Luiz Henning

Sorry, I think I lost, what was the question?

XD Basic science, in my opinion, is not "Opinion". I think it's amazing how this was cutting-edge biology in the 1600ths, but today, in the middle of 2021, in a forum that was supposed to be a science forum, this is controversial and the disagreement on this issue.

I only covered it because it fits into the topic, but read it all, I refute any ideas developed here that sex is a "spectrum", or, as you claim, there is a third sex

Ok, I got your schedule. I have already defined a scheme about what a Man and a Woman are, in short: Individual who has an ability to produce male gametes (Spermatozoa) > Male. Individual who has an ability to produce female gametes (Eggs) > Female. Of course, again for exceptions where individuals don't produce gametes or produce both, and I reiterate again, EXCEPTIONS, the Biologist doesn't research a species based on exceptions, furthermore, nor does he do research based on deleterious mutations, Anyway, the your argument was based on a magic to say that sex is a specter, nor am I going to waste my time answering the rest of your messed up dissertation, but allow me to reinforce my idea through the text I'll write now: As more and more people look for themselves as trans, non-binary and are in gender non-compliance, have an impulse towards classifying as obsolete the notion that males and exist as real biological entities. Instead, some argue, we have only varying degrees of “masculinity” and “femininity”. And getting into a deeper idea: Based on this reasoning, the very idea of segregating any space or sport using binary sexual categories is seen as illegitimate, since if no definitive line can be drawn, who can say that a supposed “ male “ isn't it actually a female? Many even claim that we should let people decide for themselves which sex they are, as if that were a matter of personal choice. I noticed two types of arguments here in this OP, already answered in my first text, but I will make a point of detailing it further. Both arguments - that of intersex conditions and that of secondary organs and characters - stem from fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of biological sex, which is related to the distinct type of gametes (sexual cells) that an organism produces. Ser, males are the sex that produces small gametes (sperm) and the necessary large gametes (eggs). There are no intermediate gametes, which is why there is no sexual spectrum. Biological sex in humans is a binary system and therefore there are only two. However, it is crucial to keep in mind that the sex of respondents within a species is not based on the individual's ability to produce certain gametes at any given time. Prepubertal men do not produce spermatozoa, and some adults sterile of both sexes are don't produce gametes due to various infertility problems. Still, it would be incorrect to say that these have no discernible sex, as individual sex corresponds to one of the two distinct types of reproductive anatomy (ie, ovaries or testicle) that develop to produce sperm or eggs. , regardless of past, present or future functionality. In humans, including here transgenders and so-called “non-binary”, which are no exception, this reproductive anatomy is unmistakably male or female in 99.98% of cases. (1). By analogy, we flip a coin to randomize a binary decision because a coin has only two sides: heads and tails. But a coin also has an edge, and at about 1 in 6,000 (0.0166%) (2) thrown (with a nickel) it will fall into that edge. It's practically a the same probability (3) of someone to be born with an intersexual condition. Almost all heads or tails will be heads or tails, and those heads and tails don't come in grades or blends. That's because heads and tails are qualitatively different and mutually exclusive outcomes. The existence of extreme cases does not change this fact. Heads and tails, despite the existence of the border, remain discrete results. Likewise, sexual development outcomes in humans are almost always unmistakably male or female. The development of ovaries versus testicles, and therefore of female and males, are also qualitatively different outcomes which, for the vast majority of humans, are mutually exclusive and unqualified or to varying degrees. Male it's persistent, despite the existence of intersex conditions, continue to be in different categories. The existence of intersex conditions is often taken into account when arguing for the inclusion of trans women in women's sports and other contexts. But transgenderism has absolutely nothing to do with being intersexual. For the vast majority of inidividual claiming trans or non-binary identities, their gender is not an issue. It is the primary sexual organs, not identity, which determines a person's sex. The different male and female developmental trajectories are, themselves, a product of millions of years of natural selection, since secondary traits will contribute to evolutionary fitness in males and second in different ways. Women with narrower hips had more problems giving birth to children with larger head and those therefore with larger hips had an evolutionary advantage in childbirth, of course, humans who remained in the tropics did not acquire wider hips as they had no evolutionary advantage. for that, walking with the hips together allowed a fast locomotion, which may have allowed more distant destinations. This is observed in the difference between sub-Saharan African and African-American women, who in general have a smaller hip than white women, but this is beside the point of what is being discussed, consider this as a curiosity, returning to the topic : That (Big hips) wasn't relevant for men, which is one of the reasons their bodies tend to look different. But that doesn't mean that a person's hips—or any of their characteristic secondary categories, including beards and breasts—defines their sex biologically. These characteristics, although they have evolved due to sex-specific selection pressures, are completely irrelevant when it comes to defining a person's biological sex. Advocates of the sexual spectrum model no doubt meant well when these theories were developed. After all, who wouldn't want an explanation of human biology that validates all of our mutable forms of self-conception and understanding? But over time, it became clear that they created a false theory of biology that distorts the human nature and harms the vulnerable. When you try to achieve equality and justice by distorting reality, inequality and injustice are never eliminated, only reallocated. But anyway, this is my argument basically, I hope I managed to synthesize it well. And one more thing before leaving: If you can prove to me the existence of these gametes I will give up in this debate. That's it, see you later XD

So go ahead, show me empirical proof of this supposed "3rd sex", following your logic, there is a kind of Human, who doesn't have two arms LMAO Giant Cope By the way, I don't even know why I'm still answering you, you just dont add anything in any debate. Mainly on this one. Go back, prove that anomalies involving sex chromosomes give rise to a 3rd sex, otherwise I won't answer it again, I'll just ignore it I just want to see the magic in trying to accomplish that hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahah

Humans have in their genome, a characteristic of having two legs, two arms, two eyes, and... Two sexes, male and female. It is like saying that humans with one leg or one or more arms are a different type of human than one with two legs. Klinefelter's Syndrome, Turner's Syndrome, XX males and XY females are that, chromosomal abnormalities, exceptions that neither prove the rule nor characterize themselves as "Sex". I regret that science does not follow its ideological agenda to the letter. Show me my ideological bent. By the way, prove to me that deleterious anomalies and mutations are characterized as new "Sexes" XD

I'll give you my honest opinion: no, there are no more than two sexes, and let's understand why: "Sex is a spectrum." False. Very few of the sexual species are exceptions to anisogamy: there are small gametes abundant in numbers that we call male, large gametes with high energy investment that we call female. Sex is binary. Why do they say that then? In addition to ideological motives, they use the phenotypic variation of secondary sexual characteristics as supposed evidence against the binary of sex. These features are called secondary for a reason: they are more contingent than primary features and anisogamy. The secondary ones are beard, breasts, fur, etc. It's basically the things that come up only after puberty. The primaries are the genitalia and, importantly, the gonads, and in the gonads the gametes, and there are only two in our species: sperm and oocyte (egg). No there is the "spermatocyte", no there is the spectrum. Another thing they use is rare variations like ambiguous genitalia, Klinefelter and Turner (chromosomal syndromes). Here, we see even more that their problem is incompetence of conceptual analysis. The species is not defined by exceptions, especially those that are deleterious (I've even seen some here citing fish species, which is totally beside the point as far as I know we're dealing with Humans, not fish). Claiming that humans are not binary in sex because there are XO (Turner), XXY (Klinefelter) etc. people. it's like saying that human beings don't have two legs because people are born with less or more. Or say men produce milk because they saw a man produce milk on some TV show once. It is a biologist's duty, I think, to have a sense not only of the variation in a species he is interested in, but also of the necessary characteristics to say that species is that species. Looking only at variation is like doing statistics with variance only, not mean. Another obligation is to be aware, however vague, of how stable the characteristic is. How fundamental it is. Now, natural selection is based on reproduction and survival. Intellectual neglect with characteristics linked to reproduction is one of the worst possible crimes against biology. A third thing they use is an adherence to the notion that there is a separation between "gender" (the social and cultural part) and "sex" (the biological part). Biologists, great sociologists, as this notion came from outside biology and is by no means consensual. For many biologists it seems rather that sex is an "open" trait enough to allow for the addition of elements that are influenced by society and culture. There is no need to try to remove the cultural part and call it another name, in fact that it is not even possible, as no one knows what "totally cultural" is, if there is any such sexual characteristic. Progressive biologists are under the influence of postmodernism, one of the worst intellectual fads in academia, an intellectual cancer that at its core is deeply unscientific, as it is anti-objectivity, anti-universalism, ie, anti-epistemic values of science . Nothing I have said here is new. The science of sex as a human phenotype is not new, it has not changed substantially in the last 5 years. What highlights that those who changed were progressive biologists, who became radicalized, embraced identity, and do not know how to separate ideology from science.

As I demonstrated at the beginning of the topic, this text is not intended to bring anything new, just to respond to certain people on Twitter who hammer out in discussions like this. Just show that some of your hypotheses have not been refuted. After all, hypotheses were already well received by the scientific community at the time and that served to support that author's narrative. In other words, they are accepted hypotheses that serve to support a hypothesis not yet verified. Only by thoroughly testing a hypothesis and its premises can we then develop a theory capable of explaining a given problem. In Lamarck's case, the problem is the transformation of species over generations. That's basically it, if you don't find this topic useful, just ignore it. Resultados de tradução

My aim in this topic is to explain why lamarck is not completely wrong. I'm impacted by twitter discussions that HIT the hammer, without references, that such a thing is a proven scientific hypothesis and such a thing is a refuted hypothesis. To say that Lamarckism is a refuted theory is correct and we should not revisit it to explain the evolution of living things. But this is not to say that all the premises assumed by Lamarck have been refuted. In this sense, it is noteworthy that premises are also hypotheses. So without further ado, let's get to the point of this topic: 1) Confusion between causation and correlation Character transmission BY repetitive effort = the Lamarckian theory or Repetitive effort for a given activity would be nothing more than the natural (intrinsic) or relatively constructed expression of the form or genotype, which in turn is transmissible (Darwinian theory) Lamarck placed great emphasis on expression/behavior as a transmissible attribute while Darwin showed that it is the particular or general genetic form/architecture, which is transmissible and/or heterogeneously heritable, and which in turn is one of the main causes for the transmission and manifestation of certain behavior. Lamarck postulated that the phenotype, which is particularly produced by the combination of bio-variables and environmental circumstances, is fundamentally transmitted or transmissible via repetitive effort. Darwin postulated that it is the genotype (or form) that is in fact transmissible. The phenotype expresses the set of emergent or dominant traits within an individual or particular bio-context. The phenotype can skip a generation and manifest itself in the subsequent generation/grandchildren, or even lose its strength and of course all these scenarios will fundamentally depend on structural reproductive circumstances, such as marital sharing of common traits, especially recessive ones, so that they can manifest, possibly, environmental variables, etc. However, the genotype, which brings together all the spectra of particular expressive/phenotypic dominance and recessivity, is the one that will be undeniably transmitted, and of course in complex life forms such as human, this will occur from a trend of diversification, phenotypic and genotypic, if we are like mutants and/or recombinants from our parents and so on in a chain of genetic preservation and modification. Example I start exercising and realize the potential for sculpting muscles. According to Lamarck, I would pass this ''gradual transformation'' or expression to my children. In fact, I can pass on as an intergenerational legacy this DISPOSITION to sculpt muscle, that is, the genotype and not necessarily or directly, the phenotype or sculpted muscles. So, one or more of my hypothetical children could be born with this disposition... It can also happen that one or several of them are born with ''new mutations'' of this characteristic and convey the idea that my repetitive effort was passed on to them as a genetic legacy. Lamarck concluded that the phenotype via repetitive strain is transmissible. Repetitive strain is an expression of the phenotype and it is the genotype that is transmissible. Lamarck wasn't completely wrong... because phenotypes can also be transmitted, as long as intergenerational transmission results in their expression, like father, like son. However, in my opinion, repetitive strain is not the cause but the result of a certain phenotypic or chronically emergent disposition, which is very latent in us, which we cannot control because it is dominant and imperative to do so, in the case of behavioral dispositions. Another similar case happens with epigenetics, epigenetics has a completely different theoretical system than Lamarck proposed, although it restores a similar premise. In summary, the assumption of acquired inheritance has not been refuted. It was only used in a narrative that did NOT explain the intended problem. And the fact that there is confusion between causality and correlation as mentioned above. The law of use and disuse for example, can alternatively be explained by natural selection, with more robust evidence (Darwinian theory). And although the law of inheritance of acquired characters was refuted as a mechanism of evolution, it is being revisited as a hypothesis to explain mechanisms of non-genetic inheritance.

I talked about the hormonal hypothesis, and about food, epigenetics is a subject that I’m still delving into. So I prefer not to give much opinion (But I have some doubts about the epigenetic cause in Homosexuality)

I still don't understand what he meant by "left side", I'm a 36 year old "boomer" (as they say), I have no idea if this is a joke, or he is talking about the political left side.

I realized now, it was a typo on my part, I apologize, I meant in the singular "Gene Gay". There are people who think that a single gene plays a unique role in homosexuality, disregarding that in fact, all genetic characteristics are polygenic (With some caveats, which are exceptions and do not prove the rule). The 1990 study by geneticist Dean Hamer was completely misinterpreted in my country's media. To the point of literally saying "Being Homosexual is inirent to human beings" (Yes, they really made that statement) My criticism in question, was that. I believe that homosexuality is much more linked to environmental, hormonal and psycho-social issues, I recommend this great text below: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6026959/

What would be the left side? And I don't admire John, I just found his objections interesting, I was polite to him, because the same was with me

Lunatic argument, did not show me who refuted this study, what methods were used to refute, and what date they were refuted, just claimed to be old "probably refuted". And he also said that I have agendas at the end. LMAO However, as I said before, recent studies are in the text above, if the child cannot find it without the help of an adult, I can do nothing. I don't even have time for that.

I appeal to the age hahahahahahaha, but I would like then, since this text has been "refuted", to present me who refuted it, what methods were used to refute, and, mainly, on what date were they refuted? (Since most of those wikipedia hyperlinks are as old or as old as these studies mentioned)

This and only one, there is much more where I address exactly that. you gave me the idea to coin a fallacy. "I appeal to age", would be a nice name.Lol

I am really sorry I have already dealt with a large part of them in the text, so come back again.

The parts that are in your "evidence" were dealt with in my topic, I just mentioned which ones were. Now, if you want to see an explanation of why but duly mistaken, due to the nature of your method, go back to the text.

didn't you want the parts? Those are the parts that are in your "evidences" (if we can call evidence wikpedia. LMAO) that are properly treated in my topic, which again speaking, you have not read, you have not read and you hate those who are going to read. I am not your "comrade" and much less a "friend". Anyway, it's good that you understood. Perfect, now I am waiting for the refutations and the evidence raised by me.

From what I've reviewed so far, I can already put bailey, Ganna, Kallman, Kirk, Bearman and Bruckner, kendler and so on. Particularly the debate with Comrade JohnSSM, and his admiration for the selective collection of information. And here is demonstrated once again his inability to argue decently, to laugh is not an argument, not to scoff either. In the meantime, I am waiting for you to actually read my text and explain where and when my evidence is substantially wrong. And obviously, dealing with the evidence and points raised by me.

No, and here you demonstrate once again your deficiency in the incapacity of textual interpretation. What I said was that ignoring my data is irrelevant in this discussion, and if we continue like this, we will have a fruitless debate. I have already reviewed some of your data, and I can safely say that some have already been refuted by recent studies. Why do I speak of them openly on the topic that you probably will not read. Yourself, and it's not an "idiotic and silly" attack, I'm just reporting an axiom. On the contrary, we would both be right or in agreement if you had the cognitive capacity to interpret or at least read, even if it is a mere two lines.

The only one who appears to have a severe functional difficulty to interpret a minimal reading, is you. And the evidence contained in the link below (which you have not read, will not read and will have a deadly hatred for those who read) does not point to any environmental variant. A His intellectual incapacity, mixed with his over-inflated ego, creates a mental and ridiculous atrophy comparable to that of an autistic child. Consider the evidence raised in my topic, and then you refute something. Or simply accept that homosexuality is influenced primarily by the environment rather than the other way around. Otherwise, if you do not have the capacity to accept such a real-life blow to your fantasy and egalitarian boy. You simply do not have the ability to prove otherwise, and by the way, that but it seemed to me to cry than a scientific argument to the study mentioned, but really, from you, I do not expect anything "scientific".

I was wrong, I presented the wrong study, and this one was already answered, if I'm not mistaken, by Bailey in the same year, the study I wanted to show was this one: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Gay-Men-and-Lesbian-Women-with-Molestation-History%3A-Steed-Templer/e14ce3d6640d92c00a1157dfd747880fda38ecbd This study is actually from 2010, I believe that both can be related, both the fact that homosexuals are prone to sexual abuse, and sexual abuse turns them into gay. I was going to present this fact in correlation with this one, to prove my initial thesis in the text, but it was already too big, and I thought it had a good basis. (I believe that should have put this fact in the least curious) I believe that what is in fact, the most genetic in homosexuality, is mental illness. Higher rates of mental illness among gays are likely due to genetics, not the environment, reveals a twin study showing significant genetic (but not environmental) correlations between neuroticism / psychoticism and homosexuality https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19588238/

Lol If you want, I have a thousand more collections here on how this is influenced by the environment. As a matter of fact, since it measures the validity of a study by its date (most of the links in the wikipedia citations are already over 25 years old. Lol) There is a 2019 study, very recent, that reported the same thing. https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cdev.13317 But enough of that autism, it's looking more like a card game.

One more thing, to complement my text, the data by Tomeo et al, points to a strong relationship between child abuse and homosexuality https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1010243318426