Let me guess, a hype article with zero benchmarks.

One of the original supporting data sources was a myth of the Ainu people containing a woman who hunted.

If you want biased and unscientific sources keep digging into their claims.

I refuted this article when it was published based on their incredibly biased and cherry picked data sources which were entirely baseless.

I wish more people were willing to apply critical thinking and analysis to such claims. All falsified claims are a setback and detriment to humankind’s comprehension of the universe.

There’s no accounting for someone with worse taste than SatansMaggotyCumFart

Hardly a comparison worth making when there are no benchmarks.

at his happy dance?

You mean the idiotic cavorting of a dipshit who thinks he’s being handed the power to write regulations for his own companies and fuck over the workers who actually produce the value?

I have been calling for the left wing to do this in Australia for years.

We will not beat these weirdo dipshits by pretending they aren’t weirdo dipshits.

Calling them out with direct language at every opportunity is the path to victory.

It’s endlessly amusing to me that people come into a post about adhd and then downvote anyone who explains their experience.

I struggled all through school with math classes (which I still passed) and it turns out Im actually extremely good at math. I just didn’t realise it until I was programming video games.

I was working on machine learning in games in 2009.

All this to say, the education system doesn’t deal well with people who think differently.

If Im getting it correct every time it is altered then clearly it isn’t an issue.

There is no way you are doing calculus and functions and relations in your head.

That is an assumption you aren’t really in a position to make.

If I arrive at the correct answer every single time then I clearly understand the principles.

I don’t know if Dr. Strange would technically be lower because he hasn’t been practicing for a long time? But I see what you mean.

Dr. Strange, if he’s practicing medicine, might decide not to try and save you (he was a neurosurgeon IiRC) because it would hurt his stats.

JD would try.

I honestly can’t recall if JD specialised.

Given the same medical technology I would place JD the highest and furthest right.

Not just because I like the character but because he truly does give a shit about his patients.

“Male” and “female” are, biologically speaking, not distinct and mutually exclusive categories in humans.

They are and you repeating a claim without evidence does nothing.

Sexual dimorphism is real and artificial means of changing or replicating some parts of sexual dimorphism does not invalidate the underlying biology at play.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism

Male and female are so indistinguishable that it’s possible to identify them by their pelvis alone.

It’s a term coined by bigots to misgender trans people

Unfortunate origins aside male is jot a gender and therefore not misgendering. Biological man is misgendering.

What do you think will be the outcome of arguing that sex and gender are the same? That’s literally the side of the argument you have chosen.

Either they’re separate and gender can be changed or they’re the same… and you disagree with trans rights.

The hormones aren’t native to the person

And therefore are artificial. Take them away and what happens? Secondary sex characteristics return to their baseline…. Mostly.

I provided you with my definition of biological sex. If you are so interested in continuing this discussion the least you could do is provide your definition as I requested.

how would giving you the function go a credit card not make you a credit card?

I would still be a human, because changing one part does not change the whole.

If you have the outcome of male attributes, you are in effect a male.

A poor argument given that FTM cannot get real testes, again being artificially mimicked at best.

The primary sex characteristics, that you seem so fond of, can be removed.

But not functionally replicated by artificial means. Also I haven’t based my definition of sex, or argument against sex change being possible, on primary sex characteristics.

You do seem fond of this ‘counter argument’ though. Shame its not counter to anything I have said.

I have only stated that changing secondary sex characteristics is not sufficient to change a persons sex.

Biological sex, as determined by a number of factors during development, is unchanging. Gender however can be changed.

Im surprised I have to repeat that at this point.

being able to change the body with HRT.

Artificial changes to a body are just that, artificial.

Inserting an rfid chip under my skin doesn’t make me a credit card. Taking some hormones doesn’t make you female.

This incessant boundary shifting and virtue signalling that everyone must play along with the artificial and pretend it is reality will never see broad public acceptance.

Changing gender is real, changing sex is not and you could go ahead and provide a definition of sex that is holistic and entirely changeable with current technology if you disagree.

If you think you were right, which part of biology is the sex identifier? You haven’t answered that.

I have already very clearly articulated my answer to this. Go back up a couple of comments and read it again if you need to.

though I would argue it potentially changes your sex

Then you are arguing against the prevailing medical and scientific opinions, gender affirming care can assist with aligning secondary sex characteristics but does not change the patients sex.

It has long been an argument of the trans community that gender and sex are different, which Im not disputing at all but you are trying to make unclear.

Feminizing hormone therapy is used to make physical changes in the body that are caused by female hormones during puberty. Those changes are called secondary sex characteristics.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/feminizing-hormone-therapy/about/pac-20385096

For your convenience you can check the difference between primary and secondary sex characteristics here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_characteristics

HRT is gender affirming care and is not a ‘sex change’ which is outdated and offensive.

It’s odd that you’re trying to ‘debunk’ what you see as a bigoted term and you’ve come full circle to something even worse.

You should look up the difference between sex and gender before you continue arguing down this route.

If you can’t pinpoint a single specific one

So my answer must be simple, when discussing a complex topic, but you will circle back to claims of complexity to dismiss anything I say.

That is hardly a good faith response.

I would say it is the sum of biological processes that result in the expected sexual dimorphism observed within the majority of the population, resulting in biologically male or female traits.

If their hormones are such that they are growing in the manner you’d expect for a male or female then they are biologically that sex

Show me a research paper that makes this claim. It is called gender affirming care and not sex affirming care for a reason.