Today is Bi/Pan Invisibility Day.

What's funny is that you don't realize we agree on 99% of things.

Really?

Sadly the abstract is all that's available unless you have a Thieme account and the German to English translation is ropey, but the gist is pretty much this;

Expression of the H-Y antigen is specific to XY chromosonal males, yet amongst transgender women with an XY chromosonal make up is frequently non existent, despite a lack of identifiable environmental causes. The authors speculate this might be due to chromosonal gene exchange, but whatever the mechanism it represent a morphological substrate for trans women carrying XY chromosones.

As a point of interest, note the publication date, this research is not new or speculative, it's actually older than a good chunk of the people posting in here.

I doubt it, but even if we did, I apply what I believe rather than use it to troll people.

Read closely what I said: Given any non-defective genetic sample with an XY karyotype...

I am helping people by encouraging them to think rationally.

No.

Yes, I have recently learned that people don't like to be corrected or have their intelligence challenged. Oh well.

Nope.

Yes I do, you've just told us.

Then you are an idiot.

Thank you.

[/quote] It's clear you have an extreme bias. [/quote] In favour] of scientific facts? Utterly extreme.

Admitted to? Reveled in it.

And I'll reiterate to you, the mechanism remains unknown, therefore there is only your preconception which renders the sample "defective".

Of course your knee jerk response is to declare "of course it's defective, it's not producing an antigen it should", which is a terrible (and fundamentally flawed) argument when you think it through to it's logical (circular) conclusion.

You have made the claim that no non defective genotype could express in such a manner, whilst defining "defective" by the very fact it does. If you can't see the flaw in that logic you should really take a step back and think about your reasoning.

Translation: I have lost the argument and am going to run away.

Well, you gave it your best.

An explanation for the disordance of the H-Y antigen findings in transexuals is translocation or gene exchange from a Y-chromosome to an X-chromosome during meisis [sic] of the spermatogonia.

In other words, the samples were defective.

Um, no that doesn't mean it's defective at all....

By your logic, a genetic sample with 3 copies of chromosome 21 is not defective...

How is that even remotely an extension of my logic?

One is a known and documented defect, one whose effect on the phenotype is well understood. It's a genetic disorder which renders the individual with a specific set of deficits and traits.

The other is an as yet unexplained phenomenon where a subset of perfectly normal chromosonal genotypes within the population behave differently to the majority whilst still producing a healthy and fully able human being.

You're being Soma'd.

I take it this behaviour is representative of the norm?

It is, yes.

From Wikipedia:

Trisomy 21 (also known by the karyotype47,XX,+21 for females and 47,XY,+21 for males)[65] is caused by a failure of the 21st chromosome to separate during egg or sperm development (nondisjunction).

p -> q, where
p = error during meiosis,
q = defective sample is created

From your excerpt:

An explanation for the disordance of the H-Y antigen findings in transexuals is translocation or gene exchange from a Y-chromosome to an X-chromosome during meisis [sic] of the spermatogonia.

p -> q, yet you claim p -> ~q

Obvious contradiction is obvious.

We need an emoticon for that.

You might have done better if you'd just pressed random keys and posted, at least there'd be a chance of it forming a logical argument via the monkeys and typewriter principle.

Trisonomy 21 is a verifiable, clinically detectable defect.

Statistically unusual behaviour of non defective genetic material is not.

You are the one claiming q ^ ~q, buddy. That's called a contradiction. I have a feeling you don't know what meiosis is. Google it.

And I think you aren't reading the abstract correctly, the authors never tested that hypothesis, merely speculated.

It's just a troll. Soma is saying that transgender people are defective. It's not a particularly subtle one, but it's an effective troll. You could have a PhD in biology, and this argument would still be happening.

Yeah, I'm getting that. The end result will always somehow be that transgender people are defective because Soma dictates the terms on defining what "defective" means.

Defective does not necessarily mean bad, immoral or wrong. I'm only using the word in the sense of "different."

Exactly. The definition is soft, and easily changeable. Nothing you say will hit paydirt, because it's not about being correct, it's about dragging it on, getting you to expend your energy for their amusement.

If you had a PhD in biology, you'd be agreeing with me. Let's ask @matthunter . Of course, he will disagree with me out of spite.

Defective

Yes, I saw that. But their speculation is most likely correct.

If an hypothesis has not been tested it cannot be presumed to be correct, basic scientific methodology.