A meaning has been added, the original meaning is still in use.

again, language is dynamic, it is constantly evolving

Turner syndrome is a female-only chromosomal abnormality

as I said before its more complicated- Turners syndrome also includes mosaicisms that can lead to males with partial Y chromosomes

https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/jog.13617

my point is that rigidly classing people into either of 2 sexes/ genders, or syndromes even, misses entirely the diversity within populations & people

eg Polycystic Ovary syndrome is thought to be as high as 18% and is caused by excess androgens, tho testosterone still usually below normal male levels

& I take the point that gender dysphoria has psychological factors as well, as I mentioned

as I said before the relationship between genotype & phenotype is not simple, pretending it is may help you feel like you are getting your head round the world better, but its ignoring the realities

again, language is dynamic, it is constantly evolving

Yup, but both definitions of Gender are in use today as evidenced by the OED.

my point is that rigidly classing people into either of 2 sexes/ genders, or syndromes even, misses entirely the diversity within populations & people

No it wasn’t, your point was to defeat the idea that there are only two biological genders by identifying Turner Syndrome as somehow evidence of a third biological gender.

You had to do that because there is no third biological gender so you can’t identify one. People have tried to use the vagaries of the Thai langage as evidence of a third biological gender for the same reason. Facts beat feelings when it comes to biological gender.

Social or cultural Gender on the other hand has a vast array of genders and nobody is disputing that.

So, OK. Assuming for the sake of argument for a moment that you are correct and there are “only two biological genders,” what criteria are you using to define which one a person corresponds to? Genitals? Chromosomes? Something else?

In my view, there are two genders in the same way that a road has two sides – a left and a right side. However it’s perfectly possible to be in the middle of the road, as it is possible to be intersex. The middle of the road is not a new ‘side’.

You could define fully male or fully female as having all the biological characteristics that are commonly aligned to that gender, but acknowledge that you may have a combination of characteristics from both genders.

So, OK. Assuming for the sake of argument for a moment that you are correct and there are “only two biological genders,” what criteria are you using to define which one a person corresponds to? Genitals? Chromosomes? Something else?

No idea of the criteria and I’m not claiming that 100pc of people fit neatly into those biological genders. I’m merely disputing the claims that there are >2 biological genders. Mainly on the basis that I’ve only ever heard of two. (Plus the fact that the people who claim there are >2 won’t name them makes me think there aren’t.)

In my view, there are two genders in the same way that a road has two sides – a left and a right side. However it’s perfectly possible to be in the middle of the road, as it is possible to be intersex. The middle of the road is not a new ‘side’.

That’s my take on biological gender.

In contrast, social and cultural gender has at least 48 lanes, and if you are between two lanes that ‘boundary’ becomes a new lane.

No idea of the criteria

If you cannot define the criteria then how on earth can you argue there are only two possible states which meet them?

I’m not claiming that 100pc of people fit neatly into those biological genders.

But you kind of are. You’re arguing that a coin only has two sides and refusing to acknowledge “edge” or the existence of dice.

So what do we call those people, then? Surely that by its very definition implies that if someone cannot fit into one or the other then there must be a third? Intersex? Non-gender-specific? “Other”?

Mainly on the basis that I’ve only ever heard of two.

So if you haven’t heard of something your conclusion is that it doesn’t exist?

(Plus the fact that the people who claim there are >2 won’t name them makes me think there aren’t.)

There’s a somewhat absurd list you can choose from on the previous page if you insist on needing labels.

In my view, there are two genders in the same way that a road has two sides – a left and a right side. However it’s perfectly possible to be in the middle of the road, as it is possible to be intersex. The middle of the road is not a new ‘side’.

… that being the case, it’s possible to spend your entire life driving on the wrong side of it, n’est-ce pas? That must be an awful situation, you’d probably want to change lanes if at all possible.

In my view, there are two genders in the same way that a road has two sides – a left and a right side. However it’s perfectly possible to be in the middle of the road, as it is possible to be intersex. The middle of the road is not a new ‘side’.

Assuming we’re talking “biological gender” (i.e. sex) I believe that, in this analogy, on a standard-ish 8m wide road, the middle would be around 5mm wide.

… that being the case, it’s possible to spend your entire life driving on the wrong side of it, n’est-ce pas? That must be an awful situation, you’d probably want to change lanes if at all possible.

Short of completely re-writing your DNA, how could you accomplish this?

If you cannot define the criteria then how on earth can you argue there are only two possible states which meet them?

So, OK. Assuming for the sake of argument for a moment that you are correct and there are more than two biological genders, what criteria are you using to define which one a person corresponds to? Genitals? Chromosomes? Something else?

Short of completely re-writing your DNA, how could you accomplish this?

So, your criteria is DNA based then…? Over to @kimbers for a reply to that … way too complicated for most of the rest of us (including you).

And there are people assigned one gender at birth, only to later discover that the decision was based on surgical convenience… and they have been struggling along on the “wrong side of the road” due to the choices made by others.

Then of course there are people for whom gender was clear cut at birth, but doesn’t ring true as they grow into adulthood. Let them take the side of the road that is right for them. If they confuse you, don’t lash out at them through (understandable) fear of outliers.

No it wasn’t, your point was to defeat the idea that there are only two biological genders by identifying Turner Syndrome as somehow evidence of a third biological gender.

not really
more that genders are 2 diverse blobs & defining them is hard because those definitions get fuzzy at the edges

its not as daft as trying to define race by biology, but it runs into similar problems

Short of completely re-writing your DNA, how could you accomplish this?

you wouldnt have to rewrite all of your DNA just add in a few bits chop a bit (well, lots of bits) out & as Kelvin rightly says, I have no idea which ones ( that tech is way beyond us at the moment, its not a million miles away tho)

what Im trying to say is that a biological definition of gender is hard to pin down, because biology doesnt just mean DNA or chromosomes, its a complex system from DNA to Protein & everything in between, rather than adding or subtracting genes, to change a gender it would be more about turning the right genes on & off

at the moment we can change things by adding or removing hormones, these also effect things at the epigenetic level (the machinery that turns genes on & off) which in turn creates its own feedback loops

taking PCOS as an example, its >3x more common in lesbians than straight women & even more common in trans men, even though testosterone levels are usually below normal range for men, they are above normal for women, where do they fit into rigid categories (bearing in mind the 18% prevelancy in the general pop)

Im in no way advocating that any girl with PCOS should be immediately given hormone therapy to turn them into blokes

just that its way more complicated than many people would like it to be

Then of course there are people for whom gender was clear cut at birth, but doesn’t ring true as they grow into adulthood.

this is also a good point hormone levels have a huge range and that range can show great variability with age, even varies by time of day ( Im not saying that people can switch genders because its a full moon or anything 😉 ) & hormones being just 1 part of the picture, obvs

@kimbers – on the previous page you mentioned neurological elements and I maybe incorrectly read that as phsycological . (which you then repeated). Would it be correct to say that it’s possibly a bit of both or is our understanding not that developed?

@kelvin – I don’t see anyone on this thread “lashing out”.

Would it be correct to say that it’s possibly a bit of both or is our understanding not that developed?

Im no expert fwiw! (though I work with an expert in non binary cancer treatment, who Id be tempted to bring into this debate, but she’d probably start a riot)

& I d use the 2 interchangeably, because we really dont know how to separate how they influence each other, so definitely bit of both

as I said, Id broadly agree that there are 2 genders/ sexes, but they are impossible to define completely, so theres ample room for people to come in and add extra ones and be neither right or wrong about it
Eben the linean idea of species<genus<family<order<class<phylum<kingdom is rather arbitrary & has run into trouble in the age of genomics

I worked at the Sanger when they 1st sequenced the human genome (#humblebrag) and the expectation was that we’d find 200000- 50000 genes (there was a sweepstake), when it was realised there were only 30000 genes in humans (we now think about 20000)

-it was a big shock, that something so complex was controlled by so few genes, I think it gives geneticists an appreciation of how little we understand about everything!

So, OK. Assuming for the sake of argument for a moment that you are correct and there are more than two biological genders, what criteria are you using to define which one a person corresponds to? Genitals? Chromosomes? Something else?

Well, that rather runs into the same problem.

Complicated, isn’t it. Who knew.

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?

I think it gives geneticists an appreciation of how little we understand about everything!

such as what a humblebrag is? 😂

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.