koti

I suspect it's the semantics, how you perceive and define what sex is and how many there are based on this perception. I call it a birth defect, you call it an additional sex.

I think it might be due to some personality traits, I guess I'm trying to find objective truth in things and I'm looking at this subject from a broader perspective. I have a hunch that we would be tending to agree on more things if the context and medium would be different. I can't agree on your creationist analogy though, I just don't see where stuff overlaps in this analogy. Please stop quoting me and posting to me, thank you.

So when a brand new car leaves the factory with a defective ECU it becomes a scooter. Got it.

Okay, were getting somewhere - because vast number of individuals in the species are born with strictly male or strictly female traits (the number of births with ambiguous genitals is in the range of 0.02% to 0.05%) Following wikipedia, the term "disorders of sex development" (DSD) has been used since 2006 and a shift in language considered controversial since its introduction. The fact that intersex people (or any other minorities) suffer from stigmatization sucks and I'm all for protecting those people but not through grotesque ideological stances like insisting that people born with intersex birth defects are a different sex. Also, when you will go through andropause you will not suddenly become a Karen, you will be the same old iNow, would you agree?

Intersex people who are born with several sex characteristics for example a set of genitals of both sexes suffer from a defect and are not evidence for homosapiens having more than 2 sexes as a species. Gender which you mention is yet a different subject which you mixed in, this thread doesn't deal with gender. The only brainfreeze I get is when I have to yet again read your presumptous tone towards me, simple minds tend to do that. Thank you for enlightening me what my country is and explaining through the "PESEL" example. It is as much impertinent as it is weird, are you stalking me again?

Ok, I'll take a deep breath and I'll try to go as calm as I can about this. Please lets try to analyze this, according to your line of thinking, the Swyer syndrome and chimerism are direct/indirect evidence for more than 2 sexes existing in homosapiens, correct? Please elaborate and explain why a certain defect in a species is according to you evidence which allegedly undermines fundamental traits of a species. I'm afraid I will have to agree with you on this one, I'm not very proud of myself for participating in these ideological/political threads 🤷‍♂️

It just solidifies my stance towards you when you cherry pick things from my comment while evading the meat. And it's all to make the poster to look like a dick and a moron for future readers while downvoting ad nauseam - thats being a dick. This will work but only in a closed and biased environment - this site. This is what you were supposed to adress: "No, post menopausal women are not an argumet nor the infertile women are - Women bare children, men don't and thats ok, really it is grotesque that you seem to think its not. You have to be a really special kind of dick to argue that an evolutionarily built in defect or trait of a species is evidence for another evolutionarily built in trait" Yes you did. But you also wrote this which is a really dirty and fallacious swing and the subject. Levels of grotesqueness are hitting the stratosphere here, this kind of debate is something that I came in here 6 years ago to counter against the religious and anti scientific crackpots, besides trying to aquire new to me knowledge which I’m getting none from this.

This whole premise which was introduced by @swansontat the begining of the thread is as much wrong as it is absurd. I genuinely do not know if you both plus @CharonY are so far down the rabbit hole of PC that you've lost your screws already or you are just pretending for the sake of something. It doesn't matter as far as I am concerned as unconscious incompetence is as much incompetent as deliberately bullshiting people into a view (anti vaxers come to mind) No, post menopausal women are not an argumet nor the infertile women are - Women bare children, men don't and thats ok, really it is grotesque that you seem to think its not. You have to be a really special kind of dick to argue that an evolutionarily built in defect or trait of a species is evidence for another evolutionarily built in trait. You're a DICK iNow. You haven't got reprimended for calling me one a few years back so it's only fair I won't be reprimended for calling you one now. You do go straight into confrontation in most your post regarding me so dick is what you get.

Seems like an interesting way of having a fruitful conversation with your 5 year old: - Mommy, will I be having a kid in my tummy when Im older like you had me in your tummy? - Go play on a swing. Seems like a rhetoric simmilar to the one used by conservative religious people.

I have no argument. So you would suggest I explain to my 5 year that he could have a child in his tummy?

So you think I shouldn’t explain for now and leave him hanging with the notion that he might have a child one day in his tummy like Mommy or should we explain to him that girls get to have kids in their tummies and boys don’t?

I misspelled „kid” in my previous post. Our 5 year old asked us recently if hes going to have a kid one day like Mommy had him in the tummy. Do you think we should tell him its complicated?

So whats the answer, how many are there and what are their traits and definitions? Our 5 year old son asked the other day if hes going to have a kind some day and I want to give him a comprehensive answer and keep the narrative simple for now.

I’m really eager to find out the answer to the OP question.

Id’d say that in a nutshell, Justice is what @dimreepr gets for sitting at his folks place and smoking weed.

No. You are not perfectly willing to be convinced that youre wrong or mistaken, your stance is predetermined and biased. I am willing to accept that and agree to disagree. I certainly will not launch a witch hunt against you to get you fired, call you a bigott, conspiracy theorist, call your thinking anti vaxxer/climate change denialist or try to put you in my line of thinking with a dozen downvotes. See the difference? While youre convinced that your stance is well ballanced in this thread and that you analised all view points to arrive in your convlusions, I assure you its not the case after seeing what has been happening in this thread. Youre locked in your bubble so tightly and for so long that its no longer the case that you don’t see the light coming in, you forgot that the light even exists. Maybe I should find out who you are, flood your employer with how youre not respecting me and hire people to spray paint your house with „iNow is a biggot, fire iNow!” After all, I want you to respect me and I feel youre not doing a very good job on it.

The level of your blindness which is caused by your bias is only topped by your hypocrisy.

It's not about that, for the n'th time this is about your daughter using legal action against you, leading a witch hunt against you at the end of which you loose your job. The fact that you (and a few others) remain blind to what this is about is astonishing.

No I am not conflating issues Charony Your "creationism and intelligent design" remark is deplorable. Youre trying to paint my and professor Kathleen Stocks argument as creationist and intelligent design leaning. Youre not bringing any actual merit to this thread instead trying through a really crude and slimy way to deflect and paint her argument as religious extremism, shame on you.

Again like I mentioned to iNow above, I would strongly urge you to bring this up in person with professor Kathleen Stock and the 200 Academics who support her freedom in academia. I am more than disappointed in you Phi, you were always the high ground for me on this site. Now you've either unkowingly become a slave to a PC agenda or you really do believe that giving birth to a child is a made up thing. Which is it?

Have you considered my perspective and how exhausting it is to live every single day of my life of This Thread and not being accepted for who I am, being targeted for every conceivable atrocity and needing to constantly defend a female feminist philosopher who teaches feminism against the whims of you and others? You should be ashamed of yourself, go to your room. So can I again claim to be adressed as Ze or can’t I? It’s not the thread which is circular, it’s the subject. Wouldn’t it be beneficial for everyone if this thread got closed? It’s a political, ideological ping pong which can never be solved through science and the scientific method so why keep this up?

Having one right now. You however, should have a Snickers.

There is no way of getting through your confirmation bias, I'm done. I suggest you pick this up with professor Kathleen Stock hereselef or the 200 academic philosophers who signed an open letter in support of her academic freedom.

It is notable that after all that has been said in this thread youre still trying to use the same primitive, dirty strategy of trying to find a single point of failure (where Im right btw) in anything I post and based on that single trivial point, trying to build an image of me being wrong on everything. I have nothing to add in this thread, I feel I said everything I wanted to say.

Doesn't believe, doesn't give a shit, whatever.