-
-
Replying to @kay314159 @deusregem and
Changing what you call something does not alter what it is.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ClaudeL1979 @deusregem and
I’m using standard definitions. Some intersex people do not have genetic abnormalities.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kay314159 @ClaudeL1979 and1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
-
Replying to @kay314159 @deusregem and1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
-
Replying to @ClaudeL1979 @kay314159 and
Ah, I see that the definition of "congenital" does not imply genetic abnormalities. Thanks for clearing that up. Glad everyone is on the same page.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @LeafyEricScott @ClaudeL1979 and
Well, except for the part about "genetic males and females". Genetics is not the sole determinant of sex in humans, and the genetics that influence sex is complicated so that phrase isn't very meaningful.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @LeafyEricScott @kay314159 and
It is when you're talking about karyotype as it relates to phenotype. And there's a reason it's referred to as 'sex' in science. Humanity is a dimorphic species that reproduces sexually. Also, frequency of incidence does not alter the definition of 'defect'.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ClaudeL1979 @LeafyEricScott and
With few exceptions, intersex conditions result in sterility. For those that do not, medical intervention is required before reproduction is possible, never mind viable.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ClaudeL1979 @kay314159 and
What's so great about reproduction?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Oh, I don't know, Mr. Incel McCantgetlaid. Maybe it's got something to do with the continuation of a species, or something insignificant like that. 
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.