There are ONLY 3, maybe 4 genders, but there are multiple types of sexual identies.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
No, you've been saying they are some 3rd kind of gender. They aren't.

They are neither male nor female, they are intersex.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: tanstaafl
No, you've been saying they are some 3rd kind of gender. They aren't.

They are neither male nor female, they are intersex.
Again, most are not... and again, 'Intersex' is no more a new gender than someone suffering from being a conjoined twin is a new species.

It is a birth defect, nothing more, nothing less.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Again, most are not...

Most =/= all, thanks for agreeing again.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Again, most are not...

Most =/= all, thanks for agreeing again.

It is irrelevant to the point that, none of them are some kind of '3rd gender', they are, all of them, simply genetic defects/mutations. Nothing less, and most assuredly nothing more.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Oh, now it's 'none'?

Funny, I think I trust the medical professionals over internet cranks.

Abstract

Anne Fausto-Sterling s suggestion that the prevalence of intersex might be as high as 1.7% has attracted wide attention in both the scholarly press and the popular media. Many reviewers are not aware that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia. If the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling s estimate of 1.7%. Source

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: tanstaafl

Oh, now it's 'none'?

Not sure what you mean 'now', I have been very consistently stating that there is no such thing as any gender other than male or female. So, yes, obviously, that means none of the so-called 'Intersex' people you are referring to, which includes both those who have physical abnormalities (so are obviously aware they are different), as well as those who wouldn't know without a DNA test.

Funny, I think I trust the medical professionals over internet cranks.

That was actually a good link, showing a much closer to the truth about the numbers of real, actual 'Intersex' individuals.

However, you seem to be suggesting that the term 'Intersex' when used in this much more strict meaning refers to a 3rd 'sex' or 'gender'. It doesn't. It is simply the term used to describe people with physical deformities caused by genetic defects.

Not sure what's funny about it though. I feel sorry for those with the physical defects, I imagine it tends to make their lives much less comfortable...

originally posted by: tanstaafl
However, you seem to be suggesting that the term 'Intersex' when used in this much more strict meaning refers to a 3rd 'sex' or 'gender'. It doesn't.

Sure.

...or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female.

Hmmmmmm, neither male nor female. Sounds like they aren't one of those two genders.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply: tanstaafl
Hmmmmmm, neither male nor female. Sounds like they aren't one of those two genders.

Is not classifiable...

Which they aren't. It doesn't mean they are some 3rd gender, they are simply... again, since you seem to be incapable of understanding, they are simply poor souls suffering from...

GENETIC DEFECTS.

Nothing less, and most certainly, nothing more.

Now, do you want to keep playing on the merry go round?

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Is not classifiable...

As male or female, therefore they are a separate gender. If you read any of the person's work I linked you'd see this is what he's saying. You know, being that he's an expert on the subject and not some internet crackpot who got his medical degree at a Holiday Inn.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: tanstaafl
As male or female, therefore they are a separate gender. If you read any of the person's work I linked you'd see this is what he's saying. You know, being that he's an expert on the subject and not some internet crackpot who got his medical degree at a Holiday Inn.

Yeah, and 97% of scientists agree that 'fill-in-the-blank-that-is-now-or-always-has-been-proven-demonstrably-false'...

Question: can Intersex people mate and reproduce successfully? No? Then they are not a new/different sex, they are an genetic defect, an aberration.

Sorry, regardless of what some one person (or any so-called study) says:

"If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science."

Oh, and the above video explains precisely why all - yes all - of the so-called studies that show benefit from the plant based diet and/or problems from eating red meat and saturated fat with respect to human nutrition are wrong.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Yeah, and 97% of scientists agree that 'fill-in-the-blank-that-is-now-or-always-has-been-proven-demonstrably-false'...

Let me know when you are a scientist who published peer reviewed articles on the subject and not just some rando posting on the internet.

Until then I'll take the opinion of the person who researched the subject and not the angry vomitus of internet cranks.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: tanstaafl
Let me know when you are a scientist who published peer reviewed articles on the subject and not just some rando posting on the internet.

I understand that you are handicapped by your irrational religious faith in the current establishment 'scientific process', and simply refuse to acknowledge the reality that the vast, vast majority of all peer reviewed papers are pure and utter bull#, mostly intentional, the underlying data for which quite often show the precise opposite of what the summaries claim. This is due to the way our government and major institutions are in bed with the big corporations that fund all of these so-called studies. The only studies that get funded are the ones that will parrot the corporate/establishment narrative.

They have hijacked real science, and what they put out is just marketing lies, nothing more.

I still cannot fathom just how much it must hurt being you.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
I understand that you are handicapped by your irrational religious faith...

I have no religion.

But I can read a scientific paper and reply to it with more than 'Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!'.

Let me know when your article on the subject gets published so we have more than just your opinion and we can analyze your research conducted over years of intensive study of the subject.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: tanstaafl
I have no religion.

You have blind faith in corrupt bureaurats masquerading as scientists.

That is the very definition of ... oh, wait, oh my god, you're right, that isn't religion, that is the definition of a cultist.

Thanks for correcting me!

But I can read a scientific paper and reply to it with more than 'Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!'.

Yeah, you prefer 'whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!'...

originally posted by: tanstaafl
You have blind faith in corrupt bureaurats masquerading as scientists.

Sounds like something an internet crackpot would say when they don't have their own work available for review.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: tanstaafl
Sounds like something an internet crackpot would say when they don't have their own work available for review.

Rotflmao!

Man, it must really, really hurt...

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Man, it must really, really hurt...

No, not really, I can keep pointing out that all you've presented is your crank opinion.

Like I just did.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: tanstaafl
No, not really, I can keep pointing out that all you've presented is your crank informed opinion.

Fixed that fer ya, but...

I would point out that I think it is better to present my own informed opinion, than blindly parroting the opinion of bloviating quacks masquerading as actual scientists with nothing but mal-informed opinion to back their claims, but of course that would just be completely ignored by your TDS drenched drivel fingers.

Carry on...

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Fixed that fer ya, but...

By changing my quotes? Nah, that's just a weak ass move by someone who cannot offer anything in regards research or medical into the topic other than their own sad opinion.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: tanstaafl
By changing my quotes?

No, by correcting your quote.

Nah, that's just a weak ass move by someone who cannot offer anything in regards research or medical into the topic other than their own sad opinion.

Said the person incapable of offering their own opinion so has to rely on the opinion of someone else who is almost certainly lying.