[CynicalBear]

>>Do you bother to read things before you reply? Look again. You give the appearance of raising a point no one is contesting in order to avoid acknowledging something else.<<

Nope, your contention was the male designation isn’t until later in the term from conception. My contention is that at conception the Y chromosome is already present which designates the fetus a male.

[aruanan]

To: aruanan >>Do you bother to read things before you reply? Look again. You give the appearance of raising a point no one is contesting in order to avoid acknowledging something else.<<

Nope, your contention was the male designation isn’t until later in the term from conception. My contention is that at conception the Y chromosome is already present which designates the fetus a male.

As I asked at the top, do you bother to read before you reply? Look again. You're putting words in my mouth by saying that "your contention was that the male..." I never said anything of the sort. You're the victim of reactive reading. Certain words and phrases you see trigger, because of your own unique background, presuppositions, and hurried reading, images and feelings to which you react as though those images and feelings were contained in those words or phrases or meant by those employing those (poorly read) words and phrases.

And if you saw someone who was genotypically a male but who was born without androgen receptors or with defective androgen receptors, you would never be able to tell, unless you were a gynecologist and were specifically trying to determine the cause of the patient's amenorrhea, that the person was not a female. And if it is your "contention is that at conception the Y chromosome is already present which designates the fetus a male" what do you call an XXY fetus?