Forum menu
biology doesnt just mean DNA or chromosomes
No, but I'm willing to bet that chromosomes have a reasonable correlation to biological gender and a pretty good correlation to social and cultural gender as well. It would pick out the vast majority of cis males/cis females, obviously it wouldn't spot the Two-Spirits etc.
If you're going to argue people with chromosomal abnormalities are a new biological gender you could equally argue people with chromosomal abnormalities are a new biological species. (As opposed to social and cultural species like trans animals.)
Well, that rather runs into the same problem.
So, if you cannot define the criteria then how on earth can you argue there are three or more states which meet them?
such as what a humblebrag is? 😂I think it gives geneticists an appreciation of how little we understand about everything!
Outofbreath, your attempts to make things simpler than they really are just result in you going around in circular loops, sadly. It’s easier to just think of a spectrum, rather than binary, with nearly everyone right up at one end of the spectrum or the other, and a tiny outlier of people occupying the rest of the spectrum… and… importantly… some being classified wrongly and having a hard life as they attempt to reposition themselves while so much of society seems to want to prevent them from doing so. Some of this is understood biology, and some of it is not biology, or understood.
It’s easier to just think of a spectrum, rather than binary, with nearly everyone right up at one end of the spectrum or the other, and a tiny outlier of people occupying the rest of the spectrum
The latter is more accurate in biological terms though. Over 99.99% of the human race lie at the two "extremes". It's a spectrum where, viewed from a very slight distance, it contains only Red and Violet.
Yes, yes, we get that most people fit neatly into one end of the spectrum or the other, with no need to move, but if we chose to pretend that the outliers do not exist, or for some odd reason try and make it hard for them to live their lives, it has a very real effect on them.
I get that people want things to be simpler, that it’s easier if we only consider the majority, “people like us”, but bit by bit, we’ve managed to open up society to the outliers, and need to be very wary of people seeking to close it down again. Language is part of this, especially where it meets the law.
All mammals use sexual reproduction to procreate.
*Two* mature adults contribute parts of their genome to make up the offspring.
The definition of male sex is the adult that provides the spe*m, female the egg. The egg and spe*m are known as gametes. There is no third gamete. An individual can be seen to fit in one of the two categories (even if sterile).
As we note there are a range of anatomies and physiologies beneath this umbrella definition. This definition copes with 'all' chromosomal variants and DSDs.
This definition of sex has not changed...
Science will continue to debate and explore this area.
HTH...
So, if you cannot define the criteria then how on earth can you argue there are three or more states which meet them?
As I said, "Complicated, isn’t it. Who knew."
This is the point I'm trying to make, and what I said in my first post in the thread. We've held for years that there are two genders, and now we're beginning to understand that that may not always be the case. Whilst we can't definitively say that there are 3, 4 or 58 genders it's surely true to say that gender is non-binary. This is what others are saying when they talk about a spectrum.
It's kinda similar with sexuality; we've (mostly) come to terms with the concept of homosexuality, and we're now realising that as well as being straight or gay people can be bisexual, asexual, or even have a primary partner preference but open to relationships with a non-primary choice - if you like "a little bit gay" (or straight). Ie, it's not black and white, which is why the LGB+ acronym now contains half the alphabet.
Pinpointing why or how is - here's that word again - complicated, and poorly understood. If we look at chromosomes say, as well as XY and XX we have XXY, XYY and a raft of others, so if we're using this to define gender then there is demonstrably more than two. Or there was a study a few years back which looked post-mortem at the brains of trans people and found areas consistent with their destination sex rather than birth, so perhaps it is (in a non-pejorative sense) a "mental illness" or rather a difference in the brain chemistry which makes some people feel that they were born into the wrong body. As someone else said, a small number of babies get surgically assigned a gender due to (sigh) complications and it's feasible that the doctor got it wrong.
And yes, I know I'm mixing around sex, gender and trans here, but they're all sides of the same non-binary argument - some people don't fit into your nice neat little boxes and demanding they do so from the comfort of your own perfectly-defined box is cruel.
All mammals use sexual reproduction to procreate.
I don't, I've never reproduced. I expect plenty of homosexual people haven't either.
An individual can be seen to fit in one of the two categories (even if sterile).
Sure about that? What if someone was born with neither?
What if someone was born with meat & two veg, went through full gender reassignment surgery and wound up with fully-working ladyparts? By your definition then I presume you'd be 100% in agreement that they had, in fact, changed sex and were now a bona fide honest-to-goodness card-carrying woman?
This definition of sex has not changed…
Gender and sex aren't entirely the same thing.
Complicated, isn’t it.
As I said, “Complicated, isn’t it. Who knew.”
This is the point I’m trying to make
The point you made, that I am disputing, is your claim that there are three or more biological genders. (When you can only name two of them and you can't define any of them.)
Not sure I agree it's complicated either: Biological Gender: Two biological genders. (Plus some people who don't fully match with either.) Social and Cultural Gender: Anything goes. Job jobbed.
Gender and sex aren’t entirely the same thing.
According to Google the second definition of 'sex' matches the OED definition of biological gender as far as I can see:
"Sex: 2. either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions."
reassignment surgery and wound up with fully-working ladyparts
Full gender reassignment surgery although quite a major set of procedures is cosmetic. It only gives an appearance of the desired morphology. The individuals biological sex does not change.
Even if someone is born without either e.g. sterile or rare DSD they can fit into these definitions.
Wether or not you actually procreate is irrelavent.
Yes, I explicitly separate the terms sex and gender.
(When you can only name two of them and you can’t define any of them.)
Problem is defining just 2 is just as hard
If fertility is the defining feature, those who are infertile due to hormonal imbalance are more or less than one of the genders?
Biological Gender: Two biological genders.
Biology doesn't just mean chromosomes or DNA
What if someone was born with neither?
In a fetus there's no outward sign of gender until about nine weeks, but they still have a gender from the moment of conception. (Unless there's some abnormality as discussed.)
The point you made, that I am disputing,
You're not disputing it, you're ignoring it. I've already replied to all those arguments and I'm not going round in circles again.
Full gender reassignment surgery although quite a major set of procedures is cosmetic. It only gives an appearance of the desired morphology. The individuals biological sex does not change.
And if it wasn't?
Your argument is "sperm = man, egg = woman." So if someone is surgically altered to be able to produce the opposite then by your own definitions either they've changed sex or your definition needs some work.
(Aside, I read a post on Twitter the other day by a M2F trans woman who had just experienced her first orgasm, which would suggest it's rather more than just 'cosmetic'?)
Problem is defining just 2 is just as hard
Cougar's not claiming there's two he's claiming there's three or more. ...and the definition argument is Cougar's not mine, I just chucked it back at him.
Although I can't define it, biological gender is determined at conception for the vast majority of us and where it can be meaningfully determined it is male or female. There are some rare people who don't fit either.
If fertility is the defining feature, those who are infertile due to hormonal imbalance are more or less than one of the genders?
I did state that being infertile does not prevent the use of this definition of biological sex. Am trying to be succinct e.g. it also covers post menopausal women. Hormonal issues are often found in DSDs. These individuals can also be found to be one of the two sexes using the criteria.
they still have a gender from the moment of conception.
You can't define what gender is, can't explain how it's measured, yet can confidently state that it's assigned at the point of conception?
I think I need a drink.
Cougar’s not claiming there’s two he’s claiming there’s three or more
In case you missed it, https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/gender/page/4/#post-11067243
where it can be meaningfully determined it is male or female. There are some rare people who don’t fit either.
Once more with feeling,
Those rare people who don't fit either that you talk about, which box do they go into? If gender is binary then by definition they cannot "not fit either," they must fit into one or the other. If they don't then gender is non-binary. Which is a posh way of saying "not two."
Which is it to be?
You can’t define what gender is, can’t explain how it’s measured, yet can confidently state that it’s assigned at the point of conception?
Biological sex is observed in most at birth or during ultrasound scan. Biological sex being defined as the individual should be capable of producing one of the male or female gametes when an adult. Note they don't have to be actually capable of this.
The default masculine for boys/males or feminine for girls/females societal gender is assigned by parents, family, society...it would be so much better if societal gender was treated in a less either or manner.
And if it wasn’t?
Your argument is “sperm = man, egg = woman.” So if someone is surgically altered to be able to produce the opposite then by your own definitions either they’ve changed sex or your definition needs some work.
(Aside, I read a post on Twitter the other day by a M2F trans woman who had just experienced her first orgasm, which would suggest it’s rather more than just ‘cosmetic’?)
You are entering the realm of science fiction/fantasy. Apart from having to rewrite the genome in every cell of the body you'd probably have to appropriate anothers sexuality via organ donation of uterus etc. Also many the effects of a male puberty cannot be changed later.
...re - orgasm I did say the surgery can be quite major. SImply put, the skin of the removed pe*nis may be used to line the neo-va*ina. If the nerve connections are intact there could well be an 'orgasm'.
Maybe, but you're dodging the question.
All mammals use sexual reproduction to procreate.
I don’t, I’ve never reproduced. I expect plenty of homosexual people haven’t either.
This is covered by "humans, as a species, are bipedal even if born with one, none or additional legs".
Maybe, but you’re dodging the question.
I am describing current and foreseeable reality.
Your argument is “sperm = man, egg = woman.” So if someone is surgically altered to be able to produce the opposite then by your own definitions either they’ve changed sex or your definition needs some work.
What? Seriously? I don't know what you're reading to come to this conclusion. clarkpm4242 is the only person posting sense on this page.
I'm baffled that people keep confusing sex and gender on here and differences of sexual development do not mean sex is a spectrum. It's grossly offensive to suggest men and women with DSDs are not men and women.
Any measure you use to split the human race into purely Male and purely Female, has exceptions. Chromosome, genitals, hormonal… and beyond all the overly simple understanding of biology… what people know in themselves they are.
The intersex and transexual issues are separate, but people seeking to stamp a biological norm of “everyone is born (or even more mistakenly, conceived) as male or female” as a starting point for discussion about people identified as male/female at birth, but later wishing to live as female/male, are using dangerous over simplification.
I said it before, I'm going to say it again: mammals cannot change sex.
Cougar's argument seems to boil down to: "but if they could change sex then they would have changed sex".
If someone identified as male at birth wants to present themselves in what they consider to be a feminine manner that's fine. If they want to use a name that is usually given to females that's fine. If they want to use pronouns usually used to describe the other sex that's fine... but they cannot change sex.
'Transwomen are women' is a fashionable phrase at the moment, but it's not true. Transwomen are men who would like to present as, and be treated as, what they consider to be a womanly way.
I'm usually polite, and I have no reason not to go along with this. I only object when people tell me I have to believe that men can become women to vice versa.
I only object when people tell me I have to believe that men can become women to vice versa.
This is the faith/religious argument I've put forward before. I absolutely defend anyones right to believe in any religion they want, but they do not have the right to expect me to believe in it too. I will be accommodating when possible (like not having the TV on when the MiL visits on a Sunday as that is against her beliefs), but, harping back to molgrips road analogy, if someone crosses the white line and is now facing the oncoming traffic, they can't expect everyone else to change direction too.
How much of this could solved by just treating people like people and not giving a flying cabbage about their gender? Makes no difference if someone identifies as an axolotl, a trans man or he man, as long as they ain’t a pita.
You can’t define what gender is, can’t explain how it’s measured, yet can confidently state that it’s assigned at the point of conception?
I googled. I can't believe you need me to explain to you how babies are made! Gender *is* determined at conception.
Those rare people who don’t fit either that you talk about, which box do they go into?
If they have some kind of abnormality that leaves them neither male nor female then (as far as I can find) they have no gender, as far as I can find there are no additional genders for those who don't fit either gender. If you have discovered otherwise feel free to post a link from a credible source and I will thank you and concede the point. The fact you haven't already done so strongly suggests you've found nothing.
As Samuel Johnson said: "To revenge reasonable incredulity by refusing evidence, is a degree of insolence with which the world is not yet acquainted; and stubborn audacity is the last refuge of guilt."
IMV, if you could back up your assertion you'd already have done it.
How much of this could solved by just treating people like people and not giving a flying cabbage about their gender? Makes no difference if someone identifies as an axolotl, a trans man or he man, as long as they ain’t a pita.
Does anyone give a flying cabbage about gender?
Sex, however? Well, sex is one the protected characteristics defined in the Equality Act. Gender Reassignment (not Gender Identity) is another.
The Equality Act allows for single-sex and separate services for men and women, e.g. Only women can be a mammogram nurse. People with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) can still be excluded from single-sex services.
If they have some kind of abnormality that leaves them neither male nor female then (as far as I can find) they have no gender
The are still either male or female.
The are still either male or female.
So, we’re ignoring all the difficult decisions made when having to chose what to put on the birth certificate? At what point is the male/female decision set in stone? When the medical staff choose, or when the operations are complete, or when the certificate is signed? What happens when the baby grows up to challenge the decision?
There is rarely a difficult decision. biological sex is observed by skilled medical, nursing and midwifery professionals.
To quote an article from the Wall Street Journal by an evolutionary and developmental biologist.
'In humans, reproductive anatomy is unambiguously male or female at birth more than 99.98 per cent of the time.'
In advanced healthcare systems there is followup for the remainder. A 'placeholder' is used until the matter is resolved. 'Operations' would not change the biological sex of the baby. Changing a birth certificate does appear to change legal/administrative sex however, unless there was an earlier, genuine error the individuals biological sex remains unchanged.
Cougar’s argument seems to boil down to: “but if they could change sex then they would have changed sex”.
Rather my 'argument' is to challenge over-simplistic and logically inconsistent arguments. For instance,
If they have some kind of abnormality that leaves them neither male nor female then (as far as I can find) they have no gender
... this is progress, we've now finally admitted that there are at least three states: male / female / other, something that was deemed impossible three pages ago.
I only object when people tell me I have to believe that men can become women to vice versa.
Do me a favour. There was an episode of Naked Attraction recently, possibly the final episode of the previous series, where one of the contestants was a trans woman. Please, go watch it, then tell me if you then stand by that statement.
if someone crosses the white line and is now facing the oncoming traffic, they can’t expect everyone else to change direction too.
But in this increasingly inappropriate analogy they don't want everyone else to change direction / sides. Rather they want to be able to be left alone to be on whichever side they like. This is the gay marriage argument all over again, it's not suddenly going to become mandatory you know.
Do me a favour. There was an episode of Naked Attraction recently, possibly the final episode of the previous series, where one of the contestants was a trans woman. Please, go watch it, then tell me if you then stand by that statement.
I don’t need to watch it - Men cannot become women, women cannot become men. I assume you mean the transwomen looked like a women, which I am quite prepared to believe. Still, men cannot become women.
Rather they want to be able to be left alone to be on whichever side they like
Which is fine & very much as it should be. However... At some point their preference has an impact on other members of society. Most obviously in sport, but also with the question of them gaining access to protected 'women only' spaces. That is when the problem arises as to whether they have in fact become women, or whether the way in which they were socialized & the ongoing effects of their biology make them different. As you say.. it's complicated.
… this is progress, we’ve now finally admitted that there are at least three states: male / female / other, something that was deemed impossible three pages ago.
To further quote an article from the Wall Street Journal by an evolutionary and developmental biologist, both credible! A bit wordy, but presents balanced description.
'In humans, as in most animals or plants, an organism’s biological sex corresponds to one of two distinct types of reproductive anatomy that develop for the production of small or large sex cells — spe*m and eggs, respectively — and associated biological functions in sexual reproduction. In humans, reproductive anatomy is unambiguously male or female at birth more than 99.98 per cent of the time.
The evolutionary function of these two anatomies is to aid in reproduction via the fusion of spe*m and ova. No third type of sex cell exists in humans, and therefore there is no sex spectrum or additional sexes beyond male and female. Sex is binary.
There is a difference, however, between the statements that there are only two sexes (true) and that everyone can be neatly categorised as male or female (false). The existence of only two sexes does not mean sex is never ambiguous. But intersex individuals are extremely rare, and they are neither a third sex nor proof that sex is a spectrum or a social construct.
Not everyone needs to be discretely assignable to one or the other sex for biological sex to be functionally binary. To assume otherwise — to confuse secondary sexual traits with biological sex itself — is a category error.'
Humans tend to think/talk forever about sex, even when discussing gender 😉
I don’t need to watch it – Men cannot become women, women cannot become men
Yes they can. Note the thread title.
I don’t need to watch it – Men cannot become women, women cannot become men
Yes they can. Note the thread title.
No, they can't. A man is an adult human male, a woman is an adult human female. Pick other words, those are taken.
No, they can’t. A man is an adult human male, a woman is an adult human female. Pick other words, those are taken.
Yes they can. As the law says.
No, they can’t. A man is an adult human male, a woman is an adult human female. Pick other words, those are taken.
Yes they can. As the law says.
A legal fiction. They haven't actually changed sex.
Oh look, our resident transphobe.
A legal fiction. They haven’t actually changed sex.
I didn't say they had. Again, note the thread title.