Almost 2 percent of humans a born physically intersexed, as in their genitals are not physically male or female. If the visible, physical portion of gender identity is that fluid, what makes you think the subjective mental elements of gender identity are any different?

You have no idea what you are talking about; you are trying to conflate 'intersex' with the notion of 'gender identity' (something that came from the super scientific domain of psychoanalysis of transsexuals).

Break down that 2%, what is the condition that constitutes the overwhelming majority of that 2%?

Physically indeterminate genitals, as I just told you. There are some educational videos in the hopper if you'd like to learn about it.

I think what William Burns is getting at is this: If we assume a physicalist reaslist position (that ultimately explanations of the physical stuff will explain everything there is), then by accepting that there is fluidity in genitals it should be plausible that the physical make of the brain can be such that people understand/take themselves to be not in the way that correlates with their genitals.

Maybe not. I don't know.

That is exactly what I'm getting at.

[ffs, replying in thread]

William Burns doesn't understand the term 'intersex' what it means and why it is so disingenuous to fly the flag of gender identity under that population which has very specific needs and disparities.

No William Burns. 2% is not the prevalence of 'physically indeterminate genitals', that's not even a condition ffs. About 90% of that 2% number is a condition called Late Onset/Non-Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia. Males with that condition tend to be asymptomatic, it affects females and has no anatomical associations (classic CAH does, much lower prevalence).

Ask yourself why you were so quick to appropriate the challenges of intersex individuals to support poorly formed claims about the nebulous concept of gender identity. You don't understand those terms very well.

"Ask yourself why you were so quick to appropriate the challenges of intersex individuals"

Man, that's one hell of a nonsensical dodge to a reasonable question. "You're appropriating the suffering of intersex people!" is a shameless attempt to use people you don't give a shit about as a shield for your lack of a defense for why you ignore scientific evidence as to gender identity and let personal prejudice overrule unambiguous evidence.

What is the reasonable question? This person does not understand what intersex actually means not do they have any basic reading comprehension that would help them understand that there own source falsifies their claim

ahh, cool, you ignore WHOLE BRANCHES OF SCIENCE that you don't like. But Jordan Peterson's faux Jungian nonsense about female chaos, well, that's just SCIENCE!

There very much IS a spectrum of different physically sex-indeterminate genitals, just Google "Leader Scale." What is the point of arguing with a hermaphrodite about what gender they are "supposed" to be, other than to make yourself feel superior? What's the point of assigning an arbitrary gender to an intersexed baby and immediately begging hormone treatment? Why not wait until puberty? Why stigmatized a spectrum of common conditions, that do not effect you in any way?

Why are you obsessing over transsexuals in a comment section about drug treatment?

Leader Scale= Prader Scale
Thanks spellcheck

I"m well aware of that scale. Go back to what you said:

"Almost 2 percent of humans a born physically intersexed, as in their genitals are not physically male or female."

Do you understand that is *completely* wrong.

What do you call a XY with a fully-formed vagina?

I know the intersex prevalence table and the basic etiology behind those conditions off the top of my head. I can help you understand them better, but not until you demonstrate some self-awareness. Your claim was *completely* wrong, surely you can look it up and verify. Come back when you have done that.

What do you call an XX with a fully formed penis? This should be an easy answer, right?

There are never easy answers, you need to know a little molecular biology to understand things like XX male syndrome, but you don't want to retract your false claim. You won't be able to have a good understanding of any of this stuff if you can't understand why your claim:

"Almost 2 percent of humans a born physically intersexed, as in their genitals are not physically male or female."

Is plain, d-wrong.

The almost 2% comes from the Blackless Fausto-Sterling study in 2000. You want to argue that peope are either male or female, but your argument falls apart when you have to actually make the call. "No easy answers" Yeah, no shit, genius. That was my point.

Yes I know that study in detail. You seem incapable of reflecting carefully on what you wrote and understanding why it is completely wrong. It would be hopeless to try and go through the details with you.

Why don't you tell me ALL the problems with this study. But first, what gender is an XX with a penis? Simple fucking question, dipshit.

You won't understand because you can't admit that you don't have a good grasp of the meaning of terms like 'intersex', the difference between sex and gender etc.

You haven't even read the fausto Sterling study. If you did you would understand why it does not say what you are saying here.

You're the one who came in here bragging about how easy it is to assign genders to people, but then you refuse to because its "not that simple." You dismissed the study I cited with no evidence.

And you're the one that brought the topic up, this is a video about an idiot who put himself into a coma to avoid work.

Almost all of us are male or female, the 0.02% of us that don't fit in those categories are quite remarkable and have very distinct challenges that have little to do with the popular conception of gender identity. The author of the video has, like you, demonstrated a poor grasp of concepts like intersex and gender identity (see her jk Rowling video which is related to events around gender identity in a plain old male). JP always speaks very precisely on ideas like gender identity, the 'skeptic' in the video is not credible.

I cited a study for my 2% figure, where are you getting 1 out of 5000? That figure is off by two orders of magnitude. Also, what sex or gender is an XX with a penis? You don't seem to be able to address that with any precision AT ALL.

Oh, you're getting all your information from Alt-Right Gwenith Paltrow.

Take your claim that I've quoted several times and read the fausto Sterling study. You don't understand that study like so many other people averse to reading things carefully.

I think I found the study you're referencing, it arbitrarily decides not to include Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia as intersex conditions, to spite the fact that they are THE MOST COMMON causes of intersex traits. This is what we call, "muddying the waters."

You are again absolutely wrong. Please go read the very study you are voting and compare it's claims to what I have quoted you saying.

'quoting' not 'voting'

Here is a hint for you:

Does LOCAH result in people with "genitals are not physically male or female" ? What are the symptoms of LOCAH?

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/congenital-adrenal- hyperplasia/symptoms-causes/syc-20355205?page=0&citems=10
·Excess production of the male sex hormones (androgens such as testosterone). This can result in short height, early puberty and in females, *abnormal genital development* while in the womb.

Are you surprised that Jordan Peterson lied to you?

You are so sadly confused. That is *congenital adrenal hyperplasia*, the late onset form is distinct and much more common. Do you really think you have a better hold on this material than me?

So if someone is an XX with elevated testosterone, male body hair, deep voice and powerful musculature and is attracted to women, but has a vagina, they're 100% Female?

How about an XX with a penis?

How about an XX with half a penis, half a vagina?

If gender isn't a spectrum, then why can you not give me a simple answer to these non-hypothetical questions?

You are hopeless. There is no such thing as 'male body hair'.

Dear gmol,

Transgenderism scares you. I get it, and it's okay. It makes me a little uncomfortable, too. The fact that you're uncomfortable with transgenderism isn't why we're having this talk.

Additionally, your hero is looking a little silly, and people are laughing at him. I've had that happen to me, too, and it sucks. I'm not going to touch on Peterson.

The problem we're facing is that you're bloviating and self-aggrandizing and spewing shit all over my screen regarding a topic upon which you have only a yokel's understanding.

I notice you're using the term "anti-intellectualism." Let's be real, how many scientific journal articles have you read on this subject? Three? Less?

You're not an intellectual. You don't have a "hold on the material". You're arguing out of your ass about something you don't understand, and you're ignoring or dismissing the (extensive) work that's been done by actual scientists. In other words, you're behaving not as an intellectual, but as the very definition of an *anti*-intellectual.

If you'd actually read the material, you'd know that sexual dimorphism has been studied exhaustively in animals.

Would you be surprised to know that you can *make* animals gay by depriving them of testosterone during the neonatal stage? Hmm, it's almost like gendered behavior might be independent of biological sex.

Would you guess that there are *visible* differences between male and female brains in most species? And that you can *induce* a newborn baby female rat to develop a masculine brain by injecting her with steroid hormones? Hmm, it's almost as though the "sex" of your brain can be different than the sex of your body, merely from the presence of extra testosterone at an early developmental stage.

Would you guess, most damningly from your position, that preliminary studies suggest that male human beings who identify as "female" have brains more similar to those of women than those of men, and vice versa?

No, you don't know any of this, because you're not an intellectual. Stop puffing yourself up, and stop spewing shit everywhere.

This intervention comes with more respect than you'd probably guess: I know that you're not a dummy, and I expect more than this out of you. If you actually care about understanding this topic, I'd start here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6677266/

Signed,
A straight white (biological and identifying) man who doesn't give a shit about transgenderism

More Insanity. This entire thread has been devoted to debunking a patently false claim by William Burns on what words like sex and intersex mean. Your characterization about what is known about biological sex's association with the brain is unbelievably dishonest.

What the hell are you saying here?

"Would you be surprised to know that you can *make* animals gay by depriving them of testosterone during the neonatal stage?"

We don't have anything like a mouse model for homosexuality. The only thing we can do is *attenuate* partner preferences with things like prenatal intervention that does not mean those animals are anything like gay human beings. Christ, did you just find Roselli now? Read the paper and you can understand how we can't "make animals gay" ffs. Read the Adkins-Regan cite, it talks about our understanding of homosexuality in animal models with entirely appropriate caution: "In addition, the human literature assumes that early sex hormones have been shown to determine sexual orientation in non human animals. Is this the case? Most positive claims cite inappropriate experiments...". This is for m 1988, nothing has changed since. You are naive about a scientific understanding of sexuality.

I gave you a chance, but you're being persistently dumb. Maybe you're less than I thought you were, or maybe you're trying to save face. It's gross and disappointing either way.

Yes, we obviously don't have a complete model for human sexuality and gender identification. But we can make male pigs prefer to fuck other male pigs, and we can make female rats develop male rat brains.

It directly follows that it's not a *leap* to think that may be abundant biological basis for human transgender identification. In fact, I would argue the mountain of evidence points in that direction.

To say otherwise, and to say so with such vehemence, indicates that your reasoning is better described as rationalization.

The situation is this: you have a powerful knee-jerk negative reaction to transgenderism, and from it you're spewing endless mountains of shit and rationalizations and cherry-picked quotes from articles you either didn't read or didn't understand. This is fear, not empiricism or a defense of ontological/biological truth. This is nothing more than an embarrassing and failing effort to try to prop up your rotten and dilapidated mental model of the world.

Again, I don't care about transgenderism, and in fact it makes me uncomfortable. I nevertheless believe in its biological basis because of the preponderance of cross-species evidence pointing that way. The reason you haven't taken the same stance is because you seem to be an anti-intellectual and a reactionary. I'd love it if you proved me wrong.

'It directly follows that it's not a *leap* to think that may be abundant biological basis for human transgender identification. '

It is a giant leap, you are obviously not a scientist. We evaluate simpler hypotheses before making such leaps and analyze the evidence critically. There is no cherry picking here the quote from 1988 is quite correct, I am more than comfortable with the fact that studying something as complex as human behavior is very difficult and things always need to be discussed very carefully. You need to learn how to do that. You've completely misrepresented our contemporary understanding between our brains, our sex and our sexuality.

And please enlighten me with the link to whatever study you are misinterpreting when you say:
"...we can make female rats develop male rat brains."

"We"? So you're claiming to be a scientist? Because though I'm obviously writing this off the cuff over a beer and not in a professional capacity, I'm published, and I'd be embarrassed to count you among my peers with your apparent and utter blindness to bias. Your prior isn't biology -- it's a conservative opinion on gender. Biology is fingers growing in tumors and men mistaking their wives for hats after a brain injury. As such, it's not a biological "leap" to think hypothesize that atypical neonatal conditions would lead to atypical brain sexual dimorphism up to and including having masculine brains in sexually female bodies. The "leap" you're referring to is from your "men are men, women are women, all created perfectly in the image of God" mental model to the reality you're seeing around you. If you're published, I shudder to think of what p-hacked monstrosities you've produced with your indifference to empiricism and metaphysical truth. Why did you get into science if you care so little?

Another insane inference from you regarding what my background is.

'...to think hypothesize .."
You are welcome to think and hypothesize all you like, please don't present it as fact.

I haven't presented anything as fact. That's a projection of your own dogmatic defense of your pre-Enlightenment, woo woo worldview.

Here's a simple female-brain-to-male-brain rat study, as you requested. They're done regularly:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9442354
And no, scientists don't use the phrases "male brains" or "female brains". A typical male rat's brain will have characteristics identified as "masculine" by their absence in females and vice versa. A female rat's brain can be induced to share those male characteristics. If you can't recognize this as female-brain-to-male-brain, you're either autistic or disingenuous.

"It is a giant leap, you are obviously not a scientist. *WE* evaluate simpler hypotheses before making such leaps and analyze the evidence critically."
-gmol

Okay, you claimed to be a scientist, but you were just self-aggrandizing and bullshitting, as always. I am more relieved than you might guess. I care about science, and it would make me sad to think that you were out there stinking up the profession.

I'm done here, but I'll leave you with a thought exercise: are your delusions even comforting, or do they agonize you with cognitive dissonance, and you're just afraid of letting go? Because it doesn't seem like you're having fun.

Of course 'scientists don't use the phrases "male brains" or "female brains"', we write and speak much more carefully and precisely so that we don't make incorrect statements. Why don't you?

You're wrong even about this. Conditional-laden, jargon-packed academese is both bad writing and bad at conveying information, in addition to poisoning people toward science: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0261927X20902177

And thus, instead of writing, "Neonatal androgenization of the hypothalamus may decrease the hypophyseal response to GnRH by an alteration in receptor concentration and signal transduction during the infantile period," it's correct to write, "As an infant rat's brain develops male characteristics, corresponding changes in cell signaling and neuroreceptor density may allow more of the hormone GnRH to pass into its developing brain." No information is lost, and it's infinitely easier to read. You have a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like.

Meanwhile, you don't even understand what a comma-splice is. It's not within your capacity to write precisely:

"Read about science, it will help you not be as confused as William Burns."

"Break down that 2%, what is the condition that constitutes the overwhelming majority of that 2%?"

"Males with that condition tend to be asymptomatic, it affects females and has no anatomical associations (classic CAH does, much lower prevalence)."

"Of course 'scientists don't use the phrases "male brains" or "female brains"', we write and speak much more carefully and precisely so that we don't make incorrect statements."

You're making a mockery of yourself on so many levels, gmol. Please stop.

Wtf is wrong with you? *no one* says "...we can make female rats develop male rat brains" in a scientific context. You yourself say scientists don't say that. Why do you?

I wrote that, because it's *true* to the extent that male and female rat brains are discernible. I didn't soften it with pedantry. You're just uncomfortable with the reality that it exposes.

As much as I like petty squabbles and being right on the internet, I have a computer game to attend to, so I'm going to concretely and precisely say that this is my final message on this thread. Goodbye for now gmol. I hope you've learned something, and that you can one day join the modern world of us Millennials licking each others assholes and not caring so much about gender.

It is not true that " female rats develop male rat brains" "to the extent that male and female rat brains are discernible". We can see clear differences in male rat brains and masculinized female rat brains by PCR since they have *different chromosomes* and many genes on sex specific chromosomes seem to do things in the brain: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3163895/

Nothing about this is particularly surprising to a biologist.

Google Buck Angel.

No, that's you.

Basic facts about biology and things like intersex people are now 'right wing'. This is Insanity. Read about science, it will help you not be as confused as William Burns.

Uh huh. Which of the two sexes is an XX with a penis?

You are confused. Do you understand your own ignorance behind your claim:

"Almost 2 percent of humans a born physically intersexed, as in their genitals are not physically male or female."

is shamefully stupid?

For being completely obsessed with pigeonholing people's sexuality, you sure do suck at it.

Don't try and discuss things that you don't understand.

Gmol, you screech about biology because you think it makes you sound intelligent. It doesn't, you just sound like a jackass who was able to remember a few facts from 5th grade science class.

No, people are obstinate about understanding the details about biology and sex. It's a horrible thing. Burns cannot even read the papers he is "citing" and understand how he has no idea what 'intersex' means. There is no screeching, just ignorance on the side of those who don't want understand the world around them and resort to magical thinking.

The only source you've cited so far is Jordan Peterson, and he ain't exactly an endochriologist, or a scientist of any kind.

For the love of god, your own sources falsify your own claims.

You wrote:

"Almost 2 percent of humans a born physically intersexed, as in their genitals are not physically male or female."

That just isn't true. It's a lie. If you still believe that claim is true you aren't even reading what you are citing. Please read what you cite to see that your own claim is false in such an elementary way.

Gmol, your third grade understanding of science in no way invalidates it. At all. You're just fucking dumb and obstinate. Did you never grow out of your oppositional defiant disorder because you're still mentally a child?

Tell me spike. What am I saying that demonstrates I do not know exactly what intersex conditions are?

The fact you conflate sex and gender, you dipshit.

Go ahead spike, show us where I conflated them.

You're the dipshit who keeps on bringing up intersex people. Fuck you.

Read the thread. Carefully.

Retardo Montalban -

Well first of all, Jordan Peterson doesn't make the claim that his motivational talks will cure you. That's someone else attaching claims to his work that Peterson does not make.

Second, it's more about getting the tools to emotionally deal with your trauma, habits, and poor life choices. I speak from experience. I've made mistakes I'm not proud of. Peterson's book did help me quite a bit. I think his advice is fairly practical. I don't know if anyone here who is calling him a quack has ever actually read his work, but I find it really helpful in understanding the world a bit more. I generally think motivational speakers are sometimes full of shit but others genuinely want you to improve your own life as much as you can. And to some degree, you do have to do the work yourself if you're going to, as Obama put it, be the change you want to see.

I hope you are able to get to a better place in your life. It sounds as though maybe your father is pushing Peterson on you partly because he really wants to correct the damage he did, but he's going about it in the wrong way.

My stars were for you and not this video, btw.

The video is just one star all the way.

Eating an all meat and benzo diet while developing a mean Christ Complex and obsessing over stranger's sexual orientation is probably the worst life advice any dad could give to their dumbass son.

so here's the kicker, I'm fine. fifteen years working at the same company that i will retire at, own my house. Sure suffered from depression, but took years and learned my triggers, figured out the techniques i needed to ride out the low points and adjusted my life. It took a long long time but it worked (getting close to 50 now). The one piece of advice i can give anyone is life is complicated and nothing happens quickly or is a one size fits all solution, it takes years of careful planning and work and may in the end not even help! That's just how life is.....but that bit of advice doesn't make patreon subscribers or sell books.

*gmol

Seriously. Gmol is cherry-picking like a motherfuck and doesn't bother to look into evidence his biases don't like.

Yeah this is sad.

Ulillillia resumed development on Platform Masters recently, though, so at least we have that.

http://abload.de/img/ahstgob79jhj.png

Word, this sucks.

Furries are mainstream, Chet is gone, Red is down, there are hundreds of other video aggregation sites now, and we are old.

I don't know, this meltdown in the comments reminds me of old times.

No OZ, the long useless thread has been about one simple claim being absolutely wrong in the way anyone with google can figure out. For the nth time it is not true that:

"Almost 2 percent of humans a born physically intersexed, as in their genitals are not physically male or female."

This kind of flat-earth thinking is what is behind some very mixed up ideas.

The idea that 2% of the population is not male or female is fucking ridiculous.

Only a cult member would believe something so shockingly and obviously false. The social justice cult disseminates false propaganda about trans people all the time in order to normalize them, even if it means indoctrinating an entire generation to believe lies about gender.

Congratulations on your new religion.

See what I mean?

It depends on if you want to exclude cases of Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia.

Indeed. The 2% number is almost entirely relatively common LOCAH prevalence (who do not have any associated genital abnormalities). Most intersex conditions are (obviously) sex specific...e.g. Klinefelter *males* (some are asymptomatic) and Turner *females*. The set of intersex individuals that really are difficult to classify are Complete Androgen Insensitivity, Complete Gonadal Dysgenesis, SRY -ve XX male and Ovotesticular Disorder Of Sexual Development. Each condition is complicated e.g. some XX males appear are asymptomatic, dysgenesis will have a uterus but no ovaries etc. At the end of day you are at about 0.02%.

I should say specifically that 0.02% of the population have either dissonant sex phenotype and sex genotype (presence of SRY really) or a difficult to classify sex phenotype - those are the only people who cannot be classified as male or female. The vast majority of intersex are either male or female and have conditions that are largely sex specific.

So you cop to the existence of XX Males, XY Females and true hermaphrodites. Congradulations! Those are Ann Fausto-Sterling's 5 genders! It turns out we totally agree after all! Still doesn't explain why you're so down on the concept of gender identity...

I know much much more about this than you. There are no true hermaphrodites in humans. You still can't seem to figure out why you original claim is so wrong and none of what I wrote has anything to do with 'gender'.

Your very first post in this thread was specifically about Gender Identity, you retard.

Then would did you respond with your illiteracy about intersex conditions?

What is 'transmedicalism'?

It's you gmol, being an idiot. You could look it up, but you can't learn new things because they anger and frighten you.