How did Helen Reddy know what it means to say, "I am woman, hear me roar?" She was likewise not a biologist.
It is sometimes disheartening to see what kind of utter nonsense we Americans will accept.
|
How did Helen Reddy know what it means to say, "I am woman, hear me roar?" She was likewise not a biologist.
It is sometimes disheartening to see what kind of utter nonsense we Americans will accept.
It's not just elite sports in the USA, but in UK as well..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/60960213
That's why hormones have been and are continuously taken, to change gender characteristics.
By the time you are twenty, it's too late for that to be completely effective. The science is clear on that.
"The recent International Olympic Committee (IOC) (2015) guidelines allow transwomen to compete in the women’s division if (amongst other things) their testosterone is held below 10 nmol/L. This is significantly higher than that of cis-women."
"We conclude that the advantage to transwomen afforded by the IOC guidelines is an intolerable unfairness."
https://jme.bmj.com/content/45/6/395
The paper stated healthy male test subjects “did not lose significant muscle mass (or power)” when their testosterone levels were suppressed below the International Olympic Committee guidelines for transgender athletes of 10nmol/L.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/08...ne-injections/
No, the science isn't clear on the that!!!
The Federalist??? Surely you jest!
The Federalist? Yeah. All they were doing was referring to an article from the Journal of Medical Ethics. And they had actually READ the research!!
You can say the science isn't clear all you want, but other than just asking us to take your word for it, you would need to appeal to research. You have not demonstrated an ability to do that. Not trying to be ugly, but we both know that is true.
I have, but you spit on it because it came from a "liberal dem" (me, hahahaha) and you cherry-picked.
You are referring to the article you posted that actually contradicted your fake idea about a "testosterone bath". So I will wait patiently. I've grown accustomed to it.
It didn't contradict, but then we know you didn't read it honestly and with an open mind, you ol' literalist, you.
"The default gender in the womb is female, which is perhaps hardly surprising given that the womb is an environment awash with female hormones. A genetically male fetus will therefore develop the female form of sexual organs until ‘maleness’ is switched on by the SRY gene on the Y chromosome, and the fetal testis starts to develop and then produce testosterone."
Not only does this not support the idea of a "testosterone bath", it proposes the exact opposite. You know so little science.Quote:
"The default gender in the womb is female, which is perhaps hardly surprising given that the womb is an environment awash with female hormones.
And this gives us the startling news (to you) that males produce testosterone, even in the womb. It in no way supports your fake idea that all unborn children are subject to a testosterone bath.Quote:
‘maleness’ is switched on by the SRY gene on the Y chromosome, and the fetal testis starts to develop and then produce testosterone."
I'm done with this. Any even semi-educated person reading this will immediately see that you have nothing and actually contradicted your own idea. That you cannot see that speaks both of your lack of knowledge in the arena of science and an unwillingness to acknowledge information that doesn't support your preconceived notions.
And besides all of that, I get tired of trying to explain these things to you repeatedly. It gets old, and I end up resorting to sarcasm which tends to be unkind, so it just doesn't pay.
Stick with grammar. It's your strong point. I will agree any day that you are very good with it.
Every embryo starts out as FEMALE!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
That's how some of those female embryos develop male sex organs. Testosterone, weeks 7-9.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
That is not what your article is saying, but even if it was, it would in no way support your contentions.
This is research from Johns Hopkins U.
https://biomedicalodyssey.blogs.hopk...ns-out-a-girl/Quote:
"Every developing embryo, irrespective of its sex, at one point contains both male and female reproductive tracts, referred to as the wolffian duct and the müllerian duct, respectively. If the fetus produces testosterone and the anti-müllerian hormone (AMH) gene products from the Y chromosome — these molecules elicit cellular signaling events that lead to the destruction of the female müllerian ducts. The wolffian ducts subsequently develop into male reproductive organs, such as the seminal vesicles, vas deferens and accessory structures. In the absence of testosterone or AMH, the wolffian ducts degenerate and the müllerian ducts develop into female reproductive organs including the fallopian tubes, uterus, cervix and upper vagina. These pathways were first identified and elucidated in the 1940s by the French endocrinologist Alfred Jost, who conducted intricate experiments using rabbits and showed that female development is a "default" pathway that needs to be actively overridden for the development of male sex organs.
Please read your own articles. I've already posted the quote above. You are being ridiculous. "and the fetal testis starts to develop and then produce testosterone." If you don't know what "testis" means, then for goodness sakes look it up. FEMALES DON'T HAVE THEM!!!Quote:
That's how some of those female embryos develop male sex organs. Testosterone, weeks 7-9.
That article begins after gender has been established and external sex organs have formed.
Your own article clearly states that the Y chromosome is responsible for the development of testis and thus testosterone.
Yes! When? After what has happened?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
It's hopeless. You didn't even read the article or you would never have made such a comment. Gender is established at the moment of conception. It's a well known truth that everyone but you, evidently, is well aware of. Even your own article, at this point the worst enemy of your now hopelessly forgotten "testosterone bath" and assertion that TG individuals begin with a different hormonal makeup than others have, says this. "Being XX or XY makes you female or male, of course..." Do you really not understand that???
Concerning your fake idea, the primary point is more like, "BEFORE what happens?" It is BEFORE testosterone is produced, so females are not subject to a "testosterone bath". Good grief. Could it be any more plain???Quote:
After what has happened?
Nope. Not true. I'm done with this. And since you must have had a double testosterone bath in the womb, you will force yourself to post the last word in this discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Indeed I will. Your own article, as I noted above, said that. If you didn't like it, then you shouldn't have posted it.
Quote:
"Being XX or XY makes you female or male, of course..." Do you really not understand that???
"Being XX or XY makes you female or male, of course..." Do you really not understand that???
That comes later. Not at conception.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Nope. It happens at the moment of conception. "It is thus the male's sperm that determines the sex of each offspring in such species." This is because the female can only contribute an X chromosome, but the male can contribute either an X or Y. If it's a Y, then the offspring is male from the very beginning. The fertilized egg's gender has already been established at that point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_chromosome
Dear WG, I am stating nothing that has not been well known for decades. Sex chromosomes were discovered early in the 20th century.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:27 AM. |