| o_O.Q said:
Does the fact that humans exist with more than 2 legs mean humans are not a bipedal species?
Counter question - Does the fact that human beings can exist with more than two legs mean that human beings aren't bipedal species? No, they most definitely still are human beings and this is my point. There ARE exceptions, it is not a religion like you hilariously think it is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
as the sickness gets worse and testosterone levels rise, the symptoms of the illness become more pronounced - male pattern balding, acne, etc... shouldn't that be obvious?
In most cases it is pretty serious. But there are plenty of female athletes who naturally produce much more testosterone than the average woman. These women are capable of competing just as well as the next woman who may or may not have high testosterone. For women that aren't athletes PCOS can go undetected since they don't receive comissioned checkups.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
example please
http://breakingmuscle.com/sports/testosterone-testing-may-unfairly-target-female-olympians
http://www.thestar.com/sports/amateur/2015/07/27/court-suspends-rule-banning-female-athletes-with-high-male-hormone-level.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this is most pronounced ( testosterone levels approaching those of men ) in cases where people are intersexed or in other words people whose gender is ambiguous
it is a religious belief to rationalise this as somehow being a normal condition its just like my example from earlier with people being born with more than 2 legs
When did I rationalise that this was a normal condition? Just because I simply don't exclude the data their bodies provide then I am religious? lol, I thought including all data was the opposite of religion. I was using this condition as a simple example to illustrate that women can have testosterone levels in the male range, nothing more, nothing less.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
well the scientists you are addressing here are disagreeing with you "behavioural variation between the sexes" meaning all you are doing now is spewing your religion and i honestly don't want to hear it
Here's the full quote:
But experts have questioned whether it can be that simple, arguing it is a huge leap to extrapolate from anatomical differences to try to explain behavioural variation between the sexes. Also, brain connections are not set and can change throughout life.
You see, when your style of discussion meets the criteria of social media wherein you take random words from an interview and you fit them into your agenda so you may propogate falsified claims in order to make it seem like I'm being voted against...uggghhhhh, which is exactly what you have done here... This paragraph strictly states that it is a huge leap to extrapolate from the anatomical differences to try to explain what we are discussing here. In the very paragraph YOU quoted!
Nowhere does it say that behavior is bound by the persons sex. My turn. Give me an example of a way a woman can behave in which a man can't.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A woman is a woman regardless of her muscle mass or hair growth." seems like you are implying here that hormone therapy for sex changes is invalid
I'm sorry it seems that way to you...but I did not contextualize that hormone therapy for sex change is invalid.
|
