Bop Boop

[Bop Boop @BopBoopBeepBeep]

@Adreqi @LongTallDani @nbrink77 @hishertheythem @daniellismore You can name additional numbers between 0 and 1. You cannot name additional sexes between male and female. This is because sex is categorical and binary, while numbers including decimals are continuous. Those with "intersex" conditions are not an in-between sex.

[Bop Boop @BopBoopBeepBeep]

@NeoLizardQueen @Apotto420 @HatzKatzn If they're mutually exclusive, that would mean you can't have both at the same time.

Your post also was worded to introduce yourself as intersex, which was immediately followed by the claim you have male and female souls.

Lastly, no intersex condition makes you a hermaphrodite.

[Bop Boop @BopBoopBeepBeep]

Humans are a gonochoric species, which are known for their specific inability to change sex. That process of sex development and sexual differentiation described in the paper I shared isn't restarted with HRT, and people with actual "intersex" conditions are still male or female.

[Arctic @neco_arctic]

@BopBoopBeepBeep @LexaCola2 We redevelop ourselves as male or female. So it's really not a slam dunk like you think.

The actual thing you're looking for is this: You are male or female based on how society has coercively gendered you. Intersex people can be trans. Actually, all trans people are intersex.

[Bop Boop @BopBoopBeepBeep]

My response I couldn't post because of the block:

They called for the participation of transgender clinics, which refused. This prompted another review that found these clinics weren't collecting data.

And again, if your job involves what's examined, that harms the credibility.

[Bop Boop @BopBoopBeepBeep]

It's always the same patterns with these people.

1. Make a bold claim about a subject you haven't researched.

2. Get corrected.

3. Claim it's not your fault you didn't know because you don't have the resources to be educated.

4. Have an explanation provided.

5. Block them.

[Bop Boop @BopBoopBeepBeep]

@LexaCola2 Arguments against the review tend to be justifications for the low-quality evidence, not a refutation of the review itself. This isn't some isolated paper like what you've shared. This is backed by the NHS and changed UK policy.

[Bop Boop @BopBoopBeepBeep]

@LexaCola2 Right now, you're arguing you cannot review the quality of evidence, which includes assessing research designs (which are not isolated to transgender research) and whether data was actually collected, if you don't have a vested interest in a particular result.

[Bop Boop @BopBoopBeepBeep]

@LexaCola2 Think about the words you're saying. What point do you think you're actually making? You don't need to be an "expert in transgender health" to assess the quality of evidence present in a study; you just need to be knowledgeable about statistics and research design.

[Bop Boop @BopBoopBeepBeep]

@LexaCola2 Arguments against the review tend to be justifications for the low-quality evidence, not a refutation of the review itself. This isn't some isolated paper like what you've shared. This is backed by the NHS and changed UK policy.

[Bop Boop @BopBoopBeepBeep]

@LexaCola2 The evidence is right there for you to read for yourself. It doesn't matter if someone says they personally don't like it. The evidence isn't made up. It's true that clinics weren't collecting data and studies that were used to justify treatment didn't have proper controls.

[Bop Boop @BopBoopBeepBeep]

@LexaCola2 If you have access to the internet and academic papers that you've apparently read before, do you think you not knowing much about these topics has more to do with you dismissing everything that contradicts your worldview, rather than just a low SES?

[Bop Boop @BopBoopBeepBeep]

@LexaCola2 I literally just repeated what it said back to you, and now you're arguing with your own reference.

[Bop Boop @BopBoopBeepBeep]

@LexaCola2 And you never picked up that they stated no conclusions could be drawn because of the lack of high-quality evidence?

[Bop Boop @BopBoopBeepBeep]

@LexaCola2 Most clinics even chose to not participate in parts of the review, which prompted an additional mandatory review of the clinics themselves, which found that they were providing treatments without even collecting data on their outcomes.
https://t.co/9w249TizQK

[Bop Boop @BopBoopBeepBeep]

@LexaCola2 Each time, the evidence they find leads them to pulling back in their support for these treatments.

The UK review, for example:
https://t.co/l8ZfnskvHe

[Bop Boop @BopBoopBeepBeep]

@LexaCola2 This does not extend to medicine making up their own definitions for biological concepts like sex. Sexual development is a process that biologists already understand and can explain, which is not to be reinterpreted by those in a field that benefit from this knowledge.