Horrific. Criminal. Crime of the century. Though something in the nature of the beast, even if hardly less deserving of anathematizing. But you might have some interest in the article on "perverse incentives" which provides a case in point of another (shameful) bit of Canadiana:
Wikipedia (old version): "The Duplessis Orphans — Between 1945 and 1960, the federal Canadian government paid orphanages 70 cents per day, per orphan, and paid psychiatric hospitals $2.25 per day, per patient. Allegedly, up to 20,000 orphaned children were falsely certified as mentally ill so that the province of Quebec could receive the larger payment."
Though this is hardly more than folk-biology; sorry about that:
"... an inability to accept an immutable and unchanging characteristic about oneself — sex. .... Sex appears in every cell of our body."
Relative to the former, you might take a look at the standard biological definitions "promulgated" in reputable sources like the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction [MHR] and the Oxford Dictionary of Biology [ODB], the latter from a tweet as I don't have a subscription to that dictionary:
MHR: "Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense] the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense] the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes:
By those definitions, to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless. Hardly "immutable" -- hundreds if not thousands of species change sex all the time.
And relative to the latter, only bodies have a sex -- i.e., the ability to produce gametes; cells only have karyotypes and don't produce gametes so don't have a sex.
Your writings are excellent and I truly love this one.
While I might not agree with your personal way of expressing your anger sometimes, you sure as heck have a way of hitting the issue on the head with a massive sledge hammer. It is also very obvious that, different from many writers, you have a wealth of factual, scientific, and personal knowledge about the subjects you address. Sometimes I would just like to be a little fly fluttering around in your head and looking at all the parts of your brain on fire.
Keep up the great work. I hope your substack and Twitter will gain immense recognition over time because you deserve it and we need voices like you who are not afraid to speak up at any given time. Thank you, Rukhsana!
Horrific. Criminal. Crime of the century. Though something in the nature of the beast, even if hardly less deserving of anathematizing. But you might have some interest in the article on "perverse incentives" which provides a case in point of another (shameful) bit of Canadiana:
Wikipedia (old version): "The Duplessis Orphans — Between 1945 and 1960, the federal Canadian government paid orphanages 70 cents per day, per orphan, and paid psychiatric hospitals $2.25 per day, per patient. Allegedly, up to 20,000 orphaned children were falsely certified as mentally ill so that the province of Quebec could receive the larger payment."
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Perverse_incentive&oldid=1062635881
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duplessis_Orphans
Though this is hardly more than folk-biology; sorry about that:
"... an inability to accept an immutable and unchanging characteristic about oneself — sex. .... Sex appears in every cell of our body."
Relative to the former, you might take a look at the standard biological definitions "promulgated" in reputable sources like the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction [MHR] and the Oxford Dictionary of Biology [ODB], the latter from a tweet as I don't have a subscription to that dictionary:
MHR: "Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense] the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense] the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes:
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
ODB: "female 2. (Denoting) an individual organism who reproductive organs produce only female gametes (ova)"
https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009407037441
By those definitions, to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless. Hardly "immutable" -- hundreds if not thousands of species change sex all the time.
And relative to the latter, only bodies have a sex -- i.e., the ability to produce gametes; cells only have karyotypes and don't produce gametes so don't have a sex.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karyotype
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamete
Your writings are excellent and I truly love this one.
While I might not agree with your personal way of expressing your anger sometimes, you sure as heck have a way of hitting the issue on the head with a massive sledge hammer. It is also very obvious that, different from many writers, you have a wealth of factual, scientific, and personal knowledge about the subjects you address. Sometimes I would just like to be a little fly fluttering around in your head and looking at all the parts of your brain on fire.
Keep up the great work. I hope your substack and Twitter will gain immense recognition over time because you deserve it and we need voices like you who are not afraid to speak up at any given time. Thank you, Rukhsana!