Well, it’s official. Democrats have lost their marbles.
And apparently, their ability to count.
In a hearing on transgender issues on Tuesday, Texas Democratic state lawmaker James Talirico, informed the court that everything we ever knew about genders was wrong.
God didn’t make us male and female. Oh no. That would be too simple.
There are actually six genders according to Mr. Talirico.
Can I call him “mister?” Or is that too “unwoke” of me considering that he could be one of six things?
According to the Daily Mail, here’s what whatever-the-heck-his-pronoun-is Talirico said:
The one thing I want us to all be aware of is that modern science obviously recognizes that there are many more than two biological sexes,’ he said. ‘In fact, there are six, which honestly… surprised me, too.’
So this is what a master’s degree from Harvard gets you these days. A pseudo-science-believing kook who can stand up there looking credible because of the letters behind his name.
Male and female human Americans from both sides of the political aisle had a lot to say about this comment:
"I'm not well-versed in this policy area; I'm not a scientist," says @jamestalarico moments before he erases women and claims that there are 6 sexes."
Congratulations, James: you are now one of the anti-science misogynists that this lifelong Democrat will work to defeat in 2022. https://t.co/oRZOUsCK85
— Sam Barber (@SamBarber1910) April 22, 2021
For the weak-minded who might actually be swayed by the Harvard degree and the confidence in Talarico’s assertion about there being six genders, let’s take a moment to clarify what he’s actually referring to.
“The male advantage is immutable and that there are in fact two sexes they’re dimorphic, XX/XY. The other “sexes” mentioned are disorders of sexual development that are variants of XX or XY chromosome. They are still disorders of male or female,” said Stelzer.
In an article on Reality’s Last Stand, Colin Wright explains this point even better:
The argument that individuals with sex chromosomes that deviate from the typical (46, XX and 46, XY) arrangements, such as those with Klinefelter syndrome (47, XXY) or Turner syndrome (45, X0), is common and usually used to argue that there are 6 sexes, though other numbers are frequently thrown around as well. Searching Twitter for the term “6 sexes” returns countless tweets similar to the one below.
This argument results from a fundamental misunderstanding about what distinguishes males and females biologically, which is the size of the gametes (sex cells) they produce. Males produce small gametes (sperm) and females produce large gametes (ova). But on an individual level (since not all individuals may be able to produce gametes) an organism’s sex corresponds to the type of primary sex organs (testes vs ovaries) and individual has developed.
In mammals, which includes humans, the Y chromosome carries a gene (SRY) that encodes a testes-determining factor. If an individual has a Y chromosome with a functional SRY gene, they will develop testes and therefore will be biologically male. Absent a Y chromosome and functional SRY gene (unless the SRY gene has been transposed to an X chromosome), an embryo will develop ovaries and will therefore be biologically female. What’s important to note is that the presence of a Y chromosome, or two, or three, etc., all result in the development of testes and therefore these individuals are biologically male. Likewise, individuals with additional or fewer X chromosomes, in the absence of a Y, all develop ovaries and are therefore biologically female.
With this in mind, the chart in the above tweet can more accurately be rewritten as:
- X – Female
- XX – Female
- XXY – Male
- XY – Male
- XYY – Male
- XXXY – Male
So no, these different chromosomal compositions are not new sexes, but rather represent natural variation within males and females. To illustrate by way of analogy, a person with Klinefelter syndrome (47, XXY) isn’t a new sex in the same way that a person with Down’s syndrome (who have 3 instead of 2 copies of chromosome 21) isn’t a new species.
In another superb and highly enlightening article Colin Wright further explains:
By way of analogy: We flip a coin to randomize a binary decision because a coin has only two faces: heads and tails. But a coin also has an edge, and about one in 6,000 (0.0166 percent) throws (with a nickel) will land on it. This is roughly the same likelihood of being born with an intersex condition. Almost every coin flip will be either heads or tails, and those heads and tails do not come in degrees or mixtures. That’s because heads and tails are qualitatively different and mutually exclusive outcomes. The existence of edge cases does not change this fact. Heads and tails, despite the existence of the edge, remain discrete outcomes.
Likewise, the outcomes of sex development in humans are almost always unambiguously male or female. The development of ovaries vs testes, and thus females and males, are also qualitatively different outcomes that for the vast majority of humans are mutually exclusive and do not come in mixtures or degrees. Males and females, despite the existence of intersex conditions, remain discrete outcomes.
The existence of intersex conditions is frequently brought up in an attempt to blur the line between male and female when arguing for the inclusion of trans women in female sports and other contexts. But transgenderism has absolutely nothing to do with being intersex. For the vast majority of individuals claiming either trans or non-binary identities, their sex is not in question. Primary sex organs, not identity, determines one’s sex.
Let’s just put it in simple terms. Just because someone is born with abnormal sex organs or chromosomes does not mean they are part of a brand new gender.
It’s the chromosomal equivalent of saying that if some people are born with only one working eye, it stands to reason that there is a species of one-eyed humans.
We live in a fallen, imperfect world. Sometimes anomalies occur.
There are aberrances all throughout nature, in animals, plants, and humans.
But of course, the Left picks and chooses which anomalies they like in order to fit their agenda.
For most of us, it doesn’t take a Ph.D. to understand that.