JK Rowling Backlash

[CmdrKing]

Nah, just ignoring the point to peddle eugenics, best as I can tell.

‘Cuz “lots of human traits are results of various hormonal signals being muddled and creating an end result that you won’t find just looking at the DNA, and the more stages in the process there are the more and more varied ways you’ll see this happen” is a pretty goddamned simple point, and yet it is deliberately missed in favor of calling all such variations mistakes that will end in death.

[clearspira]

Nah, just ignoring the point to peddle eugenics, best as I can tell.

‘Cuz “lots of human traits are results of various hormonal signals being muddled and creating an end result that you won’t find just looking at the DNA, and the more stages in the process there are the more and more varied ways you’ll see this happen” is a pretty goddamned simple point, and yet it is deliberately missed in favor of calling all such variations mistakes that will end in death.

Lots of human traits are a result of genes too. You seem to be just as beligerant as you think he is on this point.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Yeah but King was insisting upon conditionality, not denying genes ability to influence.

[AlucardNoir]

@BridgeConsoleMasher Assuming you share CmdrKing's viewpoint then yes, yes I did.

@CmdrKing Ah yes, the eugenics accusation, which together with accusations of sexism and/or racism are the favorite "counter argument" people that disagree with scientific discoveries like to use when there is no actual logical counter argument to be head.

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

@BridgeConsoleMasher Assuming you share CmdrKing's viewpoint then yes, yes I did.

I don't assume anything.

[CmdrKing]

Lots of human traits are a result of genes too. You seem to be just as beligerant as you think he is on this point.

The starting point here was Alucard claiming intersex traits were purely genetic, thus with inherent infertility (and further implication of being inferior due to use of Darwinist language). Which is factually false, because of the actual mechanisms by which genes influence growth and the attendant possibility for other factors to come into play.

But surrounding that deliberate misunderstanding with a lecture on RNA encoding doesn’t change the fact that what that does is form proteins, but if other proteins get in there by whatever means, boom, non-genetic outcome.

But that would interrupt the dogmatic genes are destiny lecture I guess.

(All of which is off topic technically since we were originally on trans, not intersex, meaning that sociology, psychology, and other get to join the genetic and biochemical pool, but sometimes starting at “sex is not binary” helps with “gender is a fuck” conversations.

[AlucardNoir]

Lots of human traits are a result of genes too. You seem to be just as beligerant as you think he is on this point.

The starting point here was Alucard claiming intersex traits were purely genetic, thus with inherent infertility (and further implication of being inferior due to use of Darwinist language). Which is factually false, because of the actual mechanisms by which genes influence growth and the attendant possibility for other factors to come into play.

But surrounding that deliberate misunderstanding with a lecture on RNA encoding doesn’t change the fact that what that does is form proteins, but if other proteins get in there by whatever means, boom, non-genetic outcome.

But that would interrupt the dogmatic genes are destiny lecture I guess.

(All of which is off topic technically since we were originally on trans, not intersex, meaning that sociology, psychology, and other get to join the genetic and biochemical pool, but sometimes starting at “sex is not binary” helps with “gender is a fuck” conversations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexuality

Completely off topic.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Completely off topic.

Then why it posted??

[AlucardNoir]

Completely off topic.

Then why it posted??

So you could have something to contribute to the conversation by asking that question?

[CmdrKing]

“ The study found that one third of identical twin pairs in the sample were both transgender: 13 of 39 (33%) monozygotic or identical pairs of assigned males and 8 of 35 (22.8%) pairs of assigned females. Among dizygotic or genetically non-identical twin pairs, there was only 1 of 38 (2.6%) pairs where both twins were trans.[4]”

Shockingly, it turns out that the link you provided said... the thing the trans person said about it: genetics are an inadequate explanation of gender variance.