Gender

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.
Post Reply
User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Gender

Post by CrowsNest » Sun Mar 04, 2018 9:58 am

An unfortunate trait of Wikipedians, is they tend to be thick. Proper thick. Here's a typical comment from a Wikipedian.....
XX

XY

That's gender.

Sorry if science is un-PC.
That's from Carrite (Tim Davenport) writing on Wikipediocracy. On the forum, he uses the moniker "Randy in Boise", which is a Wikipedia in-joke for someone who ignorantly stumbles into a topic, armed with insufficient knowledge, and makes a nuisance of themselves for the knowledgeable editors.

Anyway, as they say, TO THE SCIENCE MOBILE!.....

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/01/how-science-helps-us-understand-gender-identity/
It’s possible to be XX and mostly male in terms of anatomy, physiology, and psychology, just as it’s possible to be XY and mostly female.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-new-science-of-sex-and-gender/
As science looks more closely, however, it becomes increasingly clear that a pair of chromosomes do not always suffice to distinguish girl/boy—either from the standpoint of sex (biological traits) or of gender (social identity).....To varying extents, many of us are biological hybrids on a male-female continuum.
Would you trust your kids to be reading an encyclopedia built and maintained by morons? Particularly if they're struggling with their gender identity? Do you want Uncle Randy anywhere near their young minds?

Good answer.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4626
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1158 times
Been thanked: 1848 times

Re: Gender

Post by ericbarbour » Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:00 am

(moved from other section because hey, WO is involved.)

Post Reply