so where exactly are you disagreeing with me?

is it on whether sex is a binary or not?

it is a binary when it comes to the biological classification of sex focusing on reproduction but biologists also acknowledge that there are exceptions that are produced that cannot fit neatly into these categories, but for practical purposes the categories are still used

since you believe you have a better classification system can you explain to me how you would differentiate between male and female?

You are kind of making my life a bit awkward when you just step back and say "Yeah, you've been right this whole time you idiot".

Like, thanks for acknowledging that sex isn't a binary and that individual sexual variation is "a massive topic" but I mean, that was kind of my argument. Like, I've never been arguing against "Biologists". Hell, I am one. I've been arguing against you and your bad takes.

Again, it sounds like we both agree that the binary is (to quote you) "for practical purposes" and not fundamental and objectively scientific, but you are just really mad about that fact...

Again, if that's the case then it's literally just people saying one thing and acting out another. At best it's confused about what things mean, at worst it's an overt lie.

Intersex is only about 4 times more likely than down syndrome. Should we also accomodate norms based on people with down syndrome, or should we continue to recognize them as an outlying exception? Intersex isn't a sex, and it's existence doesn't make sex a spectrum.

No, just no. Biological sex is an evolved binary. You don't sometimes have two moms and a dad. You don't have a mom, a dad, and a gleepglorp. You have a biological mother, and a biological father. Yes, mankind has done some fucked up playing God shit like make a child using only the DNA of two women, but that doesn't occur in nature. Humans are a biological binary. Anything that doesn't fit is a mutation that likely won't reproduce.

"Again, it sounds like we both agree that the binary is (to quote you) "for practical purposes""

so why didn't you say so? haven't you said this entire time that sex is a spectrum?

i said from the very beginning that we do this classification based on what is typical or binary but obviously atypical characteristics still occur

but you have been pretending since the very beginning as if atypical characteristics mean that a category is invalid and that's just stupid and dishonest

if any random person is taken out onto a street and asked to assess 100 people for whether they are male or female 99% or 100% of the time they'll be right

"and not fundamental and objectively scientific"

ok well give me your better classification system? please elaborate on your more scientific way of categorisation

"but you are just really mad about that fact..."

i find what i perceive to be dishonesty at play here unsettling yeah, i don't really believe that you actually believe in a lot of what you are saying, but obviously i'm a not psychic

i don't think for example that you really believe that we live in a world where people can go out into the public and be confused at who is male and who is female because of the very small number of exceptions that exist, but that is what you have been implying throughout this whole discussion

The difference between a spectrum and a bimodal distribution is an extra axis. They are not mutually exclusive concepts. In fact, they are fairly inclusive concepts.

As for my "better classification system", that isn't really necessary. "Ease of classification" is a largely aesthetic goal (ie it is constructed from human's desires to put thing into neat little boxes).

Overall, the point behind all of this is not that "we should always wonder whether someone is really a man or a woman" or whatever you are saying. That isn't and has never been my argument. The point ties back to that original article that spawned this discussion. We should not force our neat little box on individuals who exist outside of it. We should not deny the identity of a trans individual on the basis of biology, because we don't know their biology (many transgendered people biologically vary from the typical "bimodal peaks" of the sex which their birth genitalia match and tend towards the gender they identify as) and even if we did, it doesn't fucking matter. We shouldn't say "you are penis so stay in the penis box" because that is ignoring the complexity of how an individual's biology exhibits sexual characteristics.

" We should not deny the identity of a trans individual on the basis of biology"

which means what exactly? that the minute a man calls himself a woman then he becomes a woman and we should just accept that unquestioningly?

i really don't care about what anyone does, my issue is when they are trying to force nonsense onto me... if a man wants to identify as a woman and dress up as one? by all means he should knock himself out but when it comes to forcing me to play along with what i personally consider to be delusion? well that's a problem, that's when i must ask for clarification on what a man and a woman are defined as in this context and if i see a sensible argument coming up i'll come at things differently... but thus far none have emerged

"it doesn't fucking matter"

it does when these people want to force people to accept delusion through pressure from government or otherwise

"because that is ignoring the complexity of how an individual's biology exhibits sexual characteristics."

how do you think people differentiate to begin with? they take those characteristics into account and make an assessment AUTOMATICALLY/SUBCONSCIOUSLY

the reason why this is an issue at all is because people want the assessment to not be based on sexual characteristics but on identity

my thoughts exactly, so much about supporting the "minority rights"

enough with brainwashing the kids from an innocent pure age with the sexual preferences of a minority that is asking for too much

and it is sad that only Muslims seem to give a shit, this shouldn't be about religion at all

giving too much to minorities is having adverse effects on this country, and Brexit is not going solve any of it

Quite a read. I'm tagging here. Don't mind me.

"Words" are not the problem, especially if we teach kids that those words are not an insult.

And while some (not all) of those sources mention "teens" I do not believe what is being mentioned is exclusive to that age group. As I've said before, it is important to address these topics before these kids become widely introduced to external biases. At the primary school level, the purpose is not specifically to address individuals who have already discovered their identity or sexuality (first of all, you say that this only begins at puberty but often times this isn't the case), it is to get in front of biases and give individuals the tools and information that they may need in the future.

Because whether you like it or not, kids get introduced to these biases early. Insults like "gay" are used all of the time by kids in primary school.

And you talk about the "bees and flowers", but conversations about orientation and identity do not have to be sexual. I agree that most often, they probably shouldn't be, however, they do not have to be.

I think it is fundamentally ignorant to say that these things have no interest to kids so we shouldn't teach it to them. Kids are like sponges. They will pick up bits and pieces of everything they see and that includes biases and misinformation. It is much more difficult to address these topics once those biases and pieces of misinformation have already been established, and most kids will just say "oh, okay" and move on with their lives if you address these things before biases arise.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/what-your-child-needs-know-about-sex-and-when/201112/teaching-your-young-child-about

"I advise parents that the age of 5 is a wonderful time to lay a foundation for what homosexuality is and to instill in your young child a sense of tolerance and acceptance for being lesbian or gay."

"I think it is important to have a discussion about transgenderism by age 8. "

"By starting our discussions about homosexuality and transgenderism early in our children's lives we increase the likelihood that they will grow into tolerant and respectful adolescents and adults. If we ensure that we have built a solid foundation for our children by age 10 on most matters that pertain to sexuality we stand a better chance that our children will behave and act in healthy ways as they become young women and men. "

These points were mentioned in the larger context of what has been discussed and I am not planning on starting a whole new conversation with you. Just to wrap up our previous conversation, we have largely found agreement on all of my main points (even though you seem to insist that we haven't). These ideas that you object so vehemently to are actually not very radical at all once you stop jumping to conclusions and purposefully misunderstanding everything someone says on this subject.

i fully support them ie stop teaching young children about this topic, children should not be taught in schools re this topic they can make thier own mind up when older. it isnt just muslims who are against this Christians are also against this i hope so soon we see parents from other faiths protesting this stealth-homosexual promotion drive. it seems someone somewhere is constantly nurturing religion out and its been going on for a long time...

edit, just to add i dont like the way the protests are being held holding placards up outside schools is incorrect, many of them are uneducated and only being told to do so by others.