Gender vs Sex

[ThreePointTakedown]

26 minutes ago, mspart said:

I have concluded TOTTPTPTPTPTTPTPT is just a troll and likes to get reactions.   Try to reason or get a reasonable answer and he pretends not to understand the question being asked.   He is just here to get reactions and it is as simple as that.  

I will not respond anymore to him.   His "opinions" are not his, they are just to get a rise out of people.   Classic troll.   

mspart

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5547087/

This is an example of a person with XY chromosomes that carried a child to term and gave birth to a healthy baby. Exactly what you asked for  

This meets all of your criteria. Yet you run away because you know it proves you and your ideas WRONG! 

Run away coward! 

HAPPY PRIDE XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOX

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 hour ago, Gene Mills Fan said:

No violence security says "Get Out". No violence the NCAA sys " you're not eligible". No violence the NCAA says "The title was not yours"

Happy Pride Day to the gay people I know and respect!

Are you aware of the sit-ins from back in the Civil Rights days? Do you agree with them doing that?

Private places can ask just about anyone to leave for just about any reason. I don't think that is the issue we are talking about, right? I think we're talking about public. If so, no, they can't ask you to leave unless you're breaking a law. Being 'abnormal' is not against the law currently. 

The NCAA is wrong. They will eventually walk it back. Will likely get sued and lose. But it highlights the fact that y'all are worried about 12 people playing games. Talk about a mole hill being mistaken for a mountain. 

HAPPY PRIDE XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOX

3 hours ago, Bigbrog said:

 Just read mspart again...he presents the factual points perfectly and accurately.  Your response to him and others is 0.5% about the topic, sort of, and 95% immature projection, diagnosis, and stupid name calling. 

It's funny that you keep screaming of being on the right side of history but it is factual impossible to keep screaming men can become a woman and vice versa.  And you are clearly on the wrong side of history accusing people who believe that to be all these hateful -isms.

Also, stating facts provides zero indications of someone's personal feelings towards people that feel they are not the actual sex they truly are.  You claiming you do know someone's feelings is completely crazy and has nothing to do with the debate nor the facts.  

If you truly cared about serious nuanced conversations about these subjects you would address actual FACTS versus what you think anonymous people on the Internet truly feel in their heart which is 95% of your posts. 

Interesting that you confuse mspart's opinions for facts. Curious that they offered no evidence that their opinions were factual. Do you require evidence to determine facts from opinions or do you just wing it? 

Not screaming about being on the right side of history. Simply stating it. Why do you think you are trying to categorize my typing words as 'screaming'? Conservatives were against abolition, integration, civil rights, voting rights, gay rights, and now trans rights. These are not merky issues. They are well documented. As I am not conservative and support all those things and more. I proudly boast that I will be on the right side of history. It is likely that you will be on the right side of history only after kicking and screaming. Which is kinda sad in my opinion. I wish you would just embrace knowledge and curiosity rather than whatever it is that got you here. 

 

Yes, I understand you just don't want to offer respect to trans people by referring to them as their preferred pronouns. You don't think it is that big of a deal. You are wrong. That you are unwilling to even try to see things from a different perspective and how your actions might affect them is what we are talking about. Not being accepted by friends and family is a large factor in self harm of trans people. Do you not know that or do you just not care? 

 

95%: At no point did mspart quote anything that could be confused as a fact. What happened was that they asked for a specific example. I provided an example that fit their criteria. Then they moved the goalposts. Like I knew they would. Like y'all do every time. Cuz that's what happens when conservatives are confronted with evidence against their emotional outbursts that they mistake for facts. 

HAPPY PRIDE XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOX

[ThreePointTakedown]

27 minutes ago, wrestlingguy said:

Agreed. "A Reasonable Discussion" was never the goal.

I understand that we disagree on most of the topics being discussed. You have your reasons. I think those reasons are primarily emotional or anecdotal. They don't rise to the level I require to change my mind. You were obviously convinced by different evidence. Its a shame we have such widely different opinions of what makes a reliable source. My reasons are based in long term studies and data. They prove that your views are categorically wrong or harmful in just about every area. That must sting a little bit. I wouldn't disagree with that. Being wrong and having been proven wrong in public can be embarrassing. We've all been there. But I don't believe in punishing people for being mistaken or tricked into thinking a certain thing. Being a better thinker helps everyone. Especially yourself. Its frustrating that you and the other conservative commentators continue to let your emotions rule your thinking. 

HAPPY PRIDE XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOX

[Bigbrog]

Tptpt is not a real person 

[ThreePointTakedown]

21 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

Tptpt is not a real person 

Tell us you don't have the capacity to understand the opposing side of an argument and lack the ability to formulate a coherent response without telling us you don't have the capacity to understand the opposing side of an argument and lack the ability to formulate a coherent response.

 

And once again... 

HAPPY PRIDE XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOX

[Caveira]

It’s not like we need to declare a Transfemicide State of Emergency

[Bigbrog]

5 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

 

Tell us you don't have the capacity to understand the opposing side of an argument and lack the ability to formulate a coherent response without telling us you don't have the capacity to understand the opposing side of an argument and lack the ability to formulate a coherent response.

 

And once again... 

HAPPY PRIDE XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOX

This is one of the many reasons why you are not real and impossible to have a discussion with. I have told you my side and views based purely on facts and you resort to immature and completely nonsensical accusations of the type of person I am while completely ignoring the facts.

AGAIN...I base my thoughts and reality on basic biological facts. There are biological men and there are biological females...and the biology of each of those can not be changed no matter how much surgery they receive or how many hormones and other chemicals they take.  Again, biologically speaking (please save your one of extremely rare cases that prove nothing nor add nothing to the discussion other than you being disingenuous).  In the believes and facts I provided... AGAIN...nowhere did I indicate people can't FEEL more comfortable thinking they are the opposite sex as to what their genetic make up says. Nor did I indicate that I "hate/despise/wish harm/etc." on them or that they don't deserve to live a happy life. They absolutely do and I wish nothing more then they in fact do live a happy life!  But what I won't subscribe to is the thought that they aren't able to be happy, or what is more realistic that YOU and your ilk will play the victim for others unless I deny basic biological facts.  

[ThreePointTakedown]

23 hours ago, Bigbrog said:

This is one of the many reasons why you are not real and impossible to have a discussion with. I have told you my side and views based purely on facts and you resort to immature and completely nonsensical accusations of the type of person I am while completely ignoring the facts.

AGAIN...I base my thoughts and reality on basic biological facts. There are biological men and there are biological females...and the biology of each of those can not be changed no matter how much surgery they receive or how many hormones and other chemicals they take.  Again, biologically speaking (please save your one of extremely rare cases that prove nothing nor add nothing to the discussion other than you being disingenuous).  In the believes and facts I provided... AGAIN...nowhere did I indicate people can't FEEL more comfortable thinking they are the opposite sex as to what their genetic make up says. Nor did I indicate that I "hate/despise/wish harm/etc." on them or that they don't deserve to live a happy life. They absolutely do and I wish nothing more then they in fact do live a happy life!  But what I won't subscribe to is the thought that they aren't able to be happy, or what is more realistic that YOU and your ilk will play the victim for others unless I deny basic biological facts.  

I disagree that your 'facts' are based on biology. I believe that YOU believe their based in biology. But I believe you are incorrect. Because my 'facts' are based on biology and they both cannot be correct. I have offered more than 'its common sense, duh!' And you have not. 

I would love to start over and see your claim(s) as new again and see your evidence again. Because if you have provided it then it was a while ago and I do not recall. Some of my evidence was posted two days ago following a request for exactly what I provided.  

You use the words 'men' and 'female' as if they are opposites. Firstly, why not be consistent and just use male/female or man/woman together? Rather than mix them up and possibly confusing whoever it is you are talking to. 

Correct me if I am wrong. But your claim seems to be that biology cannot be changed and that means you are a man or woman, male or female at birth and that cannot be changed. 

Let me see if I can help you think a little bit different and more accurate about gender and sex. 

Sex: we determine the sex of a person by a conglomeration of traits. Initially it is determined, superficially, by observation of outside genitalia. In a high percentage of cases this is reliable. In a small percentage of cases this is not accurate. Site the case that I posted a few days ago. Someone with XY chromosomes seemed to have the working internal reproductive system that is typically found in persons with XX chromosomes. Just about every characteristic you think is isolated to people with XX chromosomes can be found in someone with XY and vice versa. There is no combination of characteristics that determines a person is 100% one way or the other. Regardless of whether you want to believe it or not. There is a spectrum where we have arbitrarily drawn a line where we are more comfortable making the determination as a society. We no longer have that authority. Laws are changing. Norms are changing. Opinions are changing. The science is changing and being updated. It probably feels more comfortable to fall back to old habits and opinions on the science. Its difficult being forced to do anything. Even confront your own opinions about a sincerely held belief. Its not a painless thing. To think of all the people you interacted with while adhering to a now thoroughly outdated belief. Some if not most probably feel no ill will. But you probably made quite the jackass of yourself if you spoke out of turn about this in the company of a trans person. They probably remember. You might be completely unaware. But you should revisit the science. Its not on your side, if it ever was. 

With that in mind, you can no longer say that something is 100% guaranteed to be the case if there is even one exception. And dismissing the exception means your argument that it was 100% wasn't your real argument. Not to say that you are wrong but you must at least incorporate that into your thinking now. And allow for the chance, albeit a small one, that someone is who they tell you they are despite you thinking that they should be put into a different category. 

Gender: we think of a person as a man or woman based on physical characteristics that we can observe from a distance. Not genitalia. We make that assumption based on; hair length, clothing choices, use of make up, smell, mannerisms, voice pitch. We make these determinations based on weighing many factors. The algorithm to derive the gender of another person is different from everyone based on their preferences and experience. We're usually pretty good at it and get better each time we practice but we do get it wrong sometimes. 

We're saying, 'stay open to the possibility of being wrong about a person and believe them when they tell you.' 

It seems like you're saying, 'despite what they tell me, I know better and that's not an option.' 

HAPPY PRIDE XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOX

[Caveira]

16 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

 

I disagree that your 'facts' are based on biology. I believe that YOU believe their based in biology. But I believe you are incorrect. Because my 'facts' are based on biology and they both cannot be correct. I have offered more than 'its common sense, duh!' And you have not. 

I would love to start over and see your claim(s) as new again and see your evidence again. Because if you have provided it then it was a while ago and I do not recall. Some of my evidence was posted two days ago following a request for exactly what I provided.  

You use the words 'men' and 'female' as if they are opposites. Firstly, why not be consistent and just use male/female or man/woman together? Rather than mix them up and possibly confusing whoever it is you are talking to. 

Correct me if I am wrong. But your claim seems to be that biology cannot be changed and that means you are a man or woman, male or female at birth and that cannot be changed. 

Let me see if I can help you think a little bit different and more accurate about gender and sex. 

Sex: we determine the sex of a person by a conglomeration of traits. Initially it is determined, superficially, by observation of outside genitalia. In a high percentage of cases this is reliable. In a small percentage of cases this is not accurate. Site the case that I posted a few days ago. Someone with XY chromosomes seemed to have the working internal reproductive system that is typically found in persons with XX chromosomes. Just about every characteristic you think is isolated to people with XX chromosomes can be found in someone with XY and vice versa. There is no combination of characteristics that determines a person is 100% one way or the other. Regardless of whether you want to believe it or not. There is a spectrum where we have arbitrarily drawn a line where we are more comfortable making the determination as a society. We no longer have that authority. Laws are changing. Norms are changing. Opinions are changing. The science is changing and being updated. It probably feels more comfortable to fall back to old habits and opinions on the science. Its difficult being forced to do anything. Even confront your own opinions about a sincerely held belief. Its not a painless thing. To think of all the people you interacted with while adhering to a now thoroughly outdated belief. Some if not most probably feel no ill will. But you probably made quite the jackass of yourself if you spoke out of turn about this in the company of a trans person. They probably remember. You might be completely unaware. But you should revisit the science. Its not on your side, if it ever was. 

With that in mind, you can no longer say that something is 100% guaranteed to be the case if there is even one exception. And dismissing the exception means your argument that it was 100% wasn't your real argument. Not to say that you are wrong but you must at least incorporate that into your thinking now. And allow for the chance, albeit a small one, that someone is who they tell you they are despite you thinking that they should be put into a different category. 

Gender: we think of a person as a man or woman based on physical characteristics that we can observe from a distance. Not genitalia. We make that assumption based on; hair length, clothing choices, use of make up, smell, mannerisms, voice pitch. We make these determinations based on weighing many factors. The algorithm to derive the gender of another person is different from everyone based on their preferences and experience. We're usually pretty good at it and get better each time we practice but we do get it wrong sometimes. 

We're saying, 'stay open to the possibility of being wrong about a person and believe them when they tell you.' 

It seems like you're saying, 'despite what they tell me, I know better and that's not an option.' 

HAPPY PRIDE XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOX

Thoughts on the norm Macdonald joke?

[Bigbrog]

18 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

 

I disagree that your 'facts' are based on biology. I believe that YOU believe their based in biology. But I believe you are incorrect. Because my 'facts' are based on biology and they both cannot be correct. I have offered more than 'its common sense, duh!' And you have not. 

I would love to start over and see your claim(s) as new again and see your evidence again. Because if you have provided it then it was a while ago and I do not recall. Some of my evidence was posted two days ago following a request for exactly what I provided.  

You use the words 'men' and 'female' as if they are opposites. Firstly, why not be consistent and just use male/female or man/woman together? Rather than mix them up and possibly confusing whoever it is you are talking to. 

Correct me if I am wrong. But your claim seems to be that biology cannot be changed and that means you are a man or woman, male or female at birth and that cannot be changed. 

Let me see if I can help you think a little bit different and more accurate about gender and sex. 

Sex: we determine the sex of a person by a conglomeration of traits. Initially it is determined, superficially, by observation of outside genitalia. In a high percentage of cases this is reliable. In a small percentage of cases this is not accurate. Site the case that I posted a few days ago. Someone with XY chromosomes seemed to have the working internal reproductive system that is typically found in persons with XX chromosomes. Just about every characteristic you think is isolated to people with XX chromosomes can be found in someone with XY and vice versa. There is no combination of characteristics that determines a person is 100% one way or the other. Regardless of whether you want to believe it or not. There is a spectrum where we have arbitrarily drawn a line where we are more comfortable making the determination as a society. We no longer have that authority. Laws are changing. Norms are changing. Opinions are changing. The science is changing and being updated. It probably feels more comfortable to fall back to old habits and opinions on the science. Its difficult being forced to do anything. Even confront your own opinions about a sincerely held belief. Its not a painless thing. To think of all the people you interacted with while adhering to a now thoroughly outdated belief. Some if not most probably feel no ill will. But you probably made quite the jackass of yourself if you spoke out of turn about this in the company of a trans person. They probably remember. You might be completely unaware. But you should revisit the science. Its not on your side, if it ever was. 

With that in mind, you can no longer say that something is 100% guaranteed to be the case if there is even one exception. And dismissing the exception means your argument that it was 100% wasn't your real argument. Not to say that you are wrong but you must at least incorporate that into your thinking now. And allow for the chance, albeit a small one, that someone is who they tell you they are despite you thinking that they should be put into a different category. 

Gender: we think of a person as a man or woman based on physical characteristics that we can observe from a distance. Not genitalia. We make that assumption based on; hair length, clothing choices, use of make up, smell, mannerisms, voice pitch. We make these determinations based on weighing many factors. The algorithm to derive the gender of another person is different from everyone based on their preferences and experience. We're usually pretty good at it and get better each time we practice but we do get it wrong sometimes. 

We're saying, 'stay open to the possibility of being wrong about a person and believe them when they tell you.' 

It seems like you're saying, 'despite what they tell me, I know better and that's not an option.' 

HAPPY PRIDE XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOX

Seriously...you are a funny person. I do get a kick out of you getting bent out of shape by the use of certain words when people like you have created a whole bunch of made up words. 

Anyway, bottom line is 99.9% of the scientific community subscribe to the basic biological fact of male and female so the rest of your post after saying that that fact is incorrect doesn't mean anything.  And it appears your feelings/opinions on the subject do in fact make you and others more "comfortable" so have at it Bud. Just don't demand or expect others to deviate from know basic facts. 

Last thing...I will give you a little kudos for not trying to "diagnose me or call me a -phobe or -isms in your last past...I know that must have been hard for you. 

 

Edited June 27 by Bigbrog

[ThreePointTakedown]

On 6/26/2026 at 4:20 PM, Caveira said:

Thoughts on the norm Macdonald joke?

Sure don’t.
Thoughts on living comedians that support that community? 

On 6/27/2026 at 10:32 AM, Bigbrog said:

Seriously...you are a funny person. I do get a kick out of you getting bent out of shape by the use of certain words when people like you have created a whole bunch of made up words. 

Anyway, bottom line is 99.9% of the scientific community subscribe to the basic biological fact of male and female so the rest of your post after saying that that fact is incorrect doesn't mean anything.  And it appears your feelings/opinions on the subject do in fact make you and others more "comfortable" so have at it Bud. Just don't demand or expect others to deviate from know basic facts. 

Last thing...I will give you a little kudos for not trying to "diagnose me or call me a -phobe or -isms in your last past...I know that must have been hard for you. 

 

 

No one is saying that male and female are not terms that apply to people. Is that where the confusion is? Those terms still apply. 

But those only cover the 'sex' part of the topic. 

Or do you think that covers everything? That gender and sex are the same? 

HAPPY PRIDE XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOX

 

 

[Gene Mills Fan]

To Gender Infinity and Beyond!!!    (Buzz Lightqueer)

A bit (Lighthearted).    I hope you don't get too emotional.

[Caveira]

On 6/29/2026 at 7:30 AM, ThreePointTakedown said:

Sure don’t.
Thoughts on living comedians that support that community? 

 

 

No one is saying that male and female are not terms that apply to people. Is that where the confusion is? Those terms still apply. 

But those only cover the 'sex' part of the topic. 

Or do you think that covers everything? That gender and sex are the same? 

HAPPY PRIDE XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOX

 

 

This dude isn’t a woman.   Even if he’s at a kids school acting a fool.  
 

 

 

[Gene Mills Fan]

On 6/24/2026 at 3:22 PM, ThreePointTakedown said:

 

 

The NCAA is wrong. They will eventually walk it back. Will likely get sued and lose. But it highlights the fact that y'all are worried about 12 people playing games. Talk about a mole hill being mistaken for a mountain. 

 

 

 

The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way on Tuesday for states to impose restrictions on transgender student athletes.

[Lipdrag]

The Queer Fascists are out in force.  Even if you agree, promote, and facilitate their sex shenanigans you are treated horribly if your geopolitical views differ from theirs.  What a tolerant bunch of people.  Wiener is clearly a nut-job leftie but these queers think he's center-right.  The lefties eat their own.  What's crazy is all the people yelling at Wiener would get thrown off buildings in Gaza yet facts have nothing to do with their ideology.  It's a good thing these people are also mostly climateer hoaxamaniacs and do not reproduce much.

 

[Danny Deck]

https://www.imightbewrong.org/p/you-have-missed-the-deadline-to-become

 

"So: If not to persuade, then what is the point of this activism? We’re forced to speculate. And since I’m forced…here goes:

This has nothing to do with Palestine. Some people find their identity by crusading against “the enemy”, whoever that may be. People like that rally around the fashionable cause of the moment, which today is Palestine. Yesterday, the cause was police abolition, before that it was climate change, those causes have been largely abandoned despite very little having changed because affecting change is not the goal — affirming one’s identity is the goal. Performative activism is not a means to an end; it is the end, and that’s why the maker of the video felt that harassing a guy until he left a public event was — by itself — a victory."

[Lipdrag]

Comment from Jenn Pelligrino

"The Chancellor of UC San Francisco testified under oath that a "vast majority of pregnancies are in women." Implying some pregnancies occur in men. When asked directly whether a non-biological woman has ever had a baby, he refused to answer. This is the head of one of the top medical schools in the country."

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6401202265112?dicbo=v2-Ab5IkUw&intcmp=fn_article_br_ob_more_from

Ideology trumps science.  He's fully steeped in the ideology thus anything can be a woman that wants to be and this git will let them define the term for him.  

[Offthemat]

 

[ThreePointTakedown]

45 minutes ago, Lipdrag said:

Comment from Jenn Pelligrino

"The Chancellor of UC San Francisco testified under oath that a "vast majority of pregnancies are in women." Implying some pregnancies occur in men. When asked directly whether a non-biological woman has ever had a baby, he refused to answer. This is the head of one of the top medical schools in the country."

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6401202265112?dicbo=v2-Ab5IkUw&intcmp=fn_article_br_ob_more_from

Ideology trumps science.  He's fully steeped in the ideology thus anything can be a woman that wants to be and this git will let them define the term for him.  

Define 'non-biological woman' in a way that both includes XX women and excludes my example? 

If you can't. Then it might mean gender and sex are not the same. 

Because.... Female with XY chromosomes gave birth

I have a feeling you're going to try to say that, 'An outlier does not prove the rule.' And you'd be right. It does not PROVE the rule. It proves it WRONG! For your claim to be right it needs to happen 100% of the time. And it DOESN'T. No matter how much or how long you argue against it. IT HAPPENED. It will never not have happened. So your model of this subject is now broken and needs to be reworked to incorporate new information. I know your side struggles with that but ya gotta keep up. 

And once again... 

HAPPY PRIDE XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOX

 Thanks again for bringing this topic back to the top of the queue. I missed y'all raging about the 'abnormals' and knowing how impotent you are on this issue. Its a breath of fresh-bigoted air when you try to flex on a topic you clearly don't understand. These softballs are great and all but I'm starting to feel bad about teeing off on y'all so easily. 

[Caveira]

23 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

non-biological woman

Are Men 

[ThreePointTakedown]

28 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Are Men 

Thanks for your input. 

 

Now could you help us all by defining 'man'? 

 

Try to avoid using the word 'not'. Because I'm not interested in what it isn't. That comprehensive list could get pretty long. 

I'm asking what it is.

 

And once again...

HAPPY PRIDE XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOX

[ThreePointTakedown]

8 minutes ago, Gene Mills Fan said:

Is soccer season over, Ms. Rapinoe?

Aw, thanks!  

[Gene Mills Fan]

14 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Aw, thanks!  

No Thank you,

I deleted it because I thought I could have been mistaken.

Yes Your hair gave it away.

Edited July 16 by Gene Mills Fan

[Lipdrag]

12 hours ago, Lipdrag said:

Comment from Jenn Pelligrino

"The Chancellor of UC San Francisco testified under oath that a "vast majority of pregnancies are in women." 

Of course we know from our forum statistician that 110% of pregnancies are in women.  That's more like unanimous (i.e. every single one without exception) pregnancies are in women, not just a vast majority. 

 

[ThreePointTakedown]

14 hours ago, Lipdrag said:

Of course we know from our forum statistician that 110% of pregnancies are in women.  That's more like unanimous (i.e. every single one without exception) pregnancies are in women, not just a vast majority. 

 

So you're saying a person with XY chromosomes can be considered a woman, now? 

Got it. 

Thanks for the clarification. 

 

Glad we could find some common ground. 

 

And once again...

HAPPY PRIDE XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOX