The prince is not a biologist . Not only does he not know if she is a girl. He doesn't even know her species .
The Little Mermaid - Kiss the Girl - YouTube
|
The prince is not a biologist . Not only does he not know if she is a girl. He doesn't even know her species .
The Little Mermaid - Kiss the Girl - YouTube
Perfect example of sexual assault. He never ASKED her permission. Shame!! He should've gotten it in writing.
The disease is evidently highly contagious. Now the Biden admin itself cannot define what "woman" means.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bid...s-define-womanQuote:
A handful of Biden administration federal agencies were unable to define the meaning of the word "woman" – in some cases, even in relation to their own uses of terms such as "women's health" – when asked by Fox News Digital.The Biden administration's Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Education, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Federal Bureau of Prisons were all contacted by Fox News Digital requesting a definition of "woman." None of the agencies provided their definition or criteria for an individual to be categorized as a "woman," despite each boasting entire initiatives aimed at helping women and DOJ declined to comment.
The Washington Post, unsurprisingly, ran a headline about "pregnant people" being at risk from Covid. Pregnant "people"??? The entire article magically managed to never use the word "woman" a single time. It included this.
So not even the Post can decide what it means to be a woman. I suppose the next mystery for liberal dems will be what it means to be a person. Will we see an article about "pregnant hominids" next?Quote:
"Pregnant people who are vaccinated against the coronavirus are nearly twice as likely to get covid-19 as those who are not pregnant, according to a new study that offers the broadest evidence to date of the odds of infections among vaccinated patients with different medical circumstances," they wrote.
My heart goes out to the TG pop. It must be a horrible disorder to have to deal with, but telling 6 year olds that it's perfectly normal is not the answer. There seems to be no genetic or biological connection to it that I can find. I suspect an unbiased research effort would unlock at least some clues.
You are seriously misinformed.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I'm always open to correction, but you have not managed to present anything to the contrary. Gender is determined at conception. That is an obvious and plain biological truth which can be found in any 9th grade biology textbook and has been known for more than a century. There seems to be no hormonal keys to the condition and certainly no "testosterone bath" that all unborn children, male and female, are subjected to, or at least not that you have been able to present. But like I say, I am open to evidence. I wish everyone the best, TG individuals included, but I am not willing to believe that which is clearly not true.
"All human individuals—whether they have an XX, an XY, or an atypical sex chromosome combination—begin development from the same starting point. During early development the gonads of the fetus remain undifferentiated; that is, all fetal genitalia are the same and are phenotypically female. After approximately 6 to 7 weeks of gestation, however, the expression of a gene on the Y chromosome ["testosterone bath"] induces changes that result in the development of the testes."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222286/
You don’t understand what you are discussing. Phenotype only refers to appearance and not to genetic nature. Look up genotype. Gender is locked in at conception. Your “testosterone bath” was not in your article and completely unsupported. It is just poor conjecture. So you simply have no support. You don’t understand the science.
You can also look up “undifferentiated”. It will be enlightening.
This part of your article really makes it clear. "Until about the 12-millimeter stage (approximately 42 days of gestation), the embryonic gonads of males and females are indistinguishable."
This portion of the article you linked pretty much says it all.
Quote:
In contrast, mammalian sex determination is more directly under the control of a single internal event: fertilization. Under normal conditions, the direction of sexual development is initiated and determined by the presence or absence of a Y chromosome.
No wonder you don't understand the Bible!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Ugly comments don't amount to rational discussion.
Look up genotype, phenotype, and undifferentiated. It will help you.
You might also read the article you linked.
Right. They show as female.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
undifferentiated -- synonyms:identical · similar · alike · (exactly) the same · indistinguishable · uniform · twin · homogeneous · of a piece · cut from the same cloth · corresponding · correspondent · commensurate · equivalent · matching · like · parallel · analogous · comparable · cognate · equal
Like "you don't understand the science"? Look in the mirror when you say that.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You did not read the definition of undifferentiated. Sad. You also should look up "indistinguishable".
Did you look up genotype/phenotype? You will find that very helpful.
undifferentiated. not having any distinguishing features
In other words, you cannot tell one from the other.
You don't understand how phenotype and genotype differ. You blew past the definition of "undifferentiated". You do not understand the article, and you will not affirm what has been known for a century and is acknowledged in your own article, that gender is determined at conception by the sex chromosomes.
Good night.
You misunderstand what happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Exactly. Both look female. No testes or penis is visible to show it's a male. Then, if it's truly male, things change at 6-7 weeks.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Please try to understand.
The author of an article or book uses parentheses to add explanations or asides.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
A reader, quoting material, uses brackets to do the same.
Yes, I understand the science and even gave you a very reliable article that supports that science.
Your own article said nothing of a testosterone bath and contradicted your idea. You included that idea deceptively. You were caught.
“Truly male”. How is that determined?
"...the expression of a gene on the Y chromosome ["testosterone bath"] induces changes that result in the development of the testes."Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Truly male with XY chromosomes and internal/external male sex organs.
Like I said. No support for a testosterone bath. Period. A gene expression must come before testosterone and not afterwards.. Sorry.
But you referenced six weeks. There are, you said, no male genitalia at six weeks, so you are just left with sex chromosomes. When are those established?Quote:
Truly male with XY chromosomes and internal/external male sex organs.
How can you have a "testosterone bath" PRIOR to the development of the testes? "["testosterone bath"] induces changes that result in the development of the testes."
Spoke with a pro-abortion med student at the abortion clinic yesterday. Asked her when male/female was established. Answer? At conception.
That's not the right question. I haven't said it doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
In the brain.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
That "testosterone bath" is what gives the fetus observable male sex organs.Quote:
How can you have a "testosterone bath" PRIOR to the development of the testes? "["testosterone bath"] induces changes that result in the development of the testes."
Hormones are hard at work during pregnancy and can influence the appearance and gender confusion of the resulting human. Cf. DES, a synthetic form of the female hormone estrogen, prescribed to pregnant women between 1940 and 1971 to prevent miscarriage, premature labor, and related complications of pregnancy.
So evasive. The question was "when" and not where. And are you really suggesting that sex chromosomes do not reside outside the brain? Well, that question is answered. It is established at the moment of conception. Even your own article agreed with that.Quote:
In the brain.
But you originally said that ALL embryos were subjected to your "testosterone bath". At least you now recognize that only the males are affected by testosterone coming from their own testes. We are making progress!!Quote:
That "testosterone bath" is what gives the fetus observable male sex organs.
DES was not given to those babies by nature. That was a man-made intervention. The rest of your statement is simply common knowledge OTHER THAN the gender confusion part. You have yet to support that, but I'm open to it being possible. You would need something substantial. I have looked and come up with nothing of any real substance. It's just a lot of "maybes" and "possibles". At any rate, if it was true, then it would be a simple idea to verify. Track a thousand or so pregnant women, monitoring their uterine testosterone levels, and then follow their children to see if TG has an indicator. That it seems to have not been done speaks volumes.Quote:
Hormones are hard at work during pregnancy and can influence the appearance and gender confusion of the resulting human. Cf. DES, a synthetic form of the female hormone estrogen, prescribed to pregnant women between 1940 and 1971 to prevent miscarriage, premature labor, and related complications of pregnancy.
At least the issues of sex determination and "testosterone baths" have been put to rest.
As I said, hormones (from the mother and from the developing fetus) greatly influence that fetus.
Yes, DES (an "estrogen wash") was an intervention by physicians, and it greatly, negatively!!! affected the brain of the unborn, creating transgenders by the millions. Their brain tells them they are one gender; their bodies say they are the opposite gender.
The terrible DES situation came to a close in 71. It is not effecting anyone under the age of fifty now, so that cannot be an appeal to this current day.
Hormones influence the fetus? That was never an issue. Your now revealed to be unsupported assertion that ALL embryos, including female ones, were subjected to a "testosterone bath" that somehow resulted in gender confusion was the issue.
I have no issue with TG people. I wish them all well and pray for God's deliverance and freedom to rest on them, but I will not buy into pseudoscience in a misguided attempt to make it all appear to be just another way of living. You are free to believe what you want, but not free to ask me to believe it unless you can support it.
No, there isn't only one hormone influence on that fetus. As I said, not only do physicians give the pregnant female estrogen/progesterone by injection or prescription in order to prevent a miscarriage, hormones from the mother and from the developing fetus itself greatly influence that fetus and its brain and how it will consider its own gender after birth, in early childhood.
Just an unsupported idea if you are referring to gender confusion.Quote:
hormones from the mother and from the developing fetus greatly influence that fetus and its brain and how it will consider its own gender after birth, in early childhood.
This was the statement that really settled it. You are agreeing here that an embryo is "truly male" PRIOR to the development of testes, release of testosterone, and development of male genitalia. The only factor existing prior to that would be the sex chromosomes, and that is established at conception.Quote:
Then, if it's truly male, things change at 6-7 weeks.
Surely now we can talk about something else.
The influence of testosterone and/or estrogen and progesterone on the outward appearance vs. what their influences on the brain telling that human what gender it is. (P.S. The brain wins; outward appearance loses and doesn't matter.)
P.S. You need some support for the idea of hormones "telling the brain" what gender it is. You have presented nothing to back that idea up. You especially need support that hormones "tell the brain" that even though the child is XY, it is nonetheless a female gender.
I have been a little surprised you made no effort to look up identical twin studies. They are often considered to be the gold standard for issues such as these. I did find this.
20% is an interesting finding. It would seem to suggest that while some sort of genetic or intrauterine influence was in play, there would seem to be something else of greater significance at work as well. After all, the 80% negative result is far higher than one would expect if it was ONLY genetic or intrauterine. Wonder what?Quote:
Combining data from the present survey with those from past-published reports, 20% of all male and female monozygotic (identical twins J.L.) twin pairs were found concordant for transsexual identity. This was more frequently the case for males (33%) than for females (23%). The responses of our twins relative to their rearing, along with our findings regarding some of their experiences during childhood and adolescence show their identity was much more influenced by their genetics than their rearing.
https://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/a...sexuality.html
You're saying hormones have no influence on a fetal brain?
Where did you see me say that?
Here --Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
P.S. You need some support for the idea of hormones "telling the brain" what gender it is. You have presented nothing to back that idea up. You especially need support that hormones "tell the brain" that even though the child is XY, it is nonetheless a female gender.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:45 AM. |