Quote (El1te @ Feb 21 2025 07:15pm)

Okay I'll do my best here im between sets at the gym, assuming that you have no background knowledge of quantum, statistical, and classical mechanics

1st thing to understand is that classical mechanics is derived from quantum mechanics, by the use of statistical mechanics. Originally, classical (aka Newtonian mechanics after Newton who codified them in Principles of Natural Philosophy) mechanics was held as inviolable, until the dawn of quantum mechanics 1st realized by Planck. This discovery was spurred by what was called the Ultraviolet Catastrophe, where classical mechanics yielded an absurdly incorrect result as compared to what was observed in experimentation. Planck fixed this by introducing a "fudge factor" number to make his model work (which then modelled thr phenomenon accurately). That fudge factor is now known as h, Planck's constant, a transcendental number. Rambling a bit, this led to Heisenbergs uncertainties principle which posited that particles actually do not have a defined position and momentum as classical mechanics states, but there exists an uncertainty in their values, where the product of this uncertain is greater than or equal to the reduced Planck constant, h-bar (h/2pi) divided by 2. Cool, nice.

Now, micro properties (such as individual atoms and molecules) had their behaviour explained by quantum mechanics, and classical mechanics was wrong. However, if you take a macro ensemble of particles and apply statistical mechanics, you end up at the limit towards classical mechanics. So classical mechanics will work on macrostates but not microstates.

Now let's explain this with a practical example, boiling water. You stick a thermometer in and it reads 100 degrees C. But since Temperature is purely a macro property, it doesn't actually exist in reality, only the summation of the individual kinetic energies of each molecule of water. This is analogous to Pressure, which also doesn't exist in reality. These kinetic energies of water are normally distributed (Gaussian) which means that some water molecules have high kinetic energy, while other molecules have low kinetic energy. The water molecules that have high enough kinetic energy to break the surface tension of the water surface escape as a gas. This gives the macrostate of a rolling boil, bubbling water.

Now this kinetic energy distribution also applies to every single molecule in your body. Biology is a macrostate of the individual chemical reactions of molecules in your body, a ridiculously complicated and ridiculously precise symphony of chemistry in action. However, since some, very little of these molecules have such a high kinetic energy (the very far end of the Gaussian distribution) that they'll react with things that they are not supposed to, breaking the activation energy. This is the fundamental reason why biological errors occur. One wrong reaction in the wrong place can completely change how your body functions.

Quote (uskittles @ 21 Feb 2025 17:36)

Ywe do have evidence of true hermaphrodites capable of birth

Quote (uskittles @ Feb 21 2025 04:36pm)

Yeah physics is not my strong suit here but I'll take a stab at this. You made a good example. Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius, but only under the conditions we generally share on earth. If you were on the top of mount Everest or in a plane it can begin to boil at a lower temperature.

This is a perfect example of relative nature and why I think it's not as easy to say anything in regards to sex is definitive. If you know all this I would assume you could understand that.

I'll just assume in good faith you are correct as to why there are errors in human biology. But it doesn't change the fact that those aberrations do exist and can evolve. Just as culture does. So now if we can agree that intersex people exist. Clearly there is more to human sex than just male and female, because we do have evidence of true hermaphrodites capable of birth, I even posted a DOI link you can check out a few posts ago.

With all of this in mind why would you adhere to such a rigid gender definitions? I'm not even speaking about transgender people specifically. We know for a fact that asexual reproduction as well as hermaphroditic organisms exist.

My main issue is when people use the science of biology to deny the existence of transgender people because it's either intellectually dishonest or completely wrong.

And this is just me taking a guess because, again, me dumb with chemistry. If you are a chemist. What do you think about the possibilities of aberrations of brain chemistry that cause someone to identify as the opposite sex? If we discovered the chemical framework behind why transgender people feel the way they do would that legitimize it for you or not?

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Feb 21 2025 07:43pm)

This is categorically false. The only thing we have evidence of is if a hermaphrodite (exceedingly rare) has a fully functional uterus (womb), then IVF can be used to implant someone else's ovum and someone else's sperm, in the form of an embryo. The it will not be breeding it's own offspring. It will be breeding the offspring of non-aberrations, and it will not be able to give natural birth. Effectively, the most a hermaphrodite can do, ASSUMING it lucks into a fully formed uterus, is act as an artificial womb/surrogate for somebody else's children.

In all of your desperate floundering, you found one case, and so completely misunderstood what you were reading, you're now simply lying. It's fantastic!

I need to run down to the store and get some popcorn. You keep going though.

Quote (El1te @ Feb 21 2025 07:50pm)

For water, the reason it boils at a lower temperature at higher elevation is because boiling point is, by definition and observation, the temperature at which the vapour pressure of the liquid exceeds the surrounding (atmospheric) pressure. So water boils pretty cold up there in Peru, pasta takes alot longer to cook!

The science supports my position - deviation from the binary male/female sex only arise as a result of these biomolecular errors, the foundation of which is rooted in kinetic energy distributions. Now, you could say that God created the universe with this physical fuzziness in mind (as He is all-knowing), therefore these genetic anomalies are His will. And that wouldn't be wrong. We have to keep the context of biological discussions to Homo Sapiens, because all sorts of wild living things exist.

On your last paragraph, absolutely! These errors of course also happen in the brain, which gives rise to what we call mental illnesses or mental disorders (mental disorder is the correct term here, since illness implies it can be cured). If a framework was discovered, it would indeed validate the existence of transgender people. However, the science isn't there yet since the brain remains largely a big black box which isn't possible (presently) to examine. One of the reasons is that the brain is so fatty that it blocks spectroscopic analysis methods. On this topic, gay people have been searching for the posited "gay gene" which would legitimize them as an immutable minority. Alas, after searching for decades, there is no evidence yet for such a gene.

This is why it vexes me that transgender people refuse to admit they have a mental disorder. There's nothing to be ashamed about, many many people (probably most) have some form of mental disorder.

Quote (uskittles @ 21 Feb 2025 17:59)

I gave you an example of the rarest example of reproductive ability which is a true hermaphrodite. You are missing the point. There's way more variants of intersex people and they're more than capable of reproduction, even if it either the function of only male or female. Again, you simply stated hermaphrodites cannot reproduce. That is false. They can.

There's well over 20 variations of intersex people, many of which CAN reproduce. You have yet to give any source. You said intersex people are incapable of reproduction.

Quote (uskittles @ 21 Feb 2025 18:04)

I have multiple mental disorders (that was probably obvious) but I am not transgender. I don't really think there should be a stigma around it. A lot of transgender people actually did believe they had a mental disorder in the past iirc in the DSM-5 it was classified as gender dysphoria, as well as a few other body dysphorias.

I think if the stigma around the term mental disorder or mental illness were gone then it wouldn't be an issue. But because there is one and a lot of people use it as a way to discredit transgender people's identity they stray away from it now.

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Feb 21 2025 08:05pm)

You've got it backwards. You have yet to give any evidence of any intersex person reproducing. The case you showed was not an intersex person reproducing. It was an intersex person being used as an artificial womb for somebody else's embryo. That is not breeding. Let me help you, since words are hard:

breed·ing: the mating and production of offspring by animals.

No mating involved, specifically no mating. And it did not produce it's own offspring. It did not breed. Nobody did in the creation of that child. It gestated the embryo, the embryo was created without breeding, specifically.

Since you're simple-minded: The difference is that is NOT nature, that is NOT natural, it could not possibly even give birth. It had to be cut open. It did not breed. It was just an artificial womb, used to gestate an unnatural birth, of other people's child.

Weird, huh?

Quote (uskittles @ 21 Feb 2025 18:06)

Oh okay the appeal to nature fallacy. So since my mother had to have a C-section I guess she isn't a real mother? C-sections are clearly an unnatural procedure and by your logic she doesn't qualify as someone who can reproduce.

Quote (TiStuff @ Feb 20 2025 04:20pm)

you make good money? but you are also marginalized and oppressed?