. The presence of "secondary sex characteristics" that match what we consider a normal "Male" or "Female" is dependent on a lot more than just your genotype. There are people who are XX that have the secondary characteristics of a male (or more fitting to a male), and there are XY that match the characteristics of a female. One of the more simple explanations is the SYR gene (Testis-determining factor) that typically resides on the Y chromosome but can be translocated to another chromosome. Or it can be completley absent. 

 

So you can be "Male" (XY) but look "Female" (As far as all outward appearances are concerned). You may even have organs that are more closely related to ovaries than testes (though most commonly they aren't fully functioning, so unfortunately wouldn't be fertile).

 

All of that is separate from what you may see yourself as. Now for obvious reasons if you "look" female you are more likely to grow up thinking you are. In part because other people will identify you that way (your parents), and also because you will inevitably self-identify that way. That isn't always true.

 

So you can be "Male" (XY) that looks "Female" externally, but feels Male - In that scenario to everyone else you are a female, but you feel male

You could also be "Male" (XY) that looks "Female" externally but feels Female - That would "match up" with people's expectations more, even though your identification would go against what most people would define as your "true sex" based on your genotype. 

 

Bottom line - Gender can act independently from Sex, both your genotype and your secondary sex characteristics. The only person who can answer the question "What gender are you?" is yourself.

 

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/swyer-syndrome - One example (XY Female)

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/46xx-testicular-disorder-of-sex-development - "Opposite" example (XX Male)

You broke Google. But the debate is people who choose to identify as something they are totally not, just because. 

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

You broke Google. But the debate is people who choose to identify as something they are totally not, just because. 

Genetics Home Reference is a very good resource. It isn't the first thing that comes up when you search, at least I don't think. I'd imagine wikipedia would be.

 

My whole point is who decides that they are "totally not"?

 

 You can't just look at a person and decide what they are. You can state what their phenotypical sexual characteristics are, but that doesn't define who they are inside. You can look at their chromosomes, but that still doesn't decide who they are.

 

Only the person in question can define/identify themselves. Anyone else is just making an educated assumption which can be wrong.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

I am sitting here talking to my buddy Sam. No doubt what he is. No educated guess You either got one or you don't, except in a very very very small percentage of people 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

36 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

An interesting analogy.  The MDL rails against bullying in children, but when they grow up, they love bullying of people that do not adhere to their political ideology.

 

   It's interesting that telling someone they shouldn't drink so much Kool-Aid leads to a bullying analogy. I bet there's a good snowflake analogy somewhere in there too.

[bcking 3,157]

9 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I am sitting here talking to my buddy Sam. No doubt what he is. No educated guess You either got one or you don't, except in a very very very small percentage of people 

Once again - Who is to judge whether a person is in what percentage of people?

 

Certainly not you or your buddy Sam. Does your buddy Sam have children? If not, he could actually be genetically female. In that case - Is he a male or a female? How do you decide?

[Dashinka 24,505]

40 minutes ago, bcking said:

"Biological gender" would be your sex, but honestly it should be broken down further as I explained in my prior post. There are people out there whose sex is male (XY), but who are phenotypically female. Vice versa as well. Both of those scenarios says nothing about what gender those people are.

I am not arguing against people feeling one way or the other about their gender, or that genetic anomalies exist, just that this appears to be mixing biology which last I heard was a science, with psychology which is at best a pseudoscience.

[Dashinka 24,505]

47 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

yeah i think so, you cancelled your own question out. i can't answer it.

I simply restated your previous post (paraphrased) and asked you a new question.  Seems pretty clear to me.

[Dashinka 24,505]

12 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   It's interesting that telling someone they shouldn't drink so much Kool-Aid leads to a bullying analogy. I bet there's a good snowflake analogy somewhere in there too.

Didn’t mention anything about Kool-aide, just made an observance of what I see.

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

I am not arguing against people feeling one way or the other about their gender, or that genetic anomalies exist, just that this appears to be mixing biology which last I heard was a science, with psychology which is at best a pseudoscience.

Psychology isn't automatically pseudoscience. I admit it is much harder to study. That doesn't automatically make it pseudoscience.

 

These types of patients are rare, but they have been studied. As far as we can tell their gender identity is legitimate, using the best designed studies we can given the situation. Of course there is no "objective" test to confirm that, but that applies to a lot of neuroscience in general. 

 

Pseudoscience is when the opinions aren't based on scientific method. You can scientifically study something with lower quality evidence. Our quality of evidence and our understanding of gender is admittedly worse than our quality of evidence for sex and sexual characteristics. That doesn't mean it isn't rooted in the scientific method.

[Dashinka 24,505]

5 minutes ago, bcking said:

Psychology isn't automatically pseudoscience. I admit it is much harder to study. That doesn't automatically make it pseudoscience.

 

These types of patients are rare, but they have been studied. As far as we can tell their gender identity is legitimate, using the best designed studies we can given the situation. Of course there is no "objective" test to confirm that, but that applies to a lot of neuroscience in general. 

 

Pseudoscience is when the opinions aren't based on scientific method. You can scientifically study something with lower quality evidence. Our quality of evidence and our understanding of gender is admittedly worse than our quality of evidence for sex and sexual characteristics. That doesn't mean it isn't rooted in the scientific method.

Ok, I will give you that psychology does try to use the scientific method, so calling it a pseudoscience might be wrong, but you have to admit there are a lot of psychological issues that cannot be explained using the scientific method.

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

Ok, I will give you that psychology does try to use the scientific method, so calling it a pseudoscience might be wrong, but you have to admit there are a lot of psychological issues that cannot be explained using the scientific method.

Absolutely.

 

I think fore the biggest distinction is I tend to think of pseudoscience when talking about subjects where you CPULD apply the scientific method appropriately but you haven't and instead apply an alternative method that is less rigorous, more subjective and has a higher risk of bias.

 

With psychological disorders there are limitations to the scientific method. You can't apply the same rigor. We have to use what we have. We can recognise the limitations, but also recognise that we don't have anything better.

 

In these scenarios what the person "feels" is the best we have. We have evidence from cases like the two I described above where people's identity can be misaligned from their physical attributes and/or genotype. There is no test to confirm whether a person's self identified fender is legitimate. There is no gold standard. The BEST we can do is what they self identify. How others identify them is certainly inferior.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

can someone explain to me in a nutshell, how you managed to take an article about voter suppression and turn it into a thread about genetics and gender?

Edited October 20, 2017 by Il Mango Dulce