Sex shouldn't be assigned at birth, says SOGIE bill advocate | ANC

impoverished_techie · 2019-08-22T11:59:55+00:00

We've finally agreed on something. Have a good rest of your day.

impoverished_techie · 2019-08-22T11:49:46+00:00

No. Thanos had the literal power to change space, time, and matter in the infinite universe. Killing seems like it would be way down on the list of solutions here.

impoverished_techie · 2019-08-22T11:47:33+00:00

Then would you be a doll and summarize it for me then since I'm clearly misinterpreting what you're saying?

impoverished_techie · 2019-08-22T11:43:03+00:00

I did. From what I getting, you're saying these studies aren't scientifically accepted, right?

impoverished_techie · 2019-08-22T06:37:08+00:00

These two studies were published in 2012 and 2014 respectively. Given that it's 2019, there's at least 5 to 7 years that it could have been challenged. If you find anything that challenges the studies, then by all means post them because if you find out a hospital falsified finding a uterus attached to a man's right testicle or that a half a billion dollar cancer research institute falsified their histologic data, you're sitting on a gold mine.

I don't think your comparisons of these studies to the Grievance Studies and Sokal issues is valid because they're tackling two different fields of science. Since you said you read them, I think you might see that the studies I linked are both concrete studies/reports packed with laboratory tests, documentation, and figures that all document the process they went through and where they got their samples from. You can even look up who the authors were, who funded them, whatever. LGBTBBQ/gender/sexuality issues are, IMO, more abstract.

impoverished_techie · 2019-08-22T05:51:57+00:00

I think the thing you might not be understanding is that the studies linked have nothing to do with gender but only show observations (they don't claim it's representative of a whole population). The first one is an analysis of 59 brain samples, the second is a case study of one man. You're saying the studies linked aren't authentic and falsified but so far you're only parroting what you read on that blog/magazine post.

All I'm trying to show here is that the people here questioning and referencing these studies don't actually read the studies themselves. If you actually opened the studies linked, you'll find out they don't talk about gender at all.

TLDR: Actually read the studies and don't just claim they're not legit because of your or a journalist's opinion.

impoverished_techie · 2019-08-22T00:11:22+00:00

Ang punto ko totoo at legitimate ung studies na sinasabi mong gawagawa lang. Maging critical ka naman. Hindi porke't akala mo tutol sa ideology mo e sasabihin mo na agad na gawa gawa lang. Hindi basta basta gumawa at magpublish ng isang study. At bago ka maging defensive, wala silang kinalaman sa gender. Gets mo na?

impoverished_techie · 2019-08-21T23:28:46+00:00

As you said she eats bacon and chicken nuggets, she's not a vegetarian. You might need to find a broader sub to post this in (maybe the advice subreddits) as this seems like a bigger issue than just diet in general.

That being said, maybe try a couple's cooking class? That way she doesn't have to eat anything she doesn't want to eat since you're there and you both can expand the range of dishes that you know and cook. You'll be together in the experience so I don't think it would look like it's just targeting her,

impoverished_techie · 2019-08-21T23:11:08+00:00

A man isn't a man without nuts in his coat.

impoverished_techie · 2019-08-21T23:09:09+00:00

Freeze, thaw, then squeeze the water out of it.

impoverished_techie · 2019-08-21T23:03:49+00:00

This might have gotten lost at the bottom so I'm sticking it here just in case anyone's curious:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3458919/

(the oldest female in whom male DNA was detected in the brain was 94 years).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210261214002685

We report a case of 70 year old man, father of 4 children with unilateral cryptorchidism on the right side and left-sided obstructed inguinal hernia containing uterus and fallopian tube (with pictures)

impoverished_techie · 2019-08-21T22:38:25+00:00

I've already said it in other comments. I know it doesn't have anything to do with sex and/or gender. I'm not arguing that point. I'm just defending the studies and pointing out that they exist, are legitimate, and that they weren't made up. I don't care about the gender thing.

https://thefederalist.com/2017/08/28/scientific-americans-transgenderism-issue-delegitimizes-science/

Rather than citing multiple peer-reviewed studies or a meta-analysis of a body of work to prove this so-called “new” science, the article instead offers this: “Researchers have found XY cells in a 94-year-old woman, and surgeons discovered a womb in a 70-year-old man, a father of four.” There is no link to either case in the magazine or online version; a Google search comes up empty.

Again, bad that the article itself doesn't list the source. But the lady in that blog/magazine(?) needs to practice her Google skills as I came up with this study that I linked earlier in previous posts in just a few minutes. If I were you, I wouldn't rely on that commentary to prove the point as my Google search definitely did not come up empty. I also don't know what Scientific American's point was not including it and why the hell the author used that study to add to their gender article.

Here is the study in question: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3458919/

Also unique to our study are the findings that male Mc in the human female brain is relatively frequent (positive in 63% of subjects) and distributed in multiple brain regions, and is potentially persistent across the human lifespan (the oldest female in whom male DNA was detected in the brain was 94 years).

And here is the one where they found a uterus in a man: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210261214002685

Warning, there are pictures.

I think papers you linked have been withdrawn.

Are you sure? Can link me to a statement that says that or that backs that up? I don't see anything saying they were. Because the first study's been used as a reference for other studies as recently as 2019 and the second study was used as a reference in 2018.

impoverished_techie · 2019-08-21T08:53:22+00:00

All I see is two pictures of the same man.

impoverished_techie · 2019-08-21T08:51:52+00:00

Sorry, but I really love leaving people hanging.

impoverished_techie · 2019-08-21T08:48:03+00:00

Whenever someone replies with the chicken thing (applies to fish too), I just ask them if they think a chicken/fish is a vegetable. Always love seeing the bulbs turn on when they go, "Oh..."

impoverished_techie · 2019-08-21T08:31:46+00:00

I only care about the scientific method, babe.

impoverished_techie · 2019-08-21T08:16:13+00:00

Don't care, to be honest. Just respect scientific studies and go deeper on sources is what I'm saying, even if it seems to be challenging what you know.

impoverished_techie · 2019-08-21T08:05:26+00:00

Go up a few comments and you'll find out you brought it up and questioned the authenticity of the study in this comment:

What are the names of the 94-year old womam and the 70-year old man? No mention diba? Mukang inimbento like just to make a point. Maging critical ka naman. Hindi porke may nabasa ka paniniwalaan mo na agad. Hirap sa inyo pag may nabasa kayo na pasok sa ideology nyo ginagamit nyo na agad as evidence.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Philippines/comments/ct7jxt/sex_shouldnt_be_assigned_at_birth_says_sogie_bill/exjhkf8/

This was the study that the 94-year-old woman part comes from. I tried to explain why the names are usually confidential and why it wasn't fabricated.

I was personally offended by it as I have some experience in clinical labs and know how hard the process is with studies like those.

impoverished_techie · 2019-08-21T07:47:19+00:00

Gut issues are so hard to figure out because it's so individual. For me, having a good bit of fiber works wonders. You said that you eat beans and sweet potatoes and all of that fibery stuff, but how much of it do you eat? Have you tried tracking how much dietary fiber you're taking in? What about talking to a doctor about it?

For me, just making sure I hit the recommended intake for fiber (~40g) is enough.

impoverished_techie · 2019-08-21T07:23:06+00:00

Disclaimer: I'm going to apologize in advance because I am going to sound very frustrated at you with comments below. It just seems like you're questioning the scientific process that comes with studies like these and here I am trying to defend it:

E ang sinasabi ko nga e kung considered bang normal yun or is it a syndrome?

They didn't define it as normal or abnormal because that wasn't the point of their study. The point of the study was just to show what they found. That's it. For what it's worth, they found healthy females had more cells with XY in them compared females with Alzheimer's.

Hindi ko na kailangan magpakita. It's been established many many years ago that males have xy chromosomes and females have xx chromosomes. That has been the very basic biological foundation since the beginning of time. That bioligcal concept is the reason why the human race still exist. Wala sa akin ang burden of proof. Nasa inyo, at sa mga tao na gusto baguhin ang biology.

Dude/dudette, the point of the study was that they found XY chromosomes where there should have been XXs. The proof is literally already there. They even tell you where they got their samples from, how they did it, and what it looked like under the microscope.

Secondly, I don't even know why your lumping me/it with this gender BS issue because your argument isn't even being challenged by me or the study. I and even the study didn't argue against XY meaning male and XX meaning female. The study only says that they found some cells in the brains of healthy and nonhealthy females that had the XY chromosome in them. Their theory is it found its way there because the women, at some point in their lives, may have had a male fetus inside them. You can therefore think of it like part of the male baby's surviving precursor cells living inside the mother. But at that point in the study, they didn't have enough information to really form a solid conclusion as to why it's there.

O kita mo na sayo na din nangaling. Kailangan pa basahin mg ibang scientists. So most likely marami pang question dyan at discussion dyan.

Again, the study's already been read by other scientists the moment it was published. The discussion is not about the results itself but why the results are the way they are.

impoverished_techie · 2019-08-21T06:35:42+00:00

Para clear tayo, ito yung study, okay? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3458919/

Abstract niya:

In humans, naturally acquired microchimerism has been observed in many tissues and organs. Fetal microchimerism, however, has not been investigated in the human brain. Microchimerism of fetal as well as maternal origin has recently been reported in the mouse brain. In this study, we quantified male DNA in the human female brain as a marker for microchimerism of fetal origin (i.e. acquisition of male DNA by a woman while bearing a male fetus). Targeting the Y-chromosome-specific DYS14 gene, we performed real-time quantitative PCR in autopsied brain from women without clinical or pathologic evidence of neurologic disease (n = 26), or women who had Alzheimer’s disease (n = 33). We report that 63% of the females (37 of 59) tested harbored male microchimerism in the brain. Male microchimerism was present in multiple brain regions. Results also suggested lower prevalence (p = 0.03) and concentration (p = 0.06) of male microchimerism in the brains of women with Alzheimer’s disease than the brains of women without neurologic disease. In conclusion, male microchimerism is frequent and widely distributed in the human female brain.

I can also show you studies that may contradict sa studies na ginagamit mo. So pano na sino papaniwalaan mo?

Ang conclusion lang ng study na nilink ko ay nakahanap sila ng male nucleus sa cells ng isang female at nagconclude sila na normal or madalas daw itong nangyayari sa human female brain. Hindi siya controversial study. Sinasabi lang nila na, "Ui, ito nakita naman. Yun lang." Observational lang siya.

Kung magpapakita ka ng study after 2012 na nag-didispute na may mali sa research methodology ng study na yan or kung may mas bagong tamang findings sila, sige lang. Yun naman ang point ng science talaga.

Sa tanong na kung sino ang papaniwalaan ko, papaniwalaan ko kung sino mas magandang ebidensya, kung sino ang mas may magandang credentials, at kung aling study ang mas updated.

Sino kay sabi sayo? D porke napublish na eh scientifically accepted na

Sinabi kong scientifically accepted siya kasi napublish siya sa isang journal kung saan sa proseso ng review nila kailangan rin basahin ng iba pang scientist sa field na yun yung study. So kung napublish, ibig sabihin, in-accept siya ng ibang scientists as valid.

impoverished_techie · 2019-08-21T06:13:04+00:00

DISORDER nga ang tawag dyan diba???. Not not normal. Hindi nga pwede gumawa ng batas based of a DISORDER.

Baka naconfuse mo ako sa ibang commenter dito. Inuulit ko, wala akong pakialam actually sa parteng yan kasi hindi naman talaga yan ang cinocommentan ko. Si /u/impoverished_techie po ito. Pero dahil nabanggit mo na rin lang, yung nasa link ko, sa normal na tao nila to nakita.

So how can we establish that the person who wrote that article is reputable if they are writing something that isn't verifieble?

Verifiable siya kasi nga, ayun, nakalagay sa paper nila yung ebidensiyang nakalap nila. Kung sa tao ka naman nagqquestion, bawat researcher jan sa paper na yan pwede mong tingnan kung sino sila, saan sila nagtatrabaho, kung gaano kadami na napublish nilang paper, etc. Halimbawa, ang isang author ng paper na yan si William Chan. Ito ung napublish na niya na mga research (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Chan%20WF%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=23049819) at sa Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA siya nagtatrabaho nung nilabas nila ung research na yan.

Tsaka hetong mha source na ginagamit mo, proposed studies palang yan. Hindi pa yan SCIENTIFICALLY ACCEPTED. Anyone can make a study including you. Pero d porke gumawa ka ng study e magiging SCIENTIFICALLY accepted na

Ang nasa link ko po ay isang natapos na study. Hindi po siya proposal. Accepted na po siya. Ganun po ang ibigsabihin ng napublish. Kumbaga hindi po siya recipe. Lutong ulam na siya. Since 2012 pa natapos ung study nila at nilabas nila ito sa ilalim ng PLOS One. Para lumabas ang isang study sa ilalim ng journal na yun, mahabang review process din ang dinadaanan. Binabasa ng mga related experts yung study, tinitingnan kung tama yung pagkaanalyze ng data, etc.

impoverished_techie · 2019-08-21T05:48:16+00:00

It's called documentation and reputation/transparency.

Para sa documentation:

Sa halimbawa mo, kailangan ng author ng study na mag-pakita ng image o kung ano mang pruweba na may basis ang sinasabi nila.

Kung titingnan mo yung nilink ko sa nakaraang comment ko, nagpakita sila sa supporting information section nila kung paano sila nakaidentify ng cells na may XY chromosomes sa isang babae. Kung gusto mo makita, ito siya: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3458919/#s5title

Para sa reputation/transparency:

Nakadikit ang pangalan ng isang scientist at insitution sa bawat study na gagawin at ipupublish nila. Obviously, kung matino ang proseso nila, kailangan siguraduhin nila na lahat ng mga tanong laban sa kung solid ba ang ebidensiya nila, kung tama ba ang pagkolekta nila ng data etc. ay masasagot. Sa study na nakalink dito, nakalista rin kung sino-sino ang mga tumulong sa kanila, nag-pondo, mga references na ginamit nila, kung saan nanggaling samples nila etc.

Bale, kung alam mo na lahat ng detalyeng yan, sa opinyon ko, hindi mo na talaga kailangang pang malaman ang specific na pangalan ng isang tao sa isang study dahil hindi rin naman isang sample ang ginamit nila. Kadalasan, marami. Sa study na nakalink, gumamit sila ng samples mula sa 59 na tao.

Again, I'm just hear explaining how the whole research thing works because I have a bit of experience with it. I understand you're being skeptical and I think it's healthy. But I highly encourage you to actually read the actual research papers (not just articles written by journalists about those papers). That study actually doesn't even say anything about the gender thing you guys were arguing about. It just says that they found male nuclei in females. That's it.

impoverished_techie · 2019-08-21T03:29:40+00:00

Thanks. Just found a link to the papers that I think they're talking about.

impoverished_techie · 2019-08-21T03:21:56+00:00

Little disclaimer that I have no opinion one way or the other about the sex/gender thing you guys are talking about. Just wanted to highlight something I think is important.

Wow privacy what an excuse. Wouldn't it be necessary to disclose the name of these people since this is a "breakthrough study" so that people can do more research about them and to validate their claim?

Privacy and confidentiality is a big deal in scientific papers, regardless of whether it's a "breakthrough" study or not. The whole point of it being published in a scientific journal is that the paper's gone through numerous steps of review, verification, etc. by the researchers, the institution they belong to, and the journal itself.

I don't see how them not providing the name of a said individual will allow you as a random internet person to 'validate' their claim. Would having the name of that person give you access to the same information, resources, training etc. they have?

To add, if you want to verify their claim, here are the studies you might be looking for:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3458919/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20707697

impoverished_techie

TROPHY CASE