TreeBeard

My link wasn’t a study. Try reading it. If there are only 2 options, even if the newborn doesn’t fit into either category, the nurse picks one. That’s completely meaningless. Biological sex might not even be apparent at birth in some of these outlier cases. You’re not a serious person. No one can say something that stupid with a straight face. No one said they aren’t rare cases. But those rare cases means biological sex isn’t binary.

The only way to combat this will be an auto pact with China.

That’s democracy.

The medical community doesn’t claim that biological sex is binary. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heres-why-human-sex-is-not-binary/ “The main problem with a strong dichotomy is that there are intermediate cases that push the limits and ask us to figure out exactly where the dividing line is between males and females,” says Arthur Arnold at the University of California, Los Angeles, who studies biological sex differences.

Hands only ever have 5 fingers. Except if they have a mutation where there are 6. You’re not equipped to even have a conversation if you can’t see that it’s contradictory to say biological sex is binary, except when it’s not.

These two statements are contradictory.

So sex isn’t binary. We agree. Unless you’re saying sex is binary, but these people are neither male nor female, nor any other sex. You would have to be an imbecile to hold that view.

And in the cases where they aren’t discernible?

So if there is ONLY male and female, which one are they?

The criteria s written down. Parties must meet 2 of the 3. The Bloc does, the Greens don’t. It’s not for no reason, obviously.

In this case, no. Apologies. The number is in the thousands, not the hundreds of thousands. Point remains the same though, even if it’s actually only 6,000. What sex is someone with both genitals? Male or female?

So you say biological sex is binary, and then you go on to explain how biological sex isn’t totally binary. I think partisan idiocy might be colouring your answer a bit there. There are good resources online for basic biology.

So what sex are people who have that condition?

No one says it’s common. But it’s not 1 per million, it’s 1.7%. In Canada, that means there are around 680,000 intersex people. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/ It proves that 600,000+ people in Canada do not fall under the normal two sexes. You seem confused… Do you understand what I typed above about the exceptions to biological sex? It means that biological sex isn’t binary. You even said there are rare exceptions.

You’re denying that there are cases where someone is born with both male and female genitalia, for instance?

I don’t care what you think on the topic. Point is, biological sex is not binary. There are exceptions.

Yes.

Why would I need to know this from a politician? Especially when they’re clearly incorrect. Generally there are 2 biological sexes, but there are obviously exceptions. Medical conditions, of which Carney is not knowledgeable, make his statement untrue.

They meet the criteria, obviously.

Also:

So what you quoted didn’t say, or imply, that it is straight out of the book? If it’s something Carney said, and not from the book, provide a citation for when and where he said those exact words. Clearly the quote is meant to imply Carney wrote that in the book.

They also ignore that this couldn’t be retroactive. No one out on parole now will be scooped up and thrown back into prison. If such legislation were implemented, it would apply after the implementation date.

https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.422C8CP Mark Carney, the Canadian prime minister, wrote a 2021 book in which he laid out his economic vision, but images circulating on social media claiming it labeled Western society "morally rotten" and "corrupted by capitalism" are inaccurate. Most of the language from the inauthentic quote is pulled from a review of the publication, not the actual book, and could not be found in electronic or print versions of the text. You made me go back and think “how did I miss this in Carney’s book”? Turns out, my memory is fine and you’re quoting something that is a fake quote. Embarrassing. Did you know you were quoting lies, or did you just not check your source of the quote?

Is he actually? He had a 25 point lead before Trudeau resigned and now it is looking like a Lib majority! I guess you can blame maritimers who are too stupid to know they’re a Conservative (different from a conservative), but a few weeks before, those same people were willing to vote for PP’s Cons. That tells me it was a Trudeau issue, not that people were rallying behind Poilievre’s ideas.

What do you think that says? Is that a “strategic voting” thing? Are they just not aware of Carney’s conservatism? Do they feel the Liberal candidate in their local riding is the best option?