Gender divison is biggest mistake of mankind

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

surgeongirl

Guest
“Scientists have somehow missed definitions of gender in human beings,” states Dr. Makarand Fulzele. Insights gained from years of practice as surgeon makes him wonder if indeed we have overlooked facts staring in our face. Nature has a tendency to hide many secrets but at the same time it provides enough clues to unravel its mysteries. Dr. Fulzele picks up loose threads from life to stitch together the theory that man is an extension of woman in his new book, “Man Is the Extension of Woman: Know the Ultimate Truth about Yourself” (published by iUniverse). Dr. Fulzele’s book explores similarities between men and women against the backdrop of their genetic differences, physical variations, and emotional and intellectual dissimilarities. Dr. Fulzele who is a successful surgeon further explains in his book: The main hypothesis I discuss in this book is that, if a woman lives long enough she will be converted into a man physically. A similar thing can also be stated about man. It is wrong to categorize humankind into two genders as it implicates that they are extremely dissimilar and physically opposite to each other. I try to prove that man and woman are just two different stages of one developmental process. And physically they are very similar. The ideas presented may sound unconventional but Dr. Fulzele implores readers to consider his point of view with an open mind. “Your world will not change if you do not agree with me. But if you agree with me, how does it change your world? If more people agree with you and me, how does it change our world? The possibilities are limitless.” About the Author Dr. Makarand Fulzele is a successful surgeon and medical superintendent of a government hospital in Mumbai. He enjoys tapping into hidden and mysterious regions of the human mind, where many strange thoughts occur and get ignored. He is also the author of “Rainbow,” a book similarly dedicated to the spirit of light.
 
surgeongirl said:
“Scientists have somehow missed definitions of gender in human beings,” states Dr. Makarand Fulzele. Insights gained from years of practice as surgeon makes him wonder if indeed we have overlooked facts staring in our face. Nature has a tendency to hide many secrets but at the same time it provides enough clues to unravel its mysteries. Dr. Fulzele picks up loose threads from life to stitch together the theory that man is an extension of woman in his new book, “Man Is the Extension of Woman: Know the Ultimate Truth about Yourself” (published by iUniverse). Dr. Fulzele’s book explores similarities between men and women against the backdrop of their genetic differences, physical variations, and emotional and intellectual dissimilarities. Dr. Fulzele who is a successful surgeon further explains in his book: The main hypothesis I discuss in this book is that, if a woman lives long enough she will be converted into a man physically. A similar thing can also be stated about man. It is wrong to categorize humankind into two genders as it implicates that they are extremely dissimilar and physically opposite to each other. I try to prove that man and woman are just two different stages of one developmental process. And physically they are very similar. The ideas presented may sound unconventional but Dr. Fulzele implores readers to consider his point of view with an open mind. “Your world will not change if you do not agree with me. But if you agree with me, how does it change your world? If more people agree with you and me, how does it change our world? The possibilities are limitless.” About the Author Dr. Makarand Fulzele is a successful surgeon and medical superintendent of a government hospital in Mumbai. He enjoys tapping into hidden and mysterious regions of the human mind, where many strange thoughts occur and get ignored. He is also the author of “Rainbow,” a book similarly dedicated to the spirit of light.
Click to expand...

So are you literally saying that man completely changes into a women , physically , in all aspects , including genitalia ?
 
river said:
So are you literally saying that man completely changes into a women , physically , in all aspects , including genitalia ?
Click to expand...


river, are you "literally", saying that you "literally", got that impression after "literally", reading what was "literally", Posted - especially since it "literally", said nowhere in the Post : "...that man completely changes into a women , physically , in all aspects , including genitalia"?

The original Post does literally, state : "And physically they are very similar."
The original Post does not however, literally, even mention genitalia.

It seems to me that either :
1. You have no idea of the definition of the word "literally".
2. You failed to be looking at your monitor while "reading" the Post.
3. You are a sufferer of the malady, PEBCAK.
4. Any combination of, or possibly all of, the above.

Just saying.
 
dumbest man on earth said:
river, are you "literally", saying that you "literally", got that impression after "literally", reading what was "literally", Posted - especially since it "literally", said nowhere in the Post : "...that man completely changes into a women , physically , in all aspects , including genitalia"?

The original Post does literally, state : "And physically they are very similar."
The original Post does not however, literally, even mention genitalia.

It seems to me that either :
1. You have no idea of the definition of the word "literally".
2. You failed to be looking at your monitor while "reading" the Post.
3. You are a sufferer of the malady, PEBCAK.
4. Any combination of, or possibly all of, the above.

Just saying.
Click to expand...

Just asking how does this go , thats all

So is this more of a psychological phenomena then
 
surgeongirl said:
The main hypothesis I discuss in this book is that, if a woman lives long enough she will be converted into a man physically. A similar thing can also be stated about man.
Click to expand...

That ranks right up there as one of the goddamn dumbest thing I have ever heard of. Note to self: never get allow Dr. Fulzele near me if I need a doctor.
 
river said:
Just asking how does this go , thats all

So is this more of a psychological phenomena then
Click to expand...

My take from the Post, was that, other than the sexual differences, both genders are quite alike in most other aspects of physicality.
I have not, however, read his new book, “Man Is the Extension of Woman: Know the Ultimate Truth about Yourself”, so I do not want to presume or assume any full understanding of said book.
 
origin said:
That ranks right up there as one of the goddamn dumbest thing I have ever heard of. Note to self: never get allow Dr. Fulzele near me if I need a doctor.
Click to expand...

Gee, I have only been reading the Posts on SciForums for maybe 5-6 years, and to me, it hasn't even made the move over into the turn lane for Dumb Street yet.
Of course, with my moniker...well...I...probably shouldn't...
 
Yeah, that statement is kinda silly...especially to those of us who have friends in their 80's and 90's that retain their sexual identity quite nicely. :) Sounds a tad naive to me. :eek:
 
He's probably a very good Tree Surgeon.

@Dumbest Man on Earth.
Perhaps you could change your name to "Second Dumbest Man on Earth".
 
Captain Kremmen said:
He's probably a very good Tree Surgeon.

@Dumbest Man on Earth.
Perhaps you could change your name to "Second Dumbest Man on Earth".
Click to expand...

...meh!...took me years to acquire this Title...many attempts have been made to usurp it (persistent, consistent and even never ending, it would seem, by some stalwart individuals!)...but many who claim to know me, whether "virtually" or in the "real world" (including a darling, loved and adored by everyone, ex-wife!), have repeatedly stated their firm belief that I will maintain the Title both posthumously and possibly even eternally!...
 
Not as dumb as it sounds in fact very intelligent....................

look at the equation given by author
But look at the man. He is something more. He is X and Y. That means, he is essentially an ‘X ’plus something extra. What do I mean by that! Man is already a woman that is ‘X’, plus something extra. Does that mean first step towards manhood is womanhood? Now let’s talk in mathematical language. Here is the equation, Man = 22 autosomes + X + Y Woman= 22 autosomes + X + X= 22 autsomes + X (by logic not by mathematics). . . Man= (22 autosomes + X) + Y= Woman + Y (by mathematics, simply) So man is everything that woman is, plus something extra. Now the extra thing is not qualitatively different, but quantitatively. Hence Y here must be somewhat like X + 1, X+2 or X+ 3 or something like that. It would be ultimately proven that woman can potentially grow into man. Similarly man can reduce to woman, if he loses some part of ‘Y’.
 
surgeongirl said:
look at the equation given by author
But look at the man. He is something more. He is X and Y. That means, he is essentially an ‘X ’plus something extra. What do I mean by that! Man is already a woman that is ‘X’, plus something extra. Does that mean first step towards manhood is womanhood? Now let’s talk in mathematical language. Here is the equation, Man = 22 autosomes + X + Y Woman= 22 autosomes + X + X= 22 autsomes + X (by logic not by mathematics). . . Man= (22 autosomes + X) + Y= Woman + Y (by mathematics, simply) So man is everything that woman is, plus something extra. Now the extra thing is not qualitatively different, but quantitatively. Hence Y here must be somewhat like X + 1, X+2 or X+ 3 or something like that. It would be ultimately proven that woman can potentially grow into man. Similarly man can reduce to woman, if he loses some part of ‘Y’.
Click to expand...

This doesn't emerge in humans. It's primordial. The first sexual creatures where primordial colonial metazoans. The trick in getting a monocyte to cooperate in a colony is to divide the work, which requires cell specialization. That requires messaging. All of this was worked out in the Pre-Cambrian. One of the consequences of colonial metazoan reproduction was the designation of which cell becomes the spore-bearer. Remember, these are born identical cells, but change into some other line -- foreshadowing stem cells. This also presages meiosis, and with a little more evolutionary innovation you have the task dividing in half by having the spore-bearer become the host for eggs or sperm. This is why these primitive forms are capable of both sexual and asexual reproduction -- it's a consequence of their emergence in the era when this evolutionary transition was redefining the possible ways gene transfer can be accomplished.

The sex chromosome is not at all what you think. None of the logic you are using has anything to do with what happens in the human body that contains XX vs. XY. Males must carry both in order to accomplish the ends of evolution -- and that includes stabilizing a species in its niche. This is why sexual competition is so important. There has to be a stable base, plus a source of variation, and it has to work for both sexes. That means one gender must carry both, and in order to benefit from all of the effort that goes into sexual selection, that has to be the male. Imagine how hard it would be for a hen to tend to her eggs if she was concurrently having to battle invading hens for the right to all of the roosters. Her eggs would not survive and that trait would vanish. So that gives you some idea of what you're missing. You need to consider this on the level that's controlling it. And that's evolution.

It's just a coding system. It does no good to pile cultural ideas on top of the underlying processes. They're in place because they control gene transfer, optimized to all of the conditions that have led to past extinctions.
 
surgeongirl said:
look at the equation given by author
But look at the man. He is something more. He is X and Y. That means, he is essentially an ‘X ’plus something extra. What do I mean by that! Man is already a woman that is ‘X’, plus something extra. Does that mean first step towards manhood is womanhood? Now let’s talk in mathematical language. Here is the equation, Man = 22 autosomes + X + Y Woman= 22 autosomes + X + X= 22 autsomes + X (by logic not by mathematics). . . Man= (22 autosomes + X) + Y= Woman + Y (by mathematics, simply) So man is everything that woman is, plus something extra. Now the extra thing is not qualitatively different, but quantitatively. Hence Y here must be somewhat like X + 1, X+2 or X+ 3 or something like that. It would be ultimately proven that woman can potentially grow into man. Similarly man can reduce to woman, if he loses some part of ‘Y’.
Click to expand...

This is what we scientists term "woo-woo shite", or in this case, perhaps "Mumbai-Jumbo" is the better term.

It's trivially obvious that some physical sexual characteristics can become atrophied or changed as levels of sex hormones decline, e.g. in post-menopausal women. It is also well-known that the Y chromosome in males is an altered form of the X, and that in embryo development the male form can be seen in some ways as a specialisation derived from the female. There is nothing new about any of this.

Trying to dress up such unremarkable observations with pseudo-mathematical "equations", based on chromosome names is just fucking idiotic.
 
surgeongirl said:
look at the equation given by author
Click to expand...
X and Y when applied to chromosomes are not mathematical quantities; they're names, like the X in Xmas. It makes no more sense to say, "Hence Y here must be somewhat like X + 1, X+2 or X+ 3," than to say that Christmas = Christ + 5.
 
I always call myself androgenous, i do not see myself as male, and i really have nout in common with what people call male.
 
andy1033 said:
I always call myself androgenous, i do not see myself as male, and i really have nout in common with what people call male.
Click to expand...


andy1033, is that in any way similar to "androgynous"?
Also what part of the "what people call male" are you referring to by "nout"?
 
How do Intersex people fall in the gender division, considering their genitalia raises questions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top