Your accurate observation is orthagonal to Evelyn’s also accurate observation. Even if you completely ignore gender identification and transsexuality, you cannot accurately separate all healthy, normal human infants into either “male-bodied with penis and testicles” and “female-bodied with vagina and ovaries.”
“Naturally occurring and not representative of any pathology.”
It is reasonable to call such mutations (and chromosomal abnormalities) non-pathalogical when they don’t interfere with the particular individuals wellbeing or goals. That doesn’t mean they are normal. (Although in general telling people they are weird is considered impolite.)
If it makes you feel better you may note that it isn’t normal to have a genius level IQ, be six foot three with perfect facial symmetry and live to 110.
I was asked what my definition of normal was, and gave it. All you’ve told me is that yours contradicts it; what is yours?
The relevance of my statement is I implicitly reject your earlier claim, which thrusts your abnormal nomenclature upon others..
you cannot accurately separate all healthy, normal human infants into either “male-bodied with penis and testicles” and “female-bodied with vagina and ovaries.”
The relevance of my statement is I implicitly reject your earlier claim.
Right … since I claim it’s normal, and you claim it’s not, and we’re talking about the same phenomenon, as far as I can tell we’re operating under different definitions of “normal.” So I want to know what yours is. If I think it’s better than mine is, I’ll adopt it.
That link includes some definitions which agree with me and some which do not; I gather that you agree with something among the latter, so I’ll leave it at that.
That link includes some definitions which agree with me
No, it doesn’t. Unless you are referring to “in accordance with scientific laws”. Which would mean genetic abnormalities could only be ‘abnormal’ if they were the result of, for example, witchcraft.
To make things interesting there has been speculation among biologists that Joan of Arc may have had Swyers Syndrome—an XY genotype, female external appearance and internal non-functioning testes. If the mutation in the SRY gene was the result of witchcraft it would put a new spin on the whole ‘burning her at the stake’ thing.
Well, most of the rest of the definitions are either self-referential (“a normative example,” “within the ranges of normal functioning,” “constituting a norm”) or merely vague (“within certain limits”). Those don’t contradict me, they just don’t say anything else useful either. The exception is the definition from Wikipedia, which in its full context) notes that the concept is not easy to define objectively.
Before continuing in this conversation I want to be sure of what we’re arguing about. If your main point is that intersexuality isn’t normal, that clearly fits your definition and does not fit mine; argument resolved. If you’re pointing out that my definition of “normal” isn’t the most common one, you may well be right, and that fact by itself doesn’t bother me. If you think my definition of “normal” is not a useful one, I’d like to hear a rationale, so that if I agree with it I can update mine. Otherwise, sitting here nitpicking is neither productive nor amusing.
I have no interest in participating in a conversation that isn’t either fun or useful. Thanks for letting me know I should not assume the same about you; I’ll check in earlier next time.
I have no interest in participating in a conversation that isn’t either fun or useful. Thanks for letting me know I should not assume the same about you; I’ll check in earlier next time.
Yeah, sometimes it is easy just to respond to stimulus. Technically incorrect (in my reading) - Must fix bug or conversation will not compile and pass the test suit...
I deleted ancestors wherein you persuaded and I conceded that debating the word definition is not useful. (It could be and was misused elsewhere.)
Although to my chagrin on rereading your comment I notice a ‘not’ in your comment that I missed the first time. My original reading was that it was right on the money. I suppose that means I should reverse my impression from being impressed with your smooth handling to, well, not.
I hope you don’t mind if I ‘act as if’ my impression of goodwill and potential mutual respect was accurate. It’s a technique that pjeby recommends. :)
Although to my chagrin on rereading your comment I notice a ‘not’ in your comment that I missed the first time. My original reading was that it was right on the money. I suppose that means I should reverse my impression from being impressed with your smooth handling to, well, not.
I’m interested in how we could have changed the interaction so that I would not have been inclined to put a ‘not’ there, but I’ve addressed this elsewhere.
Well, not having it would have been easiest. I disagreed but not all disagreements are worth speaking. That and for my part I would most likely have used different phrasings and responded more patiently if I had slept more than 1 hour. This is something I have already made a note of to bear in mind for future conversations. :)
Your accurate observation is orthagonal to Evelyn’s also accurate observation. Even if you completely ignore gender identification and transsexuality, you cannot accurately separate all healthy, normal human infants into either “male-bodied with penis and testicles” and “female-bodied with vagina and ovaries.”
How are you defining “normal”? Intersex conditions aren’t vanishingly rare, but I don’t know that I’d call them “normal”.
“Naturally occurring and not representative of any pathology.” See also guidelines for discussing intersexuality.
It is reasonable to call such mutations (and chromosomal abnormalities) non-pathalogical when they don’t interfere with the particular individuals wellbeing or goals. That doesn’t mean they are normal. (Although in general telling people they are weird is considered impolite.)
If it makes you feel better you may note that it isn’t normal to have a genius level IQ, be six foot three with perfect facial symmetry and live to 110.
I was asked what my definition of normal was, and gave it. All you’ve told me is that yours contradicts it; what is yours?
The relevance of my statement is I implicitly reject your earlier claim, which thrusts your abnormal nomenclature upon others..
Yes you can.
Right … since I claim it’s normal, and you claim it’s not, and we’re talking about the same phenomenon, as far as I can tell we’re operating under different definitions of “normal.” So I want to know what yours is. If I think it’s better than mine is, I’ll adopt it.
I will continue to evaluate the factual accuracy of claims according to normal.
That link includes some definitions which agree with me and some which do not; I gather that you agree with something among the latter, so I’ll leave it at that.
No, it doesn’t. Unless you are referring to “in accordance with scientific laws”. Which would mean genetic abnormalities could only be ‘abnormal’ if they were the result of, for example, witchcraft.
To make things interesting there has been speculation among biologists that Joan of Arc may have had Swyers Syndrome—an XY genotype, female external appearance and internal non-functioning testes. If the mutation in the SRY gene was the result of witchcraft it would put a new spin on the whole ‘burning her at the stake’ thing.
Well, most of the rest of the definitions are either self-referential (“a normative example,” “within the ranges of normal functioning,” “constituting a norm”) or merely vague (“within certain limits”). Those don’t contradict me, they just don’t say anything else useful either. The exception is the definition from Wikipedia, which in its full context) notes that the concept is not easy to define objectively.
Before continuing in this conversation I want to be sure of what we’re arguing about. If your main point is that intersexuality isn’t normal, that clearly fits your definition and does not fit mine; argument resolved. If you’re pointing out that my definition of “normal” isn’t the most common one, you may well be right, and that fact by itself doesn’t bother me. If you think my definition of “normal” is not a useful one, I’d like to hear a rationale, so that if I agree with it I can update mine. Otherwise, sitting here nitpicking is neither productive nor amusing.
Is it important? I doubt either of us care.
I have no interest in participating in a conversation that isn’t either fun or useful. Thanks for letting me know I should not assume the same about you; I’ll check in earlier next time.
Yeah, sometimes it is easy just to respond to stimulus. Technically incorrect (in my reading) - Must fix bug or conversation will not compile and pass the test suit...
I deleted ancestors wherein you persuaded and I conceded that debating the word definition is not useful. (It could be and was misused elsewhere.)
Although to my chagrin on rereading your comment I notice a ‘not’ in your comment that I missed the first time. My original reading was that it was right on the money. I suppose that means I should reverse my impression from being impressed with your smooth handling to, well, not.
I hope you don’t mind if I ‘act as if’ my impression of goodwill and potential mutual respect was accurate. It’s a technique that pjeby recommends. :)
I’m interested in how we could have changed the interaction so that I would not have been inclined to put a ‘not’ there, but I’ve addressed this elsewhere.
Well, not having it would have been easiest. I disagreed but not all disagreements are worth speaking. That and for my part I would most likely have used different phrasings and responded more patiently if I had slept more than 1 hour. This is something I have already made a note of to bear in mind for future conversations. :)
Sounds like a good idea. Call it pax.