@payitnomind.bsky.social
Yet medically uneducated "gender critical" voices, like Alice Sullivan, are advocating for exactly that to be mandated, on exactly this wrong-headed notion that genomes are a blueprint that dictates what the body "should" do.
Scientifically naive, medically disastrous, morally indefensible.
Scientifically naive, medically disastrous, morally indefensible.
December 2, 2025 at 2:24 PM
Yet medically uneducated "gender critical" voices, like Alice Sullivan, are advocating for exactly that to be mandated, on exactly this wrong-headed notion that genomes are a blueprint that dictates what the body "should" do.
Scientifically naive, medically disastrous, morally indefensible.
Scientifically naive, medically disastrous, morally indefensible.
Hence the need for medical treatment to take into account the actual medical history of an individual. If someone has undergone hormone therapy, trying to use the wrong reference ranges for analysing blood tests would be misleading at best, and potentially lethal at worst.
December 2, 2025 at 2:17 PM
Hence the need for medical treatment to take into account the actual medical history of an individual. If someone has undergone hormone therapy, trying to use the wrong reference ranges for analysing blood tests would be misleading at best, and potentially lethal at worst.
This naive idea also ignores the fact that gene expression is way more important than the actual structure of the genome.
Recall that all humans have very similar genomes - regardless of sex - and hormone therapy works to change what set of genes are expressed. This affects phenotype.
Recall that all humans have very similar genomes - regardless of sex - and hormone therapy works to change what set of genes are expressed. This affects phenotype.
December 2, 2025 at 2:15 PM
This naive idea also ignores the fact that gene expression is way more important than the actual structure of the genome.
Recall that all humans have very similar genomes - regardless of sex - and hormone therapy works to change what set of genes are expressed. This affects phenotype.
Recall that all humans have very similar genomes - regardless of sex - and hormone therapy works to change what set of genes are expressed. This affects phenotype.
That's incorrect, and there are some obvious examples of that.
Hey Charles, can you explain to me how this test would work for monozygotic twins with discordant sexes, a category of people that you claimed didn't exist and then studiously ignored the examples that you were shown?
December 2, 2025 at 2:10 PM
That's incorrect, and there are some obvious examples of that.
... and this is shown in the notions of genetic penetrance and expressivity.
Transphobes often push the erroneous "basic biology" idea that DNA is a blueprint, because they want to believe that "sex" is written into the genome, something that can be simply read off from it.
Transphobes often push the erroneous "basic biology" idea that DNA is a blueprint, because they want to believe that "sex" is written into the genome, something that can be simply read off from it.
Phenotype Variability: Penetrance and Expressivity
Sometimes, identical genotypes will not produce the same phenotype. "Penetrance" and "expressivity" are terms used to describe the degree to which expected phenotypes vary among indivi...
www.nature.com
December 2, 2025 at 2:08 PM
... and this is shown in the notions of genetic penetrance and expressivity.
Transphobes often push the erroneous "basic biology" idea that DNA is a blueprint, because they want to believe that "sex" is written into the genome, something that can be simply read off from it.
Transphobes often push the erroneous "basic biology" idea that DNA is a blueprint, because they want to believe that "sex" is written into the genome, something that can be simply read off from it.
Oh it’s very clear that your belief system is not amenable to refutation, regardless of how bad a fit it reality is to it
Fundamentally you take "sex is binary" to be an axiom, rather than a statement amenable to refutation. You then have to try and hammer the facts to fit your theory, because they don't fit: intermediate states exist, different senses of "sex" are used in different situations.
November 22, 2025 at 11:24 AM
Oh it’s very clear that your belief system is not amenable to refutation, regardless of how bad a fit it reality is to it
But apparently just a mention of Rudolf Hess causes you to twitchily worry about being called a Nazi, so…
November 22, 2025 at 9:23 AM
But apparently just a mention of Rudolf Hess causes you to twitchily worry about being called a Nazi, so…
Let’s hope you don’t have to invoke that meme too often.
November 22, 2025 at 9:12 AM
Let’s hope you don’t have to invoke that meme too often.
The answer to your original question is, then, yes
It's so depressing that you don't understand this topic and yet latch on to misconceptions and think you've made a point.
Are the gonads "characteristics"?
Are the gonads "characteristics"?
November 22, 2025 at 8:49 AM
The answer to your original question is, then, yes
So, phenotype encompasses all the observable characteristics of an organism *which includes gonads*
November 22, 2025 at 8:49 AM
So, phenotype encompasses all the observable characteristics of an organism *which includes gonads*
Interesting that you are reacting so defensively to a comment that simply illustrates that “biology” is used fatuously as a justification for pseudoscientific ideologies.
November 22, 2025 at 8:44 AM
Interesting that you are reacting so defensively to a comment that simply illustrates that “biology” is used fatuously as a justification for pseudoscientific ideologies.
“Towards something? Yes, processing light signals”
This is 100% wrong. There is not a guiding force that aims for specific outcomes behind evolution. This represents a very basic misunderstanding of evolution.
This is 100% wrong. There is not a guiding force that aims for specific outcomes behind evolution. This represents a very basic misunderstanding of evolution.
November 22, 2025 at 8:26 AM
“Towards something? Yes, processing light signals”
This is 100% wrong. There is not a guiding force that aims for specific outcomes behind evolution. This represents a very basic misunderstanding of evolution.
This is 100% wrong. There is not a guiding force that aims for specific outcomes behind evolution. This represents a very basic misunderstanding of evolution.
And your response to this is just to ignore it entirely and repeat the same propaganda stat of 1000s of percent again
Cult shit
Cult shit
Are you saying that when being gay was punishable by death there was alongside that a substantial population of people openly identifying as gay?
I mean, if not, any rise from a near-negligible base would read as a sudden increase of 1000s of percent or even as infinitely large.
I mean, if not, any rise from a near-negligible base would read as a sudden increase of 1000s of percent or even as infinitely large.
November 21, 2025 at 9:33 AM
And your response to this is just to ignore it entirely and repeat the same propaganda stat of 1000s of percent again
Cult shit
Cult shit
Thank you for the insight.
November 20, 2025 at 11:00 PM
Thank you for the insight.
This is the exact same stuff used to attack the gay population *within your memory*
How pathetic
How pathetic
November 20, 2025 at 10:54 PM
This is the exact same stuff used to attack the gay population *within your memory*
How pathetic
How pathetic
Stats are actually broken down in that article - unsurprisingly you didn’t even glance at it
Because once again you’re just focused on spreading old fashioned “social contagion” rhetoric. Literally bringing propaganda used against your own community back into circulation, one of the useful idiots
Because once again you’re just focused on spreading old fashioned “social contagion” rhetoric. Literally bringing propaganda used against your own community back into circulation, one of the useful idiots
November 20, 2025 at 10:42 PM
Stats are actually broken down in that article - unsurprisingly you didn’t even glance at it
Because once again you’re just focused on spreading old fashioned “social contagion” rhetoric. Literally bringing propaganda used against your own community back into circulation, one of the useful idiots
Because once again you’re just focused on spreading old fashioned “social contagion” rhetoric. Literally bringing propaganda used against your own community back into circulation, one of the useful idiots
Some more layers of tin foil might help
November 20, 2025 at 10:35 PM
Some more layers of tin foil might help
Yeah, I thought it might be because there’s a conspiracy against you.
November 20, 2025 at 10:35 PM
Yeah, I thought it might be because there’s a conspiracy against you.
Do you think there might be some kind of underlying reason that you are repeatedly being called a transphobic bigot? 🚮
November 20, 2025 at 10:18 PM
Do you think there might be some kind of underlying reason that you are repeatedly being called a transphobic bigot? 🚮
The stats we do have shows that the increase in the trans population over time is pretty much in line with that of the LGBTQ+ population generally
news.gallup.com/poll/656708/...
news.gallup.com/poll/656708/...
LGBTQ+ Identification in U.S. Rises to 9.3%
LGBTQ+ identification among U.S. adults has increased to 9.3%.
news.gallup.com
November 20, 2025 at 10:12 PM
The stats we do have shows that the increase in the trans population over time is pretty much in line with that of the LGBTQ+ population generally
news.gallup.com/poll/656708/...
news.gallup.com/poll/656708/...
Are you saying that when being gay was punishable by death there was alongside that a substantial population of people openly identifying as gay?
I mean, if not, any rise from a near-negligible base would read as a sudden increase of 1000s of percent or even as infinitely large.
I mean, if not, any rise from a near-negligible base would read as a sudden increase of 1000s of percent or even as infinitely large.
November 20, 2025 at 10:10 PM
Are you saying that when being gay was punishable by death there was alongside that a substantial population of people openly identifying as gay?
I mean, if not, any rise from a near-negligible base would read as a sudden increase of 1000s of percent or even as infinitely large.
I mean, if not, any rise from a near-negligible base would read as a sudden increase of 1000s of percent or even as infinitely large.
“Science” isn’t a single view of the world, it encompasses a complex intertwined set of competing, often antagonistic, models of phenomena.
The picture of unanimity you just painted is a kindergartener’s view of science and scientists.
The picture of unanimity you just painted is a kindergartener’s view of science and scientists.
November 20, 2025 at 9:58 PM
“Science” isn’t a single view of the world, it encompasses a complex intertwined set of competing, often antagonistic, models of phenomena.
The picture of unanimity you just painted is a kindergartener’s view of science and scientists.
The picture of unanimity you just painted is a kindergartener’s view of science and scientists.