"We do not have a definition."

Why dont they just use the word, generally? Females are generally this chromosome, or generally have boobs and a pussy? Is even that approach politically incorrect?

Don't know about politics, because that is, at best, poor science. Science is hung on the hook of decorum, if nothing else, whereas politics has always been a vulgar pseudo-science [still is]. Latin's slur was "cunnus," so these have generally always been on the perimeter, and not the core of science. However, "vagina," also a latin root, was, first, our equivalent word "sheath," whereas Latin's "vagina," descriptive of the female body, was "vuvla," which ended up being translated to English, in medieval time, female "parts to be ashamed of" when the Church [the second estate] made all such matters shameful [though undercover priestly and nunnerly recreation], thus, Popes, such as Julius II [Giulliano della Rovere], who had children, including this comely lass, Felice della Rovere, and commissioned Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling frescoes.

Eggs and Sperm Faux.

Eggs and Sperm.

And Supreme Courts is as Supreme Courts do.

Court Supremely I suppose.

And then there is personal opinion and choice, which is always more supreme, especially if one keeps it to oneself.

So Eggs and Sperm Faux...And like we discussed elsewhere, the human propensity for separatist ritualism knows no bounds.

So Dave removing his dick and balls and calling himself Tiffany was to be expected.

Notwithstanding this, some individuals experience developmental anomalies, but are few and far between and a separate issue to that of socio-psychologically conditioned transgendering...In my opinion.

And one must also consider the likelihood of environmental and evolutionary determinants.

This is absolutely insane, disgusting and evil.

Denying biological men of their claim to manhood and identity as authentic masculine male beings is a systematic eradication that began 1st by eradicating what masculinity is and then later what even the maleness is.

They did similar to Whites and whiteness and soon will do same to Blacks, Jews, East Asians, and Browns (Latinos included), give it time.

The identity of a person eventually will be as a blob.

Robbing women athletes of medals and historic records is the worst example of this.

One percent of the population suffers from Gender Dysphoria, I'm glad I don't, but other than that, I have no problem with these people, its rare enough that practically speaking, it has no real effect on my life.

I really don't understand why so many people feel so much animosity for those folks, and for those who do, and don;t see how they don;t recognize they are letting politicians control them, the proper response to that is to have animosity for those controlling politicians. How about instead of hateful thoughts, it's most natural to just think, "There but for the grace of God go I" on the rare occasion that we do encounter a transgender person.

It's got to really suck to suffer from gender dysphoria, that's a good reason to feel sorry for them, it's a good reason to be thankful I'm not one of them, I just don't see it as a reason to have animosity for them, it's not like it's contagious or anything. It's one in a hundred people, we don't interact that often, but we have enough to know they don't represent any kind of threat to the rest of us; 1% of the population is harmless and suffering, that is no reason to resent them.

My parents, my faith, and my society, they all taught me to respect others, maybe I don't understand the animosity because nobody told me there was an "unless they are too different" exception to the respect rule.

If you are one who has animosity towards the trans community, please share how you were taught you about that "different exception".

It's another case of positive rights conflicting with negative rights.

Title IX is fundamentally a negative right: it restricts institutions from discriminating on the basis of sex. The fact that compliance requires funding makes it look like a positive right, but the spending is really an enforcement consequence, not the right itself. Women’s sports exist because institutions were prohibited from allowing male participation to erase female categories. That was the defined negative right. Redefining sex to include male bodies removes that negative right, essentially removing the protected category and nullifying the original purpose of Title IX. The trans group is demanding a new positive right where the original law never created, and that positive right necessarily destroys the rights of biological women, essentially doing the very thing Title IX was designed to prevent. The erasure of a space for biological women only.

My parents, my faith, and my society, they all taught me to respect others, maybe I don't understand the animosity because nobody told me there was an "unless they are too different" exception to the respect rule.

This isn't really a kindness issue, though. It's a compromise issue. If a framework can't be established where the only framework is a binary choice that exists to either have animosity toward biological women or animosity toward trans women, then the framework itself is "unkind."

It’s really a tradeoff problem. When two groups have mutually exclusive needs, pretending there’s only a binary choice for a solution leaves no room for respect.

Yes, but both environment and evolution, all by themselves without our intervention, have variables that enhance and destroy. We must think better than random chance of outcome and design systems that ultimately can, and do function only for appropriate outcomes. Since each female and male have alternative systems, and those systems used properly have predictable results when we do not introduce random theory into the works, such as cutting off our balls and women tear out their ovaries, or we put inappropriate "food" into our pieholes to screw with our natural chemistry, things tend to work out as designed. Forcing trans is not a natural order of things, pure and simple, since the brain has nothing to do with determining gender. That happens at conception, period.

Wow!

Senator Josh Hawley [R-MO], just questioned a female medical doctor in a Senate hearing on the trans issues in women's sports and asked her a basic yes/no question: "Can a man get pregnant?"

Doctor's response: "That's a politically-charged question."

Hawley: "No, yes/no questions are designed to reveal truth."

It was a simple yes/no question, and though I have not been to medical school, although I'm in a 4-generation family in the medical profession, my grandfather, father, brother, and my daughter, and I do medical illustrations as a freelance artist, I know the answer to the question, apparently unlike this "doctor;" the answer is a resounding NO.

If someone gets raped it may have 0 effect on my life. I still care and want policy and actions to stop it and punish the rapists.

The "it does not affect me" mentality is ironically ultra right wing and is an example of apathy to injustice the left do but project onto the standard Right.

Sexual diversity is result of sex.

...' Not content with one pair of sex chromosomes, the platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) has five. This is the largest number found in mammals so far, and also hints that the sex determination systems of birds and mammals may be linked.... 'The platypus is native to Australia, and belongs to a primitive group of mammals called the monotremes, along with only two other surviving species: the long-beaked and short-beaked echidnas.

Monotremes were the first group to branch off after mammals evolved 210 million years ago. Their egg-laying shares a common origin with birds and reptiles, although the bill is thought to have evolved independently. '..

https://www.nature.com/news/2004/041025/full/news041025-1.html#:~:text=News-,Duck%2Dbilled%20platypus%20boasts%20ten%20sex%20chromosomes,evolutionary%20origin%20of%20sex%20determination.&text=Everyone%20knows%20that%20the%20duck,way%20its%20genes%20determine%20sex.

...' All of these mechanisms working together result in an amazing amount of potential variation. Each human couple, for example, has the potential to produce more than 64 trillion genetically unique children. No wonder we are all different!

See Sources of Variation at http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/variation/sources/ for additional information. '..

https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_General_Biology/Introductory_Biology_(CK-12)/02%3A_Cell_Biology/2.39%3A_Genetic_Variation

..' Any variation from these typical numbers is referred to scientifically as an “aneuploidy.” If there is one additional X or Y, it is known as a “trisomy” (“tri” denoting the number 3). Genetic conditions that reflect a trisomy include:

1. 47,XXY (Klinefelter syndrome)
2. 47,XXX (Trisomy X)
3. 47,XYY

Trisomies are the most common X and Y aneuploid conditions. Less common are “tetrasomies,” which denote the presence of four sex chromosomes:

1. 48,XXYY
2. 48,XXXY
3. 48,XXXX

Still rarer are the “pentasomies,” indicating five sex chromosomes:

1. 49,XXXXY
2. 49,XXXXX

Typically, 48- and 49-chromosome variations produce more pronounced symptoms than trisomies, although this is not always the case.

At the other end of the spectrum lie the “monosomies,” meaning a person born with only one sex chromosome. The only survivable monosomy SCA is 45,X. This is an individual with only one X chromosome, a condition known as “Turner syndrome.”

A fetus with only one Y chromosome and no X chromosome is not viable and cannot survive. AXYS does not include Turner syndrome in its mission. Turner syndrome advocacy and support can be found at www.turnersyndrome.org.

About 20 percent of persons with sex chromosome aneuploidies exhibit “mosaicism,” meaning they have two or more cell lines with different genetic signatures. Examples include 46,XY/47,XXY, and 45,X/47,XXX.

Sex chromosome aneuploidy is not inherited. The extra chromosome occurs in cell division when the egg or sperm is formed, or occasionally during cell division after fertilization. An extra X can be contributed by either the mother or father. Only the father can contribute an extra Y chromosome. '..

https://genetic.org/variations/

( ^ v ^ ) Hi! As always, a reminder that, humans can exist with only one X chromosome, however, no human exists with only one smaller { less complex } y chromosome.

DNA is just bogus, ppl, just trust ur gut instead

Known Knowns: Things that we know, and that we're fully aware we know.

Known Unknowns: Things that we know we don't know.

Unknown Unknowns: Things that we don't know we don't know.

Unknown Knowns: Things that we know or are either unaware of knowing, or we consciously deny knowing due to motivated reasoning.

Your #11 is an excess that ignores that there's a lot of junk out there we consume by more than the pie hole, but that, included, act as direct mutagens that damage DNA, with results you exhaustively detail. A cleaner diet, and at that, avoiding other consumptive means than the pie hole, would limit those disastrous effects. We literally are "what we 'eat.'"

He who knows not, and knows not he knows not is a fool; shun him.

He who knows not, and knows he knows not is a child; teach him.

He who knows, and knows not he knows is asleep; wake him.

He who knows, and knows he knows is wise; follow him.

I think this is from Khalil Gibran's "The Prophet."

If what I presented in #11 true and factual, then, the only excess is your pie hole verbiage Faux. Please, try again with relevant significance regarding any invalid info I presented in #11.

Those who have none offer none. Old news.

My grandfather, a medical doctor, who died in 1972, 18 years following the award of the Nobel Prize to Drs. Crick and Watson for their watershed discovery of the nature and purpose of DNA: "This stuff in each or our cells is fragile, and I think is suspect to mutation should harmful chemistry in our bodies have access to them."

My father, a medical doctor and hospital administrator, who died in 2000, 46 years in to our understanding of DNA: "The telomeres that act as shoelace cap protectors on shoelaces that similarly protect the DNA molecule are demonstrated to breakdown an we age, and are demonstrated to do so earlier than expected with consumption of harmful substances, particularly the n that consumption occurs from early in life."

My older brother, a medical doctor, still living at 83, on the numerous studies conduct4ed over the 72 years since we continue to discover how DNA should function: "Harvard Medical School, my alma mater, has found by groundbreaking study of roughly 40M patients, all female, that consumption of harmful substances, such as cigarettes, alcohol, and excessive salt and sugar, while pregnant, can begin to affect not just their own DNA duplicative function of intended accuracy, but also can disruptive fetal development of cell nuclei my mutative effect."

I had the privilege of meeting Dr. James Watson, DNA-driven Nobel Prize winner of 1954, at UCLA, my alma mater, in 1966, one year prior to my H.S. graduation, at a lecture he conducted there on his view of the future of DNA research, and touched on its high potential for harmful mutation causing unknown results by our sloppy attitude of nutrition, but also the high potential for improving the human condition by further DNA research.

Fair enough? Yeah, pie hole verbiage, indeed. Happens to be valid.

I really don't understand why so many people feel so much animosity for those folks

I have no problem with the singular term "transgender," even though it assumes that gender is transitional. But hanging"woman" or "man" on the end of the coined word is counterfeit coining. If that's what some people want to believe, fine. Some people also believe they are cats and dogs and whatnot. But that is pure denial of the majesty of humanity, just as is believing gender is a headtrip and not biology. Humanity is bi-gender. And gender has specific purpose, and that was never meant to be arguable for the same reason that no one expects a tree to pull its own roots and walk away, though they may just in disgust of what humanity is doing to itself.

Fair enough? Yeah, pie hole verbiage, indeed. Happens to be valid.

Which sentence of your diatribe vof erbiage that actually points to any specific sentence of my message in #11? YOu dont because it is just some generalize verbiage, that agin, does not address even one single sentence I presented that is invalid.

Please share Faux when you have relevant and signifcant info that does the above, and invalidates any of the sentances presented.

If you cant define what a woman is then there are no women's rights.

You guys can't define race, but that still doesn't stop you from invoking your 15th amendment

Race is a subset of the human species as a whole identified by skin color, unique physical features or a unique a DNA profile. Most people use skin color or physical features to identify the different races.

Cool, now go tell a SCOTUS judge what exactly makes you a certain race and how a Law Enforcement Officer can legally know for certain what race you are by eyesight.

It has to be an exact legal definition that drives specific law enforcement. It can’t be vibes, assumptions, or ‘most people use skin color.’

You guys can't define race, but that still doesn't stop you from invoking your 15th amendment

Race doesn't define biologically, DNA wise they just blend into each other with over 90% of human diversity occurring within the races, turns out race is only a social construct, but races exist and can be defined.

Racists are fond of saying that because race doesn't exist biologically, this means racism doesn't exist, but that is just a manifestation of the stupidity of racists. Hell, stupidity is a social construct, but that doesn't mean racists aren't stupid.

Just because something is a social construct doesn't mean it doesn't exist, time is a social construct, language is a social construct, but they certainly exist.

Intelligence and beauty are social constructs, but that certainly doesn't mean I'm not smarter and better looking than all of you, social construct or not, those are just the facts.

Racists are fond of saying that because race doesn't exist biologically, this means racism doesn't exist, but that is just a manifestation of the stupidity of racisM.

You were so close, but off by one simple letter.

But you Americans believe in ghosts and angels, too, so that goes in the same category.

If you could go back in time and put ghosts and angels into your constitution, I am sure you would.

Race is a subset of the human species as a whole identified by skin color,

According to the Human Genome Project, whose final report was issued in 2003 after a 13-year detailed study to map the entire human genome, there is no race. Not a single gene, nor collection of genes designate "race." We simply have a wide variety of skin. colors, but many other features that distinguish themselves, but none of it defines a race. All that has been genetically scrubbed as a theory without justificati0on. Where have you been for the last 22 years?

Cool, now go tell a SCOTUS judge what exactly makes you a certain race and how a Law Enforcement Officer can legally know for certain what race you are by eyesight.

It has to be an exact legal definition that drives specific law enforcement. It can’t be vibes, assumptions, or ‘most people use skin color.’

You aren't referring to ICE as "Law Enforcement" are you? Don't be ridiculous, ICE is Trump's personal "Lawlessness Enforcement" organization.

In September Trump's personal SCOTUS ruled that ICE could engage in racial profiling, and his SCOTUS has also determined that Trump personally determines what exactly makes you a certain race.

Trump has determined that the primary racial categories that ICE and his personal Justice Department can target are "black", "brown", "LGBTQ", "protestor", and "Democrat".

The primary "protected" categories are "MAGA", "felons", "pedophiles", and "billionaires", and since Trump falls into all four categories, he is exempt from all US and International laws.

That is how today's American Justice System works.

Yet DNA determines all physical human traits, How can all DNA be exactly the same and produce different results. Saying verity of result is not race is the same as saying all paint is the same color. Paint is paint. And with that said, you can all thru your fucking race card in the trash, race doesn't exist.

How can all DNA be exactly the same and produce different results

All DNA is not the same. Who told you it was? It merely makes, properly constructed, with four simple nucleotide bases [adenine, thymine, cytosine, guanine] a nearly infinite variety of life. Hell, we only share 60% of our DNA with a banana. Only 99.9...% with every human on Earth; therefore, distinct differences. Just have to find the devil in the details. And paint is something I know about, being an illustrator by profession, but I'll speak to color wavelengths. The human eye, last I checked, can distinguish about 10M separate colors. Computers can currently display about 16.8 million for full color, and the theoretical number could be infinite as light wavelengths are continuous [must include non-visible light, as well, yeah?]. Yeah, that's what's said. Okay?

"All DNA is not the same. Who told you it was? "

The same person who told me there are no races.