@kevin-eleven said
Too bad that despite your age and wisdom you have not learned that the Muellerian and Wolffian ducts do not always differentiate in the strictly binary ways that your culturally indoctrinated expectations might expect. But that is not the only aspect involved here.

If the physical expression follows its own course, why not also respect each person's wish to follow the ...[text shortened]... course?

Do you value the physical more than the spiritual?

Or do you oppose personal liberty?

@kellyjay said
If there are more than two genders, why do we have only two gender sports? If we accept transgender as just as valid? Why not have men, women, and transgender sports?

@kilroy70 said
"you have not learned that the Muellerian and Wolffian ducts do not always differentiate in the strictly binary ways that your culturally indoctrinated expectations might expect."

If an exception to a rule did not prove the rule, it would not be an exception.
It's amazing how many arguments here rely on the idea that exceptions are (in and of themselves) a lone standard ...[text shortened]... de from that the bulk of your argument is simply you presuming to know anything about me personally.

@kevin-eleven said
Okay, so maybe you're young and/or foolish. I don't see how that would invalidate the rest of my post. 😉

@kilroy70 said
It's invalid because it is sheer speculation.
You are pretending to know things about me personally, like an artist painting a portrait of someone without any knowledge of that persons appearance. Indulging in personal speculation does not invalidate my argument.

You said:
[i]"you have not learned that the Muellerian and Wolffian ducts do not always differentiate in the ...[text shortened]... genders. If you say there are exceptions then you are validating rather than invalidating that rule.

@kevin-eleven said
Please define "rule" as you are using it here, and also inform us regarding arbitrary ways such a "rule" would be relevant or used against other people who do not conform to the "rule".

Meanwhile, we could also say that "as a rule" people have two arms and two legs. So do you mean to imply that we should discriminate against, shun, mock, or murder people who do not have two arms and two legs? If so, please show your work and lay out your reasoning step by step.

"Marcus Tullius Cicero (106–43 B.C.), in one of his marvelous speeches delivered during the defense of Lucius Cornellius Balbus, stated: “exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis”, the literal translation of which would be “the exception proves the rule in cases not excepted”.

"The exception that proves the rule" is a saying whose meaning is contested. Henry Watson Fowler's Modern English Usage identifies five ways in which the phrase has been used, and each use makes some sort of reference to the role that a particular case or event takes in relation to a more general rule.

"Two original meanings of the phrase are usually cited. The first, preferred by Fowler, is that the presence of an exception applying to a specific case establishes ["proves"] that a general rule exists. A more explicit phrasing might be "the exception that proves the existence of the rule". Most contemporary uses of the phrase emerge from this origin, although often in a way which is closer to the idea that all rules have their exceptions. The alternative origin given is that the word "prove" is used in the archaic sense of "test". In this sense, the phrase does not mean that an exception demonstrates a rule to be true or to exist, but that it tests the rule, thereby proving its value. There is little evidence of the phrase being used in this second way."

"...the presence of an exception applying to a specific case establishes ["proves"] that a general rule exists."

@kellyjay said
If there are more than two genders, why do we have only two gender sports? If we accept transgender as just as valid? Why not have men, women, and transgender sports?

● Ants are smart enough to know if an ant belongs to the same colony or not.
● People aren't smart enough to know the difference between a man and a woman.

● Ergo, ants are smarter than people.

@kilroy70 said
● Ants are smart enough to know if an ant belongs to the same colony or not.
● People aren't smart enough to know the difference between a man and a woman.

● Ergo, ants are smarter than people.

@ponderable said
So

* Ants are smart enough to know if an ant belongs to the same colony or not.
* People are smart enough to know their families/friends,

* so people are as smart as ants, at least in that respect.

@kellyjay said
If there are more than two genders, why do we have only two gender sports? If we accept transgender as just as valid? Why not have men, women, and transgender sports?