“CSI. When the cops arrive at the scene of a grizzly double homicide and find the DNA of the killer, which is XY, they know their suspect is MALE”
I see this as implying you have no idea what DNA is and how forensic analysis are done and for what purpose At the heart of DNA ( Deoxyribonucleic acid ) evidence is the biological molecule itself…
Editor’s Note: At this point, he essentially copies and pastes the entire Wikipedia article on what DNA is. I’m not sure why, as it not only doesn’t tell me anything I didn’t already know, but none of it matters to the point he is making. I see this as implying he has no idea what DNA is… but I digress. He continues:
The DNA analysis process provides the analyst with a chart called an electropherogram, which displays the genetic material present at each loci tested. In a complete profile, each person will exhibit either one or two peaks (alleles) at each locus. Loci that display only one allele indicate that the individual inherited the same marker from both parents at this locus. Where two alleles are displayed, the individual inherited different markers. In practice, evidence often contains a mixture of DNA from more than one person. WIll stop this DNA comment here, will advise you carry out more research more on dna or forensic study before posting, because anyone who knows what DNA is will not say DNA is XY. But if you know how CSI carry out their analysis, they match the DNA results from analysis of all the suspects involved, they don’t just match let’s say only the male or only the female
Editor’s Note: I wonder how the Amazing Johnathan here thinks they choose a suspect. He seems to think the police will wait until they have suspects to start testing the DNA as opposed to using the DNA to get information about the suspect. But I don’t watch much Law & Order. I’m just a science teacher. He continues:
Orange said: “But if the killer is capable of changing his driver’s licence and BIRTH CERTIFICATE and any other legal documents, the search for the killer is HINDERED by this, making it harder to bring criminals to justice”
This has nothing to do with transgenderism. The ability to change/forge any legal document has nothing to do with transgenderism
“Just imagine this loop hole being used by sex offenders and child predators.”
Welcome to earth I don’t know which planet you are from but in this one almost anybody can forge any document.
In planet earth there is also something called Medical History
“if a doctor fails to give preventative care- say the doctor never suggests a prostate exam because the patient is “FEMALE” but then the patient gets prostate cancer”
If you research on how the procedure of gender change, you would have heard about Sex reassignment surgery, Hormone replacement therapy, genital reassignment surgery or genital reconstruction surgery. And most importantly there is also something called Medical History.
And I replied: Greetings Johnathan!
Thanks for welcoming me to earth. I appreciate that. I’ve actually been here for a while, but its still nice to feel welcomed.
Your first issue seems to be that I said “the DNA of the killer, which is XY” Where as I suppose I should have said “the DNA of the killer, which contains the X and/or Y chromosomes.” But I assumed everyone would know what I was talking about. You seem to have already known that. So, this is semantic nit-picking which says nothing about the point I was making.
I mean, nobody says “If you research on how the procedure of gender change” like YOU said here, and you don’t see me bring it up. I get what you were TRYING to say even if you said it like a public school graduate would say it on the internet.
It’s also really cute that you jump into “I see this as implying you have no idea what DNA is” and then lecture me about genetics because, and of course you had no way of knowing this, I teach on genetics and other biology concepts professionally to adult students (and no, not just here on my blog- but professionally). So, as you can see, you jumped from “He didn’t say that the way I WOULD HAVE SAID IT,” to “He knows NOTHING about DNA!” But that’s entirely wrong and a silly leap in logic for you to decide to take.
Its like if I call Kylo Ren a Sith, I’d know that is wrong too. Actually, I’ve never done that, but I know other people who would say that kind of thing. It doesn’t mean they don’t know anything about Star Wars, it just means they were not being super careful with their words.
But of course, they SHOULD know better than that. I mean, people refer to the biological component which determines gender as DNA being XX or XY all of the time, just like we refer to sunrise and sunset, even though we believe the earth is rotating and the sun is not RISING, but calling Kylo Ren a SITH is just lazy and entirely wrong. I can’t believe people even do that. Don’t they LISTEN when they’re watching a movie? Are they just playing Candy Crush until the light-saber fights? COME ON PEOPLE! GET YOUR HEADS IN THE GAME!!!Hold on, I forgot the point you were making…
Ugh. You just copied and pasted the ENTIRE Wikipedia article about DNA here, didn’t you? No wonder I found this comment in the SPAM folder.
Ok, a few pages down you say “anyone who knows what DNA is will not say DNA is XY.” and I disagree. Agree to disagree. By which I mean you are wrong. People do say that. I said it, and I know DNA as well as anyone needs to. Let’s see what else…
“they match the DNA results from analysis of all the suspects involved” this comment sounds to me like you are assuming that CSI works in real life like it does on TV. You find the killer among the friends and co workers, and so you just round up the usual suspects, get a spit sample to use for DNA matching and see who fits. Sometimes you have DNA and no one standing around to match it to. Sometimes you have DNA and you need to match it to a database to find the culprit. And if the DNA catalog doesn’t have a match, it will at least tell you if you are looking for a man or a woman. So you go looking for a man… but what if, stay with me here, what if the MAN who left DNA at the scene of the crime is LEGALLY a “woman.”
And so when the cops go looking for a MAN so they can get the spit sample to do the DNA test to match to the crime scene… they can’t find him because he is not LEGALLY a HIM anymore.
Is this point really that hard to understand? I think I explained it well enough in the article you are replying to. Then you say “This has nothing to do with transgenderism. The ability to change/forge any legal document has nothing to do with transgenderism” I’m not talking about falsifying documents. I am talking about the LEGAL documents being LEGALLY changed BY THE GOVERNMENT so that men have LEGAL documents which list them as WOMEN. Which has already been happening. So… yes it does have something to do with transgenderism. This is the point of the article. It’s not about FORGING documents. It’s not about having a faker drivers license.
Next time Johnny, less semantic nit-picking, more reading for comprehension.
You say “In planet earth [This should have said ON planet earth, because if you were IN Planet earth you would be killed by liquid hot magma] there is also something called Medical History.” And in America there are 11 MILLION Illegals in this country. So… how does an American Police officer get a hold of the Medical History of a person who wasn’t born here? When the cops find DNA at a murder scene that has the XY Chromosomes, showing a MALE murderer, but the MALE Murderer is a man with no medical history in America, maybe nowhere, who is recognized BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA as a WOMAN- how do the cops find HIM? How does this magical MEDICAL HISTORY help in this case? In the case where it DOESN’T EXIST?
Suspects don’t all get filed into a room to be examined with genetic testing. They have to narrow it down by computer and or paperwork. But when the paperwork says Rapist/Murderer Perfecto Sanchez is a “woman”, then in what database of MALE offenders or MALE suspects is he going to show up?
Again, Johnny my friend, this was the entire point of this article. Maybe if you spend less time copy and pasting from Wikipedia, and more time reading for comprehension, you’d catch the point I am actually making.
Also, do you realize that your last comment doesn’t actually make a point except to imply that I’m an idiot? I mean, you really don’t make ANY point at all. None. Nothing you said relates to what I said, let alone refutes it. In fact, what you said was BARELY a sentence, let alone could it be considered an argument for or against anything.
Try a little harder next time, Johnny. But, thanks again for welcoming me to earth. I’ll sleep a little better tonight because of that.
ON the earth, not IN it. Because that would burn me into ash pretty quickly.
And thanks for your comments.