Board index › Age/Gender related discussions › LGBT Discussion

Biological Sex is a Social Construct

Page 1 of 2 [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

shyteddy
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 43

15 Jul 2018, 4:21 am

Yes I know the title sounds like post-modernist drivel, and it seems I have a hard point to try and sell you. Nonetheless while others here are musing on whether gender is a societal construct, I figured I should ramp it up a notch by explaining how sex is also a construct. I'm not a madman, just bear with me for a moment:

Concerning the definition of Sex in biology, much like the definition of life, there isn't one single characteristic that separates living from nonliving things, but a set of characteristics[1]. These include:
1. Movement
2. Respiration
3. Sensitivity
4. Growth
5. Reproduction
6. Excretion
7. Nutrition

...In addition to this some biologists tack on Cell Theory. If we remove one of those qualities from a living thing it's no longer considered alive. A stalagmite isn't alive because it grows and moves; an intelligent robot isn't considered a living organism even though it could fulfill perhaps five of those characteristics. Removing a single one invalidates an object's claim to life.

Sex is defined similarly, by not simply one, but several characteristics. There are secondary and primary characteristics - the former are all present in somebody who's transitioning their gender. The latter are how we traditionally define sex. These include[2]:
1. Chromosomes
2. Hormones
3. Internal Genitalia (gonads)
4. External Genitalia
5. Reproductive organs
(Though some include 3&4 as the same, I'll count them as separate for this example)

But there's a major difference between life and sex - Sex is more fluid in its definitions and the absence of a single part doesn't imply the absence of sex. For instance chromosomal anomalies mean that some men have no Y chromosome and two X chromosomes[3], and so forth. Some females are born with several X chromosomes instead of two[4]. It's even possible for females to be born with a Y chromosome, and a complete absence of internal genitalia (ovaries) [5].

The rest of the characteristics are also subject to removal - A male or female can be born without internal or external genitalia[6]. Sex hormones can be modified through medication to be either male or female[7], and reproductive organs can be absent altogether.[6]

That's why sex is considered a construct in this context - not that the notion of sex itself doesn't exist, but the characteristics with which we define sex are all, taken by themselves, subject to removal or change. Now, how does this tie into the Transgender debate? Well, a large portion of society seems to hold that transgender people aren't "true women" or "true men" but merely cross-dressing castrati, in denial of the obvious truth that their sex was defined from birth - A notion which, when we understand what sex is, is rendered absurd.

I might only have 3/5 of the defining characteristics of the male sex (I might be sterile or have a chromosomal disorder for instance) and not be cognizant of the fact, while a transgender male, assigned female at birth, would also demonstrate 3 after a sex change surgery (hormones, external genitalia, and possibly chromosomes if born with a genetic disorder). We both have an equal number of characteristics that define our sex - who then could argue that they're more or less "male" than I? Only because they were born differently?

That's why sex is considered a construct, much in the same way as gender, but gender refers to one's inner psychological experience while sex is a culmination of biological traits and characteristics. To this day the international Olympic committee is still struggling to define biological sex precisely because of this. I do posit that the notion of sex itself remains relevant, as there are profound Neurological[8] and Medical[9] differences peculiar only to those who are assigned male or assigned female at birth, that a sex change by itself is insufficient to change.

Sources
[1] https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/.../14- ... stics-of...
[2] https://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/terms/sex.html
[3] https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp...
[4] http://www.who.int/genomics/gender/en/index1.html
[5][6] https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/swyer-syndrome
[6] https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclop ... ent.aspx...
[7] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5182227/
[8] https://www.psychologytoday.com/.../brain-differences...
[9] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22205/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22239/



Max1951
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Age: 73
Gender: Male
Posts: 169
Location: Central Pa

15 Jul 2018, 1:31 pm

Well written and thought provoking post!

What about sexual dimorphism of the brain, Teddy? I've heard that certain areas of the male/female brain are more/less developed in one sex than the other. For instance, those brain areas concerned with empathy and mirroring of other people seem to be more developed in the female brain. I have read that there is some evidence that trans M2F or F2M have the brain which would seem more appropriate for the opposite biological sex.

So, if I am a guy but my brain looks more like a girl, can I change my brain into something more like a guy's by fighting overly nurturing thoughts and encouraging more competitive thoughts? I tend to think not, because trans people do not seem satisfied being their biological sex. So, the way their brain works seems to determine what their biological sex really should be.

Here's a link to an article on sexual dimorphism of the brain.

http://content.time.com/time/health/art ... 38,00.html



Last edited by Max1951 on 15 Jul 2018, 1:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

15 Jul 2018, 1:33 pm

@OP: You are conflating/confusing 'sex' as a noun with 'sex' as a verb -- they are not the same thing; thus, your entire premise is invalid.



Max1951
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Age: 73
Gender: Male
Posts: 169
Location: Central Pa

15 Jul 2018, 1:40 pm

Fnord wrote:
@OP: You are conflating/confusing 'sex' as a noun with 'sex' as a verb -- they are not the same thing; thus, your entire premise is invalid.


What noun you are has a huge bearing on what verbs are applicable to your sexuality. In that sense, I believe conflating them is appropriate to what OP claimed.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

15 Jul 2018, 1:47 pm

Max1951 wrote:
Fnord wrote:
@OP: You are conflating/confusing 'sex' as a noun with 'sex' as a verb -- they are not the same thing; thus, your entire premise is invalid.
What noun you are has a huge bearing on what verbs are applicable to your sexuality. In that sense, I believe conflating them is appropriate to what OP claimed.
Belief is not proof. Sex as a verb is an activity that is partly procreational and partly recreational (at least in higher animals). Sex as a noun is a nothing more than a product of evolution -- it first appeared about 1.2 billion years ago in the Proterozoic Eon, long before humans evolved and certainly long before humans invented the concept of the "Social Construct".

By this, the OP's premise that "Biological Sex is a Social Construct" is invalid.

QED



XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

16 Jul 2018, 2:59 pm

shyteddy wrote:
Yes I know the title sounds like post-modernist drivel, and it seems I have a hard point to try and sell you. Nonetheless while others here are musing on whether gender is a societal construct, I figured I should ramp it up a notch by explaining how sex is also a construct. I'm not a madman, just bear with me for a moment:

Concerning the definition of Sex in biology, much like the definition of life, there isn't one single characteristic that separates living from nonliving things, but a set of characteristics[1]. These include:
1. Movement
2. Respiration
3. Sensitivity
4. Growth
5. Reproduction
6. Excretion
7. Nutrition

...In addition to this some biologists tack on Cell Theory. If we remove one of those qualities from a living thing it's no longer considered alive. A stalagmite isn't alive because it grows and moves; an intelligent robot isn't considered a living organism even though it could fulfill perhaps five of those characteristics. Removing a single one invalidates an object's claim to life.

Sex is defined similarly, by not simply one, but several characteristics. There are secondary and primary characteristics - the former are all present in somebody who's transitioning their gender. The latter are how we traditionally define sex. These include[2]:
1. Chromosomes
2. Hormones
3. Internal Genitalia (gonads)
4. External Genitalia
5. Reproductive organs
(Though some include 3&4 as the same, I'll count them as separate for this example)

But there's a major difference between life and sex - Sex is more fluid in its definitions and the absence of a single part doesn't imply the absence of sex. For instance chromosomal anomalies mean that some men have no Y chromosome and two X chromosomes[3], and so forth. Some females are born with several X chromosomes instead of two[4]. It's even possible for females to be born with a Y chromosome, and a complete absence of internal genitalia (ovaries) [5].

The rest of the characteristics are also subject to removal - A male or female can be born without internal or external genitalia[6]. Sex hormones can be modified through medication to be either male or female[7], and reproductive organs can be absent altogether.[6]

That's why sex is considered a construct in this context - not that the notion of sex itself doesn't exist, but the characteristics with which we define sex are all, taken by themselves, subject to removal or change. Now, how does this tie into the Transgender debate? Well, a large portion of society seems to hold that transgender people aren't "true women" or "true men" but merely cross-dressing castrati, in denial of the obvious truth that their sex was defined from birth - A notion which, when we understand what sex is, is rendered absurd.

I might only have 3/5 of the defining characteristics of the male sex (I might be sterile or have a chromosomal disorder for instance) and not be cognizant of the fact, while a transgender male, assigned female at birth, would also demonstrate 3 after a sex change surgery (hormones, external genitalia, and possibly chromosomes if born with a genetic disorder). We both have an equal number of characteristics that define our sex - who then could argue that they're more or less "male" than I? Only because they were born differently?

That's why sex is considered a construct, much in the same way as gender, but gender refers to one's inner psychological experience while sex is a culmination of biological traits and characteristics. To this day the international Olympic committee is still struggling to define biological sex precisely because of this. I do posit that the notion of sex itself remains relevant, as there are profound Neurological[8] and Medical[9] differences peculiar only to those who are assigned male or assigned female at birth, that a sex change by itself is insufficient to change.

Sources
[1] https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/.../14- ... stics-of...
[2] https://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/terms/sex.html
[3] https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp...
[4] http://www.who.int/genomics/gender/en/index1.html
[5][6] https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/swyer-syndrome
[6] https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclop ... ent.aspx...
[7] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5182227/
[8] https://www.psychologytoday.com/.../brain-differences...
[9] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22205/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22239/


Actually, this has always been my argument as well. Biological sex isn't defined by just one trait. It's defined by a constellation of traits.

I've found that most people who want to discredit transgendered individuals by using "science" are really just displaying a bunch of ignorant STEM d__k-waving. Biology is one of the "fuzziest" branches of science; therefore, thinking in strict, black and white terms is not a virtue.

And there are people who want to dismiss any argument that doesn't come in the form of an easy-to-digest math equation as "post-modern drivel." In my experience, these types are pseudo-intellectuals who just go around repeating the ideas of others. Language, culture, philosophy, and history are perfectly valid lenses through which to analyze the human experience. Anyone who wants to deny that usually has their head shoved up their butt.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

16 Jul 2018, 3:38 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
... Actually, this has always been my argument as well. Biological sex isn't defined by just one trait. It's defined by a constellation of traits.

I've found that most people who want to discredit transgendered individuals by using "science" are really just displaying a bunch of ignorant STEM d__k-waving. Biology is one of the "fuzziest" branches of science; therefore, thinking in strict, black and white terms is not a virtue.

And there are people who want to dismiss any argument that doesn't come in the form of an easy-to-digest math equation as "post-modern drivel." In my experience, these types are pseudo-intellectuals who just go around repeating the ideas of others. Language, culture, philosophy, and history are perfectly valid lenses through which to analyze the human experience. Anyone who wants to deny that usually has their head shoved up their butt.


Biological sex is defined by one trait:
• If an organism has an 'Y' chromosome, its sex is male.
• If an organism has no 'Y' chromosome, its sex is female.

(Psychological sex -- or 'Gender' -- seems to be more of a brain-wiring issue. Just as autism spectrum disorders are fluid, so is gender. Both can be considered to be on their own separate spectra, with no fixed reference for 'normal', except for what society imposes).

Now, it gets 'complicated' when multiple Xs and Ys appear.

Triple X syndrome, also known as Trisomy X and 47,XXX, is characterized by the presence of an extra X chromosome in each cell of a female. Those affected are often taller than average. Usually there are no other physical differences and normal fertility. Occasionally there are learning difficulties, decreased muscle tone, seizures, or kidney problems.

XXY syndrome is a genetic condition in which a male has an extra X chromosome. It is also known as Klinefelter syndrome. The primary features are sterility and small testicles. Symptoms may include weaker muscles, greater height, poor coordination, less body hair, breast growth, and less interest in sex. Intelligence is usually normal; however, reading difficulties and problems with speech are common. Symptoms are typically more severe if three or more X chromosomes are present (XXXY syndrome or 49,XXXXY).

XYY syndrome is a genetic condition in which a male has an extra Y chromosome. Symptoms are usually few. They may include being taller than average, acne, and an increased risk of learning problems. The person is generally otherwise normal, including normal fertility.

XXYY syndrome is a sex chromosome anomaly in which males have an extra X and Y chromosome. Human cells usually contain two sex chromosomes, one from the mother and one from the father. Usually, females have two X chromosomes (XX) and males have one X and one Y chromosome (XY). The appearance of at least one Y chromosome with a properly functioning SRY gene makes a male. Therefore, humans with XXYY are male. Males with XXYY syndrome have 48 chromosomes instead of the typical 46. This is why XXYY syndrome is sometimes written as 48,XXYY syndrome or 48,XXYY. It affects an estimated one in every 18,000 to 40,000 male births.

Most children with XXYY have some developmental delays and learning disabilities. Common diagnoses such as learning disability, ADHD, autism spectrum disorders, mood disorders, tic disorders, and other mental health problems should be considered, screened for, and treated. Good responses to standard medication treatments for inattention, impulsivity, anxiety, and mood instability are seen. Poor fine-motor coordination and the development of intention tremor can make handwriting slow and laborious. Expressive language skills are often affected throughout life, and speech therapy interventions targeting expressive language skills, dyspraxia, and language pragmatics may be needed into adulthood. Adaptive life skills are a significant area of weakness, necessitating community-based supports for almost all individuals in adulthood.

Did you notice how some of these chromosomal abnormalities share symptoms with autism spectrum disorders? This supports the idea that ASDs have a genetic component. However, even people with normal pairings (XX or XY) can exhibit symptoms of an ASD.



XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

16 Jul 2018, 3:44 pm

Fnord wrote:

Biological sex is defined by one trait:
• If an organism has an 'Y' chromosome, its sex is male.
• If an organism has no 'Y' chromosome, its sex is female.


No, it isn't. Everything you just posted afterwards demonstrates that.

You can keep insisting that a person with androgen sensitivity syndrome is "male," but that doesn't solve anything.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

16 Jul 2018, 3:58 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Biological sex is defined by one trait:
• If an organism has an 'Y' chromosome, its sex is male.
• If an organism has no 'Y' chromosome, its sex is female.
No, it isn't. Everything you just posted afterwards demonstrates that.
How so? All of the polysomies listed validate the definition.

XFilesGeek wrote:
You can keep insisting that a person with androgen sensitivity syndrome is "male," but that doesn't solve anything.
With all due respect, I have insisted no such thing.

Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS) is a condition in which there is a partial or complete inability of many cells in the affected genetic male to respond to androgenic hormones. Would you please provide a link to a medical journal or text that describes "Androgen Sensitivity Syndrome"? My Google-fu seems to be failing me on this.



XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

16 Jul 2018, 4:05 pm

Fnord wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Biological sex is defined by one trait:
• If an organism has an 'Y' chromosome, its sex is male.
• If an organism has no 'Y' chromosome, its sex is female.
No, it isn't. Everything you just posted afterwards demonstrates that.
How so? All of the polysomies listed validate the definition.

XFilesGeek wrote:
You can keep insisting that a person with androgen sensitivity syndrome is "male," but that doesn't solve anything.
With all due respect, I have insisted no such thing.

Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS) is a condition in which there is a partial or complete inability of many cells in the affected genetic male to respond to androgenic hormones. Would you please provide a link to a medical journal or text that describes "Androgen Sensitivity Syndrome"? My Google-fu seems to be failing me on this.


It's a person with XY chromosomes who don't respond to the appropriate male hormones and instead develop female secondary sex characteristics. They're usually presumed to be female until a failure to start their period reveals their condition.

There are other intersex conditions besides extra chromosomes. You're welcomed to insist that a person with AIS is really "male" despite the boobs and vagina, but you'll excuse me if I don't follow your example.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

16 Jul 2018, 4:09 pm

So …

Ya mean that *I*… a man...can give birth to a baby! :D

Whoopieeeeeee!

:lol:



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

16 Jul 2018, 4:49 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
It's a person with XY chromosomes who don't respond to the appropriate male hormones and instead develop female secondary sex characteristics. They're usually presumed to be female until a failure to start their period reveals their condition.
HUH?! I have an 'XY' combination in my 23rd pair, and I have never once experienced a 'period'! PLEASE consult a biology textbook -- even the ones written for junior high school have defined this very clearly.

XFilesGeek wrote:
There are other intersex conditions besides extra chromosomes.
These may be epigenetic in nature, or the result of a prenatal chimeric process; such as one in which fraternal twins - one male and one female - absorbed each other and developed as a single hermaphroditic person.

XFilesGeek wrote:
You're welcomed to insist that a person with AIS is really "male" despite the boobs and vagina...
Again, I have insisted no such thing. If you don't stop claiming otherwise, I shall have to report you to the moderators ... ;)

Aside from that, you know as well as I do that neither anatomy nor genetics alone account for one's sexual identity. There have been many members of this very website who have claimed to be stuck in a body that is the wrong sex -- females stuck in male bodies, and so forth.



shyteddy
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 43

18 Jul 2018, 5:22 am

Fnord wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
It's a person with XY chromosomes who don't respond to the appropriate male hormones and instead develop female secondary sex characteristics. They're usually presumed to be female until a failure to start their period reveals their condition.
HUH?! I have an 'XY' combination in my 23rd pair, and I have never once experienced a 'period'! PLEASE consult a biology textbook -- even the ones written for junior high school have defined this very clearly.

XFilesGeek wrote:
There are other intersex conditions besides extra chromosomes.
These may be epigenetic in nature, or the result of a prenatal chimeric process; such as one in which fraternal twins - one male and one female - absorbed each other and developed as a single hermaphroditic person.

XFilesGeek wrote:
You're welcomed to insist that a person with AIS is really "male" despite the boobs and vagina...
Again, I have insisted no such thing. If you don't stop claiming otherwise, I shall have to report you to the moderators ... ;)

Aside from that, you know as well as I do that neither anatomy nor genetics alone account for one's sexual identity. There have been many members of this very website who have claimed to be stuck in a body that is the wrong sex -- females stuck in male bodies, and so forth.


Well this has been a fascinating conversation to see unfold and you're obviously more educated on the topic than I, so I don't want to argue with you academically. I will say thank you however for adding something useful to the discourse instead of giving a knee-jerk reaction or simply dismissing my points, although we disagree in spots.

My point wasn't to deny that stark physical differences existed between the sexes, or that the notion of sex itself wasn't relevant. It was to say that sex isn't as dichotomous as many like to think and when we attempt to define it by something simple (XX or XY chromosomes, Genitalia, Hormones, etc.) nature always throws a wrench in our efforts by providing an exception. And since we find many who, despite having several of the defining traits have these exceptions - like females with y chromosomes, males with two x chromosomes, males with breasts, females without ovaries, and so forth - but still consider them still biologically male or female, it doesn't make sense why we wouldn't consider a transsexual person having many of these traits lacking just one or two to be equally valid in their assertion of being a "true" male or female, from the perspective of biology. And so I think using the lame "There's only two sexes" argument to disvalidate trans people is absurd as it casts aside nuance and approaches a complicated topic as though it were black and white.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

18 Jul 2018, 8:36 am

shyteddy wrote:
Fnord wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
It's a person with XY chromosomes who don't respond to the appropriate male hormones and instead develop female secondary sex characteristics. They're usually presumed to be female until a failure to start their period reveals their condition.
HUH?! I have an 'XY' combination in my 23rd pair, and I have never once experienced a 'period'! PLEASE consult a biology textbook -- even the ones written for junior high school have defined this very clearly.
XFilesGeek wrote:
There are other intersex conditions besides extra chromosomes.
These may be epigenetic in nature, or the result of a prenatal chimeric process; such as one in which fraternal twins - one male and one female - absorbed each other and developed as a single hermaphroditic person.
XFilesGeek wrote:
You're welcomed to insist that a person with AIS is really "male" despite the boobs and vagina...
Again, I have insisted no such thing. If you don't stop claiming otherwise, I shall have to report you to the moderators. Aside from that, you know as well as I do that neither anatomy nor genetics alone account for one's sexual identity. There have been many members of this very website who have claimed to be stuck in a body that is the wrong sex -- females stuck in male bodies, and so forth.
Well this has been a fascinating conversation to see unfold and you're obviously more educated on the topic than I, so I don't want to argue with you academically. I will say thank you however for adding something useful to the discourse instead of giving a knee-jerk reaction or simply dismissing my points, although we disagree in spots.
Meh ... disagreements happen. It doesn't make us enemies.
shyteddy wrote:
My point wasn't to deny that stark physical differences existed between the sexes, or that the notion of sex itself wasn't relevant. It was to say that sex isn't as dichotomous as many like to think and when we attempt to define it by something simple (XX or XY chromosomes, Genitalia, Hormones, etc.) nature always throws a wrench in our efforts by providing an exception. And since we find many who, despite having several of the defining traits have these exceptions - like females with y chromosomes, males with two x chromosomes, males with breasts, females without ovaries, and so forth...
You have it backwards. It's not "Male with two X chromosomes", it's actually "Female with male genitalia" (As I said, there may be epigenetic factors involved). With the definitions of 'male' and 'female' based on genetic factors, the rest falls into place much more readily. A person's sex should not be based on the presence or absence of breasts, ovaries, testicles, a penis or a vagina -- it's their base chromosomal pairs that matter. And it's how the person identifies him- or her-self that matters more in the determination of gender. This is why we validate people with male bodies and 'XY' chromosomes as female -- they believe they are female, and that's all there is to it.
shyteddy wrote:
... I think using the lame "There's only two sexes" argument to disvalidate trans people is absurd as it casts aside nuance and approaches a complicated topic as though it were black and white.
Saying that there are only two sexes does not invalidate transgender people. Once we all accept the fact that sex is defined by genetics, that gender is a social construct, and that sex and gender are not the same thing (just as faith and religion are not the same thing), then we can get on with meaningful discussions regarding this topic.

My feelings on transgender people have undergone a 180-degree turnabout in the last few years. I no longer see them as delusional or somehow 'damaged'. I now see them merely as people. This may be due to my interest in transhumanism, my ability to reason my way through any topic, or my own life-changes brought on by male menopause. Who knows?

The fact that I can put reason behind my acceptance of trans-gendered people should be seen as a significant step in the right direction, whether or not anyone agrees with the actual reasoning itself.



XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

18 Jul 2018, 5:11 pm

Fnord wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
It's a person with XY chromosomes who don't respond to the appropriate male hormones and instead develop female secondary sex characteristics. They're usually presumed to be female until a failure to start their period reveals their condition.
HUH?! I have an 'XY' combination in my 23rd pair, and I have never once experienced a 'period'! PLEASE consult a biology textbook -- even the ones written for junior high school have defined this very clearly.


Not sure how that relates to anything I've said.

Quote:
Again, I have insisted no such thing. If you don't stop claiming otherwise, I shall have to report you to the moderators ... ;)


I didn't insist that you "insisted." I said IF.

Quote:
Aside from that, you know as well as I do that neither anatomy nor genetics alone account for one's sexual identity. There have been many members of this very website who have claimed to be stuck in a body that is the wrong sex -- females stuck in male bodies, and so forth.


Agreed.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

18 Jul 2018, 5:12 pm

Fnord wrote:
shyteddy wrote:
Fnord wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
It's a person with XY chromosomes who don't respond to the appropriate male hormones and instead develop female secondary sex characteristics. They're usually presumed to be female until a failure to start their period reveals their condition.
HUH?! I have an 'XY' combination in my 23rd pair, and I have never once experienced a 'period'! PLEASE consult a biology textbook -- even the ones written for junior high school have defined this very clearly.
XFilesGeek wrote:
There are other intersex conditions besides extra chromosomes.
These may be epigenetic in nature, or the result of a prenatal chimeric process; such as one in which fraternal twins - one male and one female - absorbed each other and developed as a single hermaphroditic person.
XFilesGeek wrote:
You're welcomed to insist that a person with AIS is really "male" despite the boobs and vagina...
Again, I have insisted no such thing. If you don't stop claiming otherwise, I shall have to report you to the moderators. Aside from that, you know as well as I do that neither anatomy nor genetics alone account for one's sexual identity. There have been many members of this very website who have claimed to be stuck in a body that is the wrong sex -- females stuck in male bodies, and so forth.
Well this has been a fascinating conversation to see unfold and you're obviously more educated on the topic than I, so I don't want to argue with you academically. I will say thank you however for adding something useful to the discourse instead of giving a knee-jerk reaction or simply dismissing my points, although we disagree in spots.
Meh ... disagreements happen. It doesn't make us enemies.
shyteddy wrote:
My point wasn't to deny that stark physical differences existed between the sexes, or that the notion of sex itself wasn't relevant. It was to say that sex isn't as dichotomous as many like to think and when we attempt to define it by something simple (XX or XY chromosomes, Genitalia, Hormones, etc.) nature always throws a wrench in our efforts by providing an exception. And since we find many who, despite having several of the defining traits have these exceptions - like females with y chromosomes, males with two x chromosomes, males with breasts, females without ovaries, and so forth...
You have it backwards. It's not "Male with two X chromosomes", it's actually "Female with male genitalia" (As I said, there may be epigenetic factors involved). With the definitions of 'male' and 'female' based on genetic factors, the rest falls into place much more readily. A person's sex should not be based on the presence or absence of breasts, ovaries, testicles, a penis or a vagina -- it's their base chromosomal pairs that matter. And it's how the person identifies him- or her-self that matters more in the determination of gender. This is why we validate people with male bodies and 'XY' chromosomes as female -- they believe they are female, and that's all there is to it.
shyteddy wrote:
... I think using the lame "There's only two sexes" argument to disvalidate trans people is absurd as it casts aside nuance and approaches a complicated topic as though it were black and white.
Saying that there are only two sexes does not invalidate transgender people. Once we all accept the fact that sex is defined by genetics, that gender is a social construct, and that sex and gender are not the same thing (just as faith and religion are not the same thing), then we can get on with meaningful discussions regarding this topic.

My feelings on transgender people have undergone a 180-degree turnabout in the last few years. I no longer see them as delusional or somehow 'damaged'. I now see them merely as people. This may be due to my interest in transhumanism, my ability to reason my way through any topic, or my own life-changes brought on by male menopause. Who knows?

The fact that I can put reason behind my acceptance of trans-gendered people should be seen as a significant step in the right direction, whether or not anyone agrees with the actual reasoning itself.


:wtg:


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)