ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
ok, how about this?
it's not ok to engage in homosexual sex (which is one of the defining characteristics of being gay)
Trump sez: Transgenders B gone!
- Thread starter ok doser
- Start date
ok, how about this?
it's not ok to engage in homosexual sex (which is one of the defining characteristics of being gay)
Right Divider
Body part
Logical reasoning has never been a strong suit of the fanatical radicals that reject God's way.
We haven't got to that part yet.
glassjester
Well-known member
Why not?
Because we have to figure out the first part first.
glassjester
Well-known member
What's the first part? It isn't obvious what you mean.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Nope. It's fine to be left-handed. It's not fine for a man to have sex with another man.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
The first part is to get JudgeRightly to acknowledge that his chart is not accurate.
No, the first part is to establish that errors in genetic code do not make a new gender.
A normal mother will always have two X Chromosomes.
A normal father will always have an X and a Y Chromosome.
If you want to do a punnett square with one or more people with abnormal numbers of chromosomes, by all means, do. Just realize that they're ABNORMAL.
NORMAL Punnett squares have two chromosomes from each parent and four possible NORMAL outcomes.
Extra chromosomes are usually the result of an error in cell division.
https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=90&ContentID=P02126
glassjester
Well-known member
I don't see why that should have any bearing on your response to my question. Should only individuals with genetic anomalies (ie, XXY) be considered "transgender"?
But people do have them.
But everyone is not normal.
But they're still people.
But everyone is not normal.
But people who have them are still people yes?
Haven't got to that yet.
glassjester
Well-known member
Let's get to it now. Your conversation with JR can continue, unaffected. Should only the individuals with genetic anomalies (ie, XXY) be considered "transgender"?
Doesn't make them not errors...
So what's your point?
And? The number of people who have
The percentage of those who are NOT normal (ie "XX" and "XY") is statistically insignificant. My point remains.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
so what I'm getting here is that they're people with errors in their genetic code and they're not normal
i think both jr and fool would agree on that much
to me, the question becomes "how does society deal with the non-normal?"
to many (not saying you, fool) the insistence is that they be viewed as variants of normal and accommodated in ways that the majority finds problematic
because of feelings, etc
not sure if either of you are familiar with ben shapiro's youtube videos
here's his response to a similar question:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
XXY prevalence is estimated at 1:500
that's 0.2%
small percentage, large when extrapolated to the total population = 15,200,000 worldwide
651,400 in the states
you probably know one
in fact, they are as likely to be unaware of it as you are
OK, now that we've solidified that we go back to the diagram.
Let's make it crystal clear to everyone what the expectation is with the rest room.
We put an XX on one door and an XY on the other door.
Simple enough yes?
Here comes the XXY, looks to me like they can use either rest room.
XX present? (checks chromosomes) YES. Enters rest room.
XY present? (checks chromosomes) YES. Enters rest room.
There's the point, and it's not even a point it's an observation of reality.
Objections? Anyone?
Let's make it crystal clear to everyone what the expectation is with the rest room.
We put an XX on one door and an XY on the other door.
Simple enough yes?
Here comes the XXY, looks to me like they can use either rest room.
XX present? (checks chromosomes) YES. Enters rest room.
XY present? (checks chromosomes) YES. Enters rest room.
There's the point, and it's not even a point it's an observation of reality.
Objections? Anyone?
