/sci/, why do people still think male and female can be defined

>>9115025

because that's the case for 95%+ of people

>>9115025
Because it is right literally 99.99999999999% of the time so until you have a model that is better we will keep using it. And I mean it. This is what science is. If you can come up with a solid 50 genders theory that actually explains biology better then we will all adopt your 50 gender theory but right now your shit is merely Tumblr fan fiction that could be true but has no proof so no thank you.

>>9115025
Because anything else are syndromes.

>>9115035
it's literally false though
this is not even a philosopher's case where you can just imagine thought experiments that counter the definition
there are actual living empirical counterexamples
female =/= XX chromosomes
no scientific definition of a human female can ignore this fact
especially when continuing to insist on the falsified definition actually does social harm to a real group of people, i.e. trans persons

>>9115054
>there are actual living empirical counterexamples

Yeah and for the longest time there were empirical counter examples to Aristotelian physics but no one could come up with a better system, and as Aristotelian physics was kinda right in everyday life with a small margin of error it kept being accepted until Newton found out what was wrong with it, fixed it and proposed a better theory.

The same is happening here. There are trans women, but there is no scientific consensus on what they are. And the fact that no people who identified as trans existed like 50 years ago looks very fishy to me.

>>9115060
you might not wanna compare the chromosomal definition of the sexes to goddamn aristotelian physics if you're trying to defend it
what practical importance could that definition possibly have that's so great it must be maintained even when it's known to be false and causes actual social justice issues, gives shelter to bigots, etc?
we know scientifically that there's no truth in telling a trans woman "you're not female because you don't have XX chromosomes"--how could that possibly be not worth recognizing?

>>9115054

>hey, look at this weird syndrome, haha look 0.2% of people are ultra-weirdos so we should just ignore the XY and XX stuff that happens with the other 99% of people.

>>9115074
>you might not wanna compare the chromosomal definition of the sexes to goddamn aristotelian physics if you're trying to defend it

I am not defending anything. I have no dog in this fight and I personally do not give two fucks. I am just asking you to give proof, which you have refused for already 3 posts.

I identify as trans-3-testicles which means I have 3 testicles. Please collect all biology textbooks and please add a third testicle to fit me because
#NOTALLMENHAVETWOTESTICLES
#SOMEHAVE3

etc. etc.
>what practical importance could that definition possibly have that's so great it must be maintained

We kinda need a solid theory of genetics. If your rigorous theory is a tumblr blog post then I doubt anyone will adopt it.

>causes actual social justice issues, gives shelter to bigots

I don't give two shits. I am not political. This is a science board. Do you have science, or are you going to keep crying about politics? Do you know about /pol/? /pol/ IS the board for politics. You should go there.

>we know scientifically
You are clearly not a scientist so you cannot talk from the authority of one. Go write a scientific paper and submit it to nature. When your paper of 50 genders reaches nature I'll give it a read. Sounds good?

>>9115081
>I am just asking you to give proof, which you have refused for already 3 posts.
literally the only piece of proof in question here is the one you've granted from the start, which is that there are people who count as female without having strictly XX chromosomes, or as male without having strictly XY chromosomes
this disproves the claim that "male = XY, female = XX"
whatever basis someone wants to claim for their transphobia then, it can't be that definition

>>9115100
Ok sure buddy.

Someone please move this thread to /pol/.

>>9115079
see >>9115100
that's all this is about

File: delicia2.png (7KB, 282x179px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 282x179px

>>9115074

Sorry, but people with mental diseases and XY chromosomes are still only retarded men. Science should not care about your stupid personal political ethical position, the distinction of XX and XY is useful for most humans and should still be used until someone finds a better most useful definition. Self-identification is a very bad model since it strips science of it's universalism and turns everything into relative bullshit. As you should know, models in science are replaced when a new model has a better predictive capability, if your self-identification model is better at making the male-female distinction and has more predictive power then go make the case for it. But I'm pretty certain that since your stupid politic based model isn't good enough to tell the sex of an unborn baby in any phase of the gestation period, it'll be dropped like shit into the toilet of stupid ideas.

>>9115105
>>9115111
i haven't said that sex is defined by identification, only that it's not defined by XX/XY chromosomes, which everyone who has googled this shit agrees with
obviously the fact that there are not just two chromosomal groupings shows that there are not just two well-defined sexes but a sliding scale of typical male to typical female
the people who let politics distort their understanding of science are the ones who keep holding to "muh chromosomes" just to have something to slam trans persons with

File: delicia3.png (6KB, 242x208px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 242x208px

>>9115100

The diffinition: If it has XX then it's a woman and if it has XY is men is much more predictive than your stupid self-identification theory. It has >99% accuracy.

Another problem is that you seem to mistake the way that science and math work. Math deals with 100% accurate deffinitions that can be destroyed by counterexamples while science deals with models chosen by prediction capability and replicability.

>>9115120
>which everyone who has googled this shit agrees with

Kek funny you claim this given that no one here is agreeing with you.

>>9115120

there are two clearly defined sexes, male and female with two possible pairings of chromosomes associated with them: XY and XX. Just because less than 1% of people are weirdos this does not mean that the first deffinition shouldn't be the one used.

>>9115120

>there are not just two well-defined sexes but a sliding scale of typical male to typical female

You mean: there are not two well-defined sexes but two giant chunks of points that define 99% of people and a thin line between the two that accounts for less than 1% of people. That's not a spectrum, there are two clearly defined groups and some error in between.

>>9115133
see >>9115120
>i haven't said that sex is defined by identification
you act like that middle school level chromosomal definition wins by default, but obviously it's not the one scientists actually accept, because they know that it's false
if you want one with more predictive power, literally just add other sex characteristics like morphological, hormonal, secondary, and mental ones--complicating it in any of those ways will obviously yield higher predictive capacity because your simpleminded chromosome obsession is just inconsistent with the facts
but the larger point is that just like the rest of nature, sex is obviously not binary
sex chromosome types are not binary, and neither are the rest of the sex characteristics: it's not "penis or vagina", "breasts or no breasts", etc, there's always a spectrum, which you're not even denying
>>9115138
obviously they just haven't googled it then
ironic for a "science" board to not invest this minimal effort in a scientific topic

File: FBQSSPAjSD8.jpg (58KB, 610x350px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 610x350px

>>9115025
Why do people still think humans can be defined as bipedal? Some are born without legs, therefore I can identify as legless and the government should pay for my leg amputation surgery.

>>9115158
>That's not a spectrum
yes it is
a spectrum is a continuum
you're granting that the two groups are not discontinuous
according to your statement, the anti-trans argument "you're not female because you don't have XX chromosomes" is still literally a fallacy

>>9115164
the reason this analogy doesn't work is that nobody is saying "you don't have two legs, therefore you aren't human"
but many people are saying "you don't have two X chromosomes, therefore you aren't female"

File: image.jpg (55KB, 614x591px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 614x591px

You're brain doesn't choose your gender your DNA does.

>trannies are killing themselves over this

Science does not care about your feelings.

We are not going to bend the rules of the scientific method because trannies are offing themselves.

>>9115143
look at the OP pic
if male = XY and female = XX, then what sex is a person with XXY chromosomes? what sex is a person with X0? what sex is a person with XXY? what sex is a person with mixed XX & XY?
if you take your own definition seriously, you will conclude that the answers to those four questions are: neither, neither, neither, both.

>>9115187
see >>9115188

File: deliciauma.jpg (15KB, 311x317px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 311x317px

>>9115171

Trans people are not women just because they want to, they have male chromosomes, they have male genitalia, they have a bunch o male characteristics that group them as male. The only possible theory that would make them female would be one wich cares about self-identification, what would be very dumb. But you said that you don't want self identification, right? So what do you suggest? What theory would put them as female?

Also, no, since the number of humans is finite if you plot all of them in a graph you would clearly get a discrete pattern, so no continuum for you.

The Xy/XX deffinition is a very useful one and just ignoring it to not make a small parcel of the population sad would be very stupid. I'm not claiming that it is philosophically sound, just that it's useful as fuck and that your rant is clearly your personal political cruzade to defend trans with no regard for science whatsoever.

File: delicia4.png (89KB, 1328x1140px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1328x1140px

>>9115188

Ok, but you were ranting about trans people. What does trans people have to do with genetic abnormalities? Are you sure that you're not simply exploiting a very rare counterexample to push your own personal political ideology over the issue?

"Identifying" as a female does not magically make you a female.

Facts > feelings

I would rather a million trannies kill themselves than to change science for the sake of feelings

>>9115199
>The only possible theory that would make them female would be one wich cares about self-identification
one that cares about it, yes, not necessarily one that is only about it
what you would conclude if you took the science seriously is that there is no essentialist definition of either of the sexes, but an assortment of sex-relevant characteristics which can combine in different ways, meaning there are multiple ways of being female
>>9115207
>What does trans people have to do with genetic abnormalities?
the fact that sex is a spectrum along several variables means that the "chromosomal argument" against e.g. trans women is fallacious and that there is definitional room for trans persons

Attention Trannies: Science does not care that you people are offing themselves. Science is not going to bend over backwards to appease you people.

Also just because 0.2% of the population have birth defects that doesn't invalidate chromosomes when 99.98% of the time they are right.

You people are fucking delusional.

>>9115242
Also stop encouraging children to transition. Thats fucking child abuse

They say trannies can't reproduce but thats fuckin false when the rate of tranny kids is doubling every year.

File: image.png (117KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 640x960px

>>9115242
>>9115250

>>9115025
>disorders

Answered your own question, dope.

>>9115250
>can't sexually consent
>can consent to sexual transition
>the kid already knows it wants to be fucked in the ass and not to fugg people even though it has never experience it and shouldn't even know about that kind of stuff

This thread restores my fate of humanity to know that /sci/ hasn't taken the marxist "trannies are sane" pill.

>>9115265
Im a gay bttm and I knew I was gay far before I knew I was a bttm.

File: 1499924394691.png (636KB, 654x720px) Image search: [Google]

636KB, 654x720px

>>9115281
>anecdotal evidence
>because it happened spontaneously(I hope so at least) to me, it's spontaneous for everyone else

Is xyy the master race?

>>9115060
>There are trans women, but there is no scientific consensus on what they are
OP isn't talking about trannies, though.

File: KlinefelterSpermPossibilities.jpg (16KB, 400x253px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 400x253px

>>9115307
They are literal chads

>>9115281
>I knew I was gay far before I knew I was a bttm.
how?

>>9115025
the fug is an O chromosome

File: you_.jpg (15KB, 174x381px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 174x381px

>>9115025
>XYY
>Appearance of normal male
>Tend to be tall in stature
>Lack of control over impulsive behaviors
>Usually average intelligence
hmm...

>>9115478
At around 14 I knew I was gay at around 18 I knew I was a bttm. At around 23 I knew I was a vers/bttm

>>9115489
sounds gay as shit sorry to say

>>9115188
If the spectrum had a more consistent distribution then we might reconsider the two sex model, but it's not well distributed. The spectrum is highly concentrated on two opposite points with a few abnormalities in between. This means *technically* that a spectrum exists, but that it's negligible. In fact, that spectrum cannot allow for an XX person be XY on any chromosomal level. (And vice versa). So the spectrum exists, but it's not the same spectrum that is generally hypothesized to explain the mental condition of trans people.

Tl;DR: you're trying to say that the mere existence of a spectrum somehow proves that a different one exists.

File: pedi-gu-review-intersex-4-728[1].jpg (32KB, 728x546px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 728x546px

>/sci/ not knowing there are 3 different sex determiners
I knew /sci/ was filled with ignorant fucks pretending to be smart but fuck.

File: what science news sites actually believe.jpg (92KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1000x667px

>>9115035
>literally 99.99999999999% of the time
This would mean that there are 0.00074453055 people on the entire planet who have a chromosomal intersex condition.
You gotta keep track of what order of magnitude you're working on when you pull numbers out of your ass like that, you brainlet.

>>9115025
It correct to first order approximation, and thus sufficient in any discussion where chromosomal disorders aren't relevant.

>>9115176
>you don't have two X chromosomes, therefore you aren't female
But that's right.

File: Screenshot from 2017-08-20 11-03-33.png (34KB, 303x278px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 303x278px

>>9115645
>Freaks now determine the rule.
No

Captcha related.

>>9115025
>/sci/, why do people still think male and female can be defined by XY and XX sex chromosomes?

XX / XY chromosomes are used to determine the sex of regular heatlhy people and not the retarded 1%.

>>9115025
Because nearly 0% of the people claiming to be transgender (or any other trendy gender "thing") actually have a sex chromosome disorder. If someone has one of the disorders listed in your pic i feel they are well within their rights to call themselves whatever gender they please. However if someone is XX they are female, if they are XY they are male. Doesnt matter what their mentally ill mind tells you, these are facts.

>it's a continuum if there are several disorders that exist outside of normal
Cancer isn't a cell type we celebrate

>>9115645
Chromosomal sex and gonadal sex are always the same unless mutilated by a surgeon. Your chromosomes determine what gonads you grow. Anyone claiming to be something when their chromosomes indicate otherwise is mentally ill. If i say im a fish why cant i get gills implanted and why doesnt walmart but in special spawning pool bathrooms for me? Because if i said i was a fish that would make me a crazy person, its the exact same thing when it comes to gender but too many morons only care about "muh feels" instead of the science these people actually need to be cured.

>>9115054
no model is correct all the time. being incorrect less than 1% of the time is pretty good for social sciences

You guys are pretty confused about how chromosomes work.

Y is the only sex-determining chromosome.
if there is ANY Y chromosome, it is male.
All other is female.

>>9115025
what proportion of transexuals have these disorders

>>9115294
That poor boy looks miserable. Someone toss him a football.

>>9115025
Because there's an instinct among people to think of everything as a binary. Black and white, "me" and "other," etc. But in fact, there are very few things in actual biology and other aspects of the universe that are not on a sliding scale/spectrum. This is probably the cause of many of our political and social conflicts.

>>9115054
>female ≠ XX
define "female" then

>>9115223
>what you would conclude if you took the science seriously is that there is no essentialist definition of either of the sexes
so you concede that the conclusion to your verbal diarrhea is nothing of any use to anyone in any sort of characteristic or predictive sense (i.e. the things scientists care about)

glad we can agree your pseudo-theory is all hot air

>>9117041
>instinct among people to think of everything as a binary
instinct is to group things into whatever is most meaningful, whether thats 2, 5 or however many groups makes sense.

> very few things in actual biology and other aspects of the universe that are not on a sliding scale/spectrum
and most things do not nicely fit on some sliding scale or spectrum.
thats also just another way we think of things so we can understand it better.