Or the thought the phd must have meant something else
But sure the phd is wrong if he meant that; just like those anti-vax doctors and anti-abortion doctors
The PhD is not wrong. The PhD meant what they said, but it is not what you think they meant or said. The mistake is yours, and you still insist that maybe it’s the PhD who’s wrong and meant something else they didn’t say - even after somebody else correctly explained what the PhD said and meant, to which you wrongly responded “that’s not what the PhD claims.”
What the person said as an explanation was wrong full stop. There is no argument for it we know that gender isn’t related to genitalia, we know gender isn’t related to behaviour.
Those are just things conservatives say to reinforce gender identity/roles
So you can pick one or the other; is the phd saying that in which case they are wrong. Or is the explanation wrong and the phd is talking about something else
Your insistence that both are correct just puts you in the same crowd as antivaxxers
You’re the only one here claiming that the PhD is equating gender, sex, genitalia. The PhD says no such thing. The person the PhD is responding to is the one trying to equate gender, sex, genitalia, chromosoms, reducing it to “there are only two sexes, male or female.” The PhD is telling that person that they are wrong, and chromosoms do not determine what comes out in the end. The PhD is correct an you are misreading them, and it has already been explained to you that the PhD is saying, verbatim, that chromosoms do not determine gender or even the sex. If you think that contradicts the PhD, you are still misunderstanding and assuming that the one who’s wrong must be the PhD and certainly not you.
But you really really want to say that the PhD is equating gender and sex, or that the explanation that was given to you is contradicting what the PhD is saying. At this point, you’re just trying to obfuscate what the PhD is claiming and what you are defending, and somehow the PhD is the one who’s wrong and as bad as anti-vaxxers.
Once again: the PhD is correct, you misunderstand what they said, someone explained to you what the PhD was saying, and that explanation is not contradicting what the PhD said. The PhD and the explanation are both correct and they are saying the same thing. You keep trying to pretend that you know better than the PhD and the PhD must be anti science somehow, instead of wondering if you’re not completely missing the entire discussion. The only way you are going is trying to devaluate science.
… And you still don’t understand it, and you assume that everyone else is wrong even after it was explained to you. That quote is correct and it does not contradict what the PhD said. In fact, it illustrates exactly what they said.
This is your misunderstanding right there. XY is not automatically a man. You are the one making the claim that chromosoms define if you are a man or a woman, and the PhD and the other guy are telling you that there are people born with XY who are cis women with female genitalia. You are wrong.
they talk about xx becoming xy
No, they are saying no such thing. They are telling you that there are people born with XY but who have female genitalia and grow up to be cis women. No one told you that some XY people changed to XX, or XX to XY. This does not happen. This is not what the PhD said, and this is not what the other guy explained to you. You are wrong. And you keep claiming that everybody else is wrong, without ever questioning your own understanding.
Which one is it? Is it they clearly didn’t mean what that person said or is it they meant what that person said
The PhD is not wrong. The PhD meant what they said, but it is not what you think they meant or said. The mistake is yours, and you still insist that maybe it’s the PhD who’s wrong and meant something else they didn’t say - even after somebody else correctly explained what the PhD said and meant, to which you wrongly responded “that’s not what the PhD claims.”
What the person said as an explanation was wrong full stop. There is no argument for it we know that gender isn’t related to genitalia, we know gender isn’t related to behaviour.
Those are just things conservatives say to reinforce gender identity/roles
So you can pick one or the other; is the phd saying that in which case they are wrong. Or is the explanation wrong and the phd is talking about something else
Your insistence that both are correct just puts you in the same crowd as antivaxxers
You’re the only one here claiming that the PhD is equating gender, sex, genitalia. The PhD says no such thing. The person the PhD is responding to is the one trying to equate gender, sex, genitalia, chromosoms, reducing it to “there are only two sexes, male or female.” The PhD is telling that person that they are wrong, and chromosoms do not determine what comes out in the end. The PhD is correct an you are misreading them, and it has already been explained to you that the PhD is saying, verbatim, that chromosoms do not determine gender or even the sex. If you think that contradicts the PhD, you are still misunderstanding and assuming that the one who’s wrong must be the PhD and certainly not you. But you really really want to say that the PhD is equating gender and sex, or that the explanation that was given to you is contradicting what the PhD is saying. At this point, you’re just trying to obfuscate what the PhD is claiming and what you are defending, and somehow the PhD is the one who’s wrong and as bad as anti-vaxxers.
Once again: the PhD is correct, you misunderstand what they said, someone explained to you what the PhD was saying, and that explanation is not contradicting what the PhD said. The PhD and the explanation are both correct and they are saying the same thing. You keep trying to pretend that you know better than the PhD and the PhD must be anti science somehow, instead of wondering if you’re not completely missing the entire discussion. The only way you are going is trying to devaluate science.
Oh i see your problem, you didn’t read the explanation
… And you still don’t understand it, and you assume that everyone else is wrong even after it was explained to you. That quote is correct and it does not contradict what the PhD said. In fact, it illustrates exactly what they said.
That there are men (xy) with female parts, do I was correct when I said that parts don’t define gender
I don’t think the phd is saying that though because they talk about xx becoming xy
This is your misunderstanding right there. XY is not automatically a man. You are the one making the claim that chromosoms define if you are a man or a woman, and the PhD and the other guy are telling you that there are people born with XY who are cis women with female genitalia. You are wrong.
No, they are saying no such thing. They are telling you that there are people born with XY but who have female genitalia and grow up to be cis women. No one told you that some XY people changed to XX, or XX to XY. This does not happen. This is not what the PhD said, and this is not what the other guy explained to you. You are wrong. And you keep claiming that everybody else is wrong, without ever questioning your own understanding.
Now you’re saying it
No matter what conservatives like you or that doctor say
what’s in your pants doesn’t determine gender