GC: Is sexual attraction only based on genitals, or is there more to sexual attraction (e.g. attraction to secondary sexual characteristics, "femininity", "masculinity", etc)?

submitted by Not_a_celebrity from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (76 children)

Sex is about reproduction. We're an anisogamic species, which means we reproduce through the production of specialized cells with half the DNA (gametes) of different size. Male individuals are the ones who produce small gametes (spermatozoon) and females are the ones who produce large gametes (ovum).

what about people who don't produce any gametes?

There are several genes involved in sex determination in humans, but the golden star is the SRY gen. Basically, if this gen is present the embryo will develope as male, if not it will develop as female. As this gen is located in the Y chromosome, XX individuals are females and XY individuals are males.

what about people with chromosomal abnormalities regarding the sex chromosomes?

"Medical transition" doesn't change anything about it. Everyone of your cells keep having the same sex chromosomes you've since conception not matter how much exogenus hormones you take and not matter how many surgeries you undergone

true. It doesn't change the chromosomes. Which is utterly irrelevant, since most of the differences in biological function (fat distribution, pheromones, muscle development, secondary sexual characteristics) depend on the hormone levels, which, in medical transitioning are changed (further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_hormone_therapy_(male-to-female)#Effects , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_hormone_therapy_(female-to-male)#Effects )

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (30 children)

what about people who don't produce any gametes?

One time, I had anorexia Nervosa and I stopped ovulating and menstruating. This did not mean I was a man. In fact it was medically significant that I had stopped making gametes as a 23 year old female and led to the diagnosis of AN.

The cessation of ovulation did not make my ovaries or uterus disappear, nor did it turn them into testes or a vas deferens. The entire time I was still a female, since my body developed into a female body in utero. Even without making gametes, the gamete factory was still developed.

This is a part of what other users mean when they suggest you learn a bit more about human development. You’re misunderstanding the entire gamete argument.

[–]ColoredTwiceIntersex female, medical malpractice victim, lesbian 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Technically speaking, we only producing ova when pregnant with a girl.

All our ova we have in our ovaries since birth and we only maturing them one by one. So we are not even producing them.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

True, true. I suppose maturing and releasing would be better phrasing.

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (27 children)

One time, I had anorexia Nervosa and I stopped ovulating and menstruating. This did not mean I was a man. In fact it was medically significant that I had stopped making gametes as a 23 year old female and led to the diagnosis of AN.

The cessation of ovulation did not make my ovaries or uterus disappear, nor did it turn them into testes or a vas deferens. The entire time I was still a female, since my body developed into a female body in utero. Even without making gametes, the gamete factory was still developed.

This is a part of what other users mean when they suggest you learn a bit more about human development. You’re misunderstanding the entire gamete argument.

a.) and you misunderstand the counter to the gamete argument. No, you did not become male because you didn't ovulate. Therefore ovulation is not conditional to being female.

b.) so do you define biological sex based on müllerian vs. wolffian ducts ?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (26 children)

I am female because I developed the reproductive system that would produce ova. That’s what you aren’t understanding.

Your counter argument does not work because it still insists on active production/release of gametes not what actually defines sex; what the reproductive system developed to produce. It’s either one or the other barring a DSD.

I define by genes, (SRY activation) and gametes, (reproductive system). Either works really, since disorders of sexual development are disorders, not a third sex or any sort of reason to redefine sex. Would you change the definition of ‘dog’ if one developed a disorder causing it to look like a cat?

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (25 children)

It’s either one or the other barring a DSD.

except that you can't barr intersex conditions from the definition of sex.

I define by genes, (SRY activation) and gametes, (reproductive system).

so is it either

a.) chromosomal (e.g. sorting people with chromosomal anomalies into the wrong biological sex)

b.) active gamete production (which would not work with people who, for whatever reason, don't produce gametes)

c.) müllerian vs. wolffian ducts ?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

Why on earth wouldn’t you exclude a disorder from the definition of the typical order? Are we not bipedal since some people are born with ameliorated legs?

Why do you keep insisting I’m saying active gamete production/release? I’ve explained it to you twice and others have countless times as well. At this point I can o lay assume you either aren’t capable of reading comprehension or you are deliberately choosing to misunderstand. Your refusal to answer what’s asked of you on top of you ignoring me to repeat yourself leads me to believe it’s a combination of both. Seems like a waste of time to continue, no?

I don’t define it by ducts, but wolfram are male and mullerian female in typical development.

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (23 children)

Why on earth wouldn’t you exclude a disorder from the definition of the typical order?

because a systematic definition has to cover not only the typical cases, but also the atypical ones.

Are we not bipedal since some people are born with ameliorated legs?

humans are typically bipedal. This does not exclude cases of people who aren't.

Why do you keep insisting I’m saying active gamete production/release? I’ve explained it to you twice and others have countless times as well. At this point I can o lay assume you either aren’t capable of reading comprehension or you are deliberately choosing to misunderstand. Your refusal to answer what’s asked of you on top of you ignoring me to repeat yourself leads me to believe it’s a combination of both. Seems like a waste of time to continue, no?

so if it is not active gamete production (as you just said), chromosomes (due to atypical cases regarding those), or müllerian vs. wolffian ducts (as you said below) which solely determine biological sex, what singular anatomical feature or biological process is then the sole determiner in all existing cases?

I don’t define it by ducts, but wolfram are male and mullerian female in typical development.

and atypically?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

So we are a bipedal species? We don’t define a human as a 0-3 legged because a disorder in the usual development does not make the usual development obsolete.

What possible reason is there to define something by the typical process going wrong? We don’t say a breast tumour is just breast because it’s there and growing on the mammary.

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

So we are a bipedal species?

humans are typically bipedal.

We don’t define a human as a 0-3 legged because a disorder in the usual development does not make the usual development obsolete. What possible reason is there to define something by the typical process going wrong?

an inclusive definition must acount for atypical cases, otherwise the atypical cases are excluded from said definition. In your example of "Humans are bipedal" that would then exclude people who (naturally or aquired) have more or less than 2 legs.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

An inclusive definition is not scientific or accurate. Is a seizure disorder not a disorder because it’s just electrical impulses in the brain?

You don’t seem to understand what definitions are or what purpose they serve.

[–]MezozoicGaygay male 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

what singular anatomical feature or biological process is then the sole determiner in all existing cases?

Why there should be a singular one? There a lot of biological processes, that are starting in womb that are determening sex and which are making people of different sex have different processes in the future. You know that we can determine if kid is male or female (and even predict most intersex conditions) by just mothers blood test and ultrasound when kid is just a foetus in mother's womb and only 10-11 weeks old? Changes are already noticeable, long before birth.

If you mean not just process, but factor, the definition - there is exactly one such factor - development of body to support one or another gamete type. That feature is so universal, that it works for determening sex for every single mammal and multicellular living organism, even when their chromosomes are exactly the same (Turtles, where sex depends on temperature of the egg, as example) or different from humans. That is why we know that it is male Seahorses, who are carrying eggs after being produced by female and fertilized by male. That is how we know when Clownfish have male and female function and when they change it. It is so simple and covers every single case, that it is unclear how it can be an object of discussion at all.

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (10 children)

Why there should be a singular one? There a lot of biological processes, that are starting in womb that are determening sex and which are making people of different sex have different processes in the future. You know that we can determine if kid is male or female (and even predict most intersex conditions) by just mothers blood test and ultrasound when kid is just a foetus in mother's womb and only 10-11 weeks old? Changes are already noticeable, long before birth.

precisely. There is not a singular biological process/anatomical feature that determines biological sex, but it is a composite of a lot of biological processes and anatomical features, that may or may not be alligned. In the vast majority of cases, they are aligned. This is where the conception of "biological sex as a spectrum" does come from.

If you mean not just process, but factor, the definition - there is exactly one such factor - development of body to support one or another gamete type. It is so simple and covers every single case, that it is unclear how it can be an object of discussion at all.

The object of the discussion is on how to define what gamete the body is supposed to support. That's why I bought up müllerian vs. wolffian ducts as those are the respective anatomical features dealing with the gametes released from the gonads.

[–]MezozoicGaygay male 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

This is where the conception of "biological sex as a spectrum" does come from.

And it makes no sense, because in every single case body is still aimed to support one or another gamete. We are not magically producing third gamete, or gamete that is "on spectrum".

Short man is not becoming a woman or "in-between sexes", infertile woman is not becoming a man.

Dysfunction of one or few of the many systems is not cancelling the rest of them, not cancelling where oganism is aiming to develop or was aimed to be developed before was stopped by either problems in development or outter factors like surgery or car crash. Especially when those disfunctions are happening so rarely and in a such small minority of people, that their amount in percents is below statistical margin of error.

And again, even intersex conditions are almost all sex specific (only few are affecting both sexes, but often one sex is strongly affected, while other sex is just carrier to future generations). And again - on 10-11th week of a baby we already know will baby be male or female, before the genitals even appear.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don’t know if you are actually serious, but if you want to understand I feel like these do a really good job explaining.

https://youtu.be/XN2-YEgUMg0

https://youtu.be/XLH-y2nLocw

[–]BiologyIsReal 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (34 children)

what about people who don't produce any gametes?

Their bodies still have either a male or a female reproductive system regardless of how well or not it functions.

what about people with chromosomal abnormalities regarding the sex chromosomes?

Would you say the fact humans have 10 fingers is false because there are cases of people who are born with more fingers? People who have a disorder of sexual development (DSD) are rare and they are still either male or female, i.e. they don't produce a third type of gamete. In fact, many of these conditions are sex specific.

Moreover, most trans identified individuals are your typical XY male and XX female (1, 2). Why, then, does QT keep using the people who actually have these conditions as a gotcha?

true. It doesn't change the chromosomes. Which is utterly irrelevant, since most of the differences in biological function (fat distribution, pheromones, muscle development, secondary sexual characteristics) depend on the hormone levels, which, in medical transitioning are changed

Your sex chromosomes are what determines whether you develop testes or ovaries, which are the main sources of your sex hormones. It's true that taking cross-sex hormones have some virilizing and feminizing effects in females and males, respectively. That doesn't mean taking exogenus hormones changes all your biological functions and you become indistinguishable from the opposite sex. As I said, if you're male you're not going to start producing eggs. If you're female you're not going to start producing sperm. Your genitals are still the same you had before taking all these hormones. Even whith all the body changes induced by hormones, usually we still can tell your sex without need of seeing you naked. Moreover, this "treatment" have many associated health risks precisely because your body is not suppused to work with these hormone levels.

Edit: Sex chromosomes may actually have more effects on sex differences beyond the development of a female or a male reproductive system. Somo quotes from this article about this topic:

“We have been distracted and deceived for the last 50 years by the existence of our sex chromosomes,” Page said. “Most genes that are actually involved in making the different anatomies of human males and females are not on the sex chromosomes. Most of them are on the autosomes. They are exactly the same in males and females. It’s just that the autosomes are read differently in males and females because of the sex chromosomes, just as the entirety of the genome is read differently in males and females.”

[...] Additional research revealed that the surviving human genes had special qualities, Page said. Those that survived on the Y chromosome are broadly expressed (active in many tissues and organs throughout the body) in both adult tissues and in embryos prior to implantation. Of the 17 surviving genes on the Y chromosome, 12 are expressed widely across the body, not just in the testes, where sperm are produced, Page said. Many play central roles in the execution of gene regulation and expression.

[...] Page argued that there are intrinsic biochemical differences between XX and XY cells that affect tissues and organs across the entire body and have a significant impact independent of sex hormones. And medical practitioners must understand these differences to properly treat their patients.

Here is the abstract of a recent paper about sex differences across human tissues:

In humans, the inheritance of the XX or XY set of sex chromosomes is responsible for most individuals developing into adults expressing male or female sex-specific traits. However, the degree to which sex-biased gene expression occurs in tissues, especially those that do not contribute to characteristic sexually dimorphic traits. is unknown. Oliva et al. examined Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project data and found that 37% of genes in at least one of the 44 tissues studied exhibit a tissue-specific, sex-biased gene expression. They also identified a sex-specific variation in cellular composition across tissues. Overall, the effects of sex on gene expression were small, but they were genome-wide and mostly mediated through transcription factor binding. With sex-biased gene expression associated with loci identified in genome-wide association studies, this study lays the groundwork for identifying the molecular basis of male- and female-based diseases.

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (33 children)

Their bodies still have either a male or a female reproductive system regardless of how well or not it functions.

just an entry ago "male" and "female" were entirely determined by gamete production. Quite a moving of goalposts.

Would you say the fact humans have 10 fingers is false because there are cases of people who are born with more fingers?

An example that actually quite nicely illistrates the point. The number of fingers can be artifically changed. So humans with 10 fingers have 10 fingers, whether born with that number of fingers are not, humans with 9 fingers have 9 fingers, whether born with them or not, and humans with 11 fingers have 11 fingers, whether born with them or not, with humans usually having 10 fingers. Analogously, males with XY chromosomes are male, whether born male or not, males with XX chromosomes are male, whether born male or not, females with XY chromosomes are female, whether born female or not, females with XX chromosomes are female, whether born female or not, with males usually having XY and females usually having XX.

Moreover, most trans identified individuals are your typical XY male and XX female (1, 2). Why, then, does QT keep using the people who actually have these conditions as a gotcha?

1.) because it proves that you can not boil biological sex down to the chromosomes, and therefore the argument "transgender women still have unchangebly XY and therefore are male and transgender men still have unchangebly XX and therefore are female" does not work, since there are males with XX and females with XY.

2.) this person http://www.georgianndavis.com/uploads/9/8/1/7/9817516/published/img-2601-1.jpg?1532125390 was born with testes and XY chromosomes and had the testes removed. This person https://preview.redd.it/n1afy66vr7861.jpg?width=1520&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=01d9e6cb438bee421b4b80e8f3dacb948d00ddcb was also born with testes and XY chromosomes and had the testes removed. Neither has a penis. Which one is male? Neither? Both? one or the other (if yes, which one) ?

That doesn't mean taking exogenus hormones changes all your biological functions and you become indistinguishable from the opposite sex. As I said, if you're male you're not going to start producing eggs. If you're female you're not going to start producing sperm.

except that we have already established above one doesn't have to produce sperm to be male or eggs to be female.

That doesn't mean taking exogenus hormones changes all your biological functions and you become indistinguishable from the opposite sex

I did not state that all biological functions become indistingushable from the opposite sex due to cross-sex hormones, I stated they become more similar.

Even whith all the body changes induced by hormones, usually we still can tell your sex without need of seeing you naked.

depends on the stage of medical transitioning.

Also, acording to Report of the 2015 US Transgender Survey ( https://www.transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/USTS-Full-Report-FINAL.PDF , figure 4.14 ) 57% of transgender people are rarely or never recognized as transgender without telling people so (32% sometimes, 9% most of the time and 2% always)

Your genitals are still the same you had before taking all these hormones.

and after the genitals were surgically reconfigured into an approximation of the opposite birth sex?

Edit: Sex chromosomes may actually have more effects on sex differences beyond the development of a female or a male reproductive system. Somo quotes from this article about this topic:

which brings us back to sex chromosomes not being the sole determiner of biological sex.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

just an entry ago "male" and "female" were entirely determined by gamete production. Quite a moving of goalposts.

She is being perfectly consistent. Females and males are defined based on the type of gametes they are organized around producing. Just because someone can’t produce gametes, doesn’t anymore, or has a DSD that prevents it doesn’t mean their body isn’t developed around producing one type or the other. When trans people try to pretend sex doesn’t exist or can change, it just makes us all look ridiculous. 😑

[–]BiologyIsReal 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (31 children)

just an entry ago "male" and "female" were entirely determined by gamete production. Quite a moving of goalposts.

I'm not moving the goalposts. Male reproductive system is intended to produce sperm at some point in the life of a male individual. Female reproductive system is intended to produce eggs at some point in the life of a female individual. This fact remain true despite that sometimes things go wrong and some people are unable to produce gametes, or only can produce anormal gametes or a lower number of gametes than normal. The fact that some people undergone gonadectomies doesn't mean their bodies weren't/aren't built around the potential capability of producing a certain type of gamete.

An example that actually quite nicely illistrates the point. The number of fingers can be artifically changed. So humans with 10 fingers have 10 fingers, whether born with that number of fingers are not, humans with 9 fingers have 9 fingers, whether born with them or not, and humans with 11 fingers have 11 fingers, whether born with them or not, with humans usually having 10 fingers.

Do you not understand that we don't make generalizations based on edge cases? If my example with the fingers didnt' work for you, then tell me this. Would you say the pancreas don't really secrete insuline because some people are born with a defective insuline gen and, therefore their pancreas can't secrete insuline?

Analogously, males with XY chromosomes are male, whether born male or not, males with XX chromosomes are male, whether born male or not, females with XY chromosomes are female, whether born female or not, females with XX chromosomes are female, whether born female or not, with males usually having XY and females usually having XX.

Humans can't change their sex. Neither naturally nor with the help of medical technology. There are rare cases of XX males (usually because of a translocation of the SRY gen on a X chromosome) and rare cases of XY females (in many cases because of mutations in the SRY gen). These rare medical conditions don't prove you can chage sex and neither are related to transsexualism/transgenderism.

1.) because it proves that you can not boil biological sex down to the chromosomes, and therefore the argument "transgender women still have unchangebly XY and therefore are male and transgender men still have unchangebly XX and therefore are female" does not work, since there are males with XX and females with XY.

It doesn't prove such thing. People with DSD produce either sperm or eggs or none. They don't produce a third gamete. And I as said, many of these conditions are sex specific. Given how rare DSDs are within the trans population, I find it quite unfortunate that they keep aproppriating their struggles.

Humans have known for millennia that there are only two sexes and have not problem telling them appart. However, many people don't know of or understand DSDs. That is, in my view, the reason QT keep bringing the issue up: to confuse the general public.

2.) this person http://www.georgianndavis.com/uploads/9/8/1/7/9817516/published/img-2601-1.jpg?1532125390 JPG was born with testes and XY chromosomes and had the testes removed. This person https://preview.redd.it/n1afy66vr7861.jpg?width=1520&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=01d9e6cb438bee421b4b80e8f3dacb948d00ddcb JPG was also born with testes and XY chromosomes and had the testes removed. Neither has a penis. Which one is male? Neither? Both? one or the other (if yes, which one) ?

I'm not going to speculate based in this little information. Also, I've my doubts you're going to be honest with me here.

except that we have already established above one doesn't have to produce sperm to be male or eggs to be female.

There is not we here. You're the only one saying such thing. I've already explained to you why this is not the case.

I did not state that all biological functions become indistingushable from the opposite sex due to cross-sex hormones, I stated they become more similar.

Our exchange here started because you said sex change was possible thanks to "medical transition" (or to be more precise you said some people think that, but it has become clear in this thread that is your position, too). Here is your original quote:

I have seen that contested, with a line of thought where it is conceptualized that medical transitioning is considered to result in a change to biological sex, as the exogonous hormones change biological function.

Are you backtracking now? If not all biological functions become indistinguishable from the opposite sex because of exogenus hormones, then how we can talk about a sex change induced by hormones?

depends on the stage of medical transitioning.

Also, acording to Report of the 2015 US Transgender Survey ( https://www.transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/USTS-Full-Report-FINAL.PDF , figure 4.14 ) 57% of transgender people are rarely or never recognized as transgender without telling people so (32% sometimes, 9% most of the time and 2% always)

Look, trans people usually overstimate how well they pass, especially IRL which doesn't come with convenient angles, special lighting or filters, etectera. They also usually understimate how much other people lie about their passability because of not wanting to be rude.

and after the genitals were surgically reconfigured into an approximation of the opposite birth sex?

I said nothing about surgeries because I was talking only about hormones. After genital surgery, which by the way most trans identified people don't undergone, your genitals are obviously altered, yes. However, you're overstimating how good the results of these surgeries are. MarkTwainiac has explained in great detail elsewhere in this thread how a inverted penis is nothing like a vagina. And yourself admitted in other comment how phaloplasties results weren't that convincing. So, I'll leave out the details about the differences between a "neovagina" and a vagina, and a "neopenis" and a penis because this comment is already quite long.

which brings us back to sex chromosomes not being the sole determiner of biological sex.

How do you came to that conclusion after what I wrote? Did you even read the links I gave you? Did you read the parts I quoted at the very least?

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (30 children)

If my example with the fingers didnt' work for you, then tell me this. Would you say the pancreas don't really secrete insuline because some people are born with a defective insuline gen and, therefore their pancreas can't secrete insuline?

The pancreas does secrete insuline in people where the pancreas does secrete insuline, it does not secrete insuline when it can't secrete insuline, with the usual case being the pancreas being able to secrete insuline.

Humans can't change their sex. Neither naturally nor with the help of medical technology. There are rare cases of XX males (usually because of a translocation of the SRY gen on a X chromosome) and rare cases of XY females (in many cases because of mutations in the SRY gen). These rare medical conditions don't prove you can chage sex and neither are related to transsexualism/transgenderism.

they proove, that biological sex can't be reduced to chromosomes, and therefore the argument that biological sex is unchangable because the chromosomes are unchangable is wrong.

They don't produce a third gamete

I didn't say anything about a "third gamete"

1.) because it proves that you can not boil biological sex down to the chromosomes, and therefore the argument "transgender women still have unchangebly XY and therefore are male and transgender men still have unchangebly XX and therefore are female" does not work, since there are males with XX and females with XY.

It doesn't prove such thing.

yes, it does. Since chromosomes are not the sole determining factor on classifying biological sex, it does not make sense to treat them as such when discussing transgender topics.

Humans have known for millennia that there are only two sexes and have not problem telling them appart.

and if you presented a human that doesn't know about chromosomes or gametes with a passing post-op transgender woman, said human would no doubt consider her to belong to the female sex. So since you argue otherwise, clearly the definition changed.

2.) this person http://www.georgianndavis.com/uploads/9/8/1/7/9817516/published/img-2601-1.jpg?1532125390 JPG JPG was born with testes and XY chromosomes and had the testes removed. This person https://preview.redd.it/n1afy66vr7861.jpg?width=1520&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=01d9e6cb438bee421b4b80e8f3dacb948d00ddcb JPG JPG was also born with testes and XY chromosomes and had the testes removed. Neither has a penis. Which one is male? Neither? Both? one or the other (if yes, which one) ?

I'm not going to speculate based in this little information. Also, I've my doubts you're going to be honest with me here.

in this case, I've been entirely honest. So please answer the question.

except that we have already established above one doesn't have to produce sperm to be male or eggs to be female.

There is not we here. You're the only one saying such thing. I've already explained to you why this is not the case.

no, you said it. A person doesn't have to produce sperm to be male or ovulate to be female.

I did not state that all biological functions become indistingushable from the opposite sex due to cross-sex hormones, I stated they become more similar.

Our exchange here started because you said sex change was possible thanks to "medical transition" (or to be more precise you said some people think that, but it has become clear in this thread that is your position, too). Here is your original quote:

I have seen that contested, with a line of thought where it is conceptualized that medical transitioning is considered to result in a change to biological sex, as the exogonous hormones change biological function.

Are you backtracking now? If not all biological functions become indistinguishable from the opposite sex because of exogenus hormones, then how we can talk about a sex change induced by hormones?

I did not state, that all biological functions become indinstinguashable from the opposite sex due to cross-sex hormones. i did state that biological functions become more similar. This represents a change in biological sex in the (increasingly accepted in academia) conceptualization of biological sex as a spectrum, where the cases of all the biological functions being either clearly male or clearly female being on the respective ends of said spectrum.

[–]BiologyIsReal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (29 children)

The pancreas does secrete insuline in people where the pancreas does secrete insuline, it does not secrete insuline when it can't secrete insuline, with the usual case being the pancreas being able to secrete insuline.

I was asking you for pancreas in general. Ok, I will reframe the question to make clearer what I meant. Is one of the functions of the pancreas to secrete insulin? Yes or not? Is a lack of insulin secretion pathological? Yes or not?

they proove, that biological sex can't be reduced to chromosomes, and therefore the argument that biological sex is unchangable because the chromosomes are unchangable is wrong.

I've said multiple times that what defines sex is gametes. Female is the sex that produce large gametes (eggs) and male is the sex that produce small gametes (sperm). Gametes are produced in the gonads: sperm in the testes and eggs in the ovaries. Testes are part of the male reproductive system. Ovaries are part of the female reproductive system. Sex chromosomes determine what kind of reproductive system an embryo will develop. There are several genes involved in the process of sex determination, but one of the most important is the SRY gen, which located in the Y chromosome. If this gen is present, then the embryo will develop as male. If not, then it’ll will develop as female. Therefore, the following karyotypes are male: 46, XY (typical male karyotype); 47, XXY; 47, XYY; 48, XXYY; 49, XXXYY. And the following karyotypes are female: 45, X; 46, XX (typical female karyotype); 47, XXX; 48, XXXX; 49, XXXXX.

In rare cases, there are mutations involving the SRY gen. This gen may be translocated from the Y chromosome to X chromosome resulting in an XX male. In other cases the SRY gen remains in the Y chromosomes but it becomes dysfunctional because of mutations, resulting in a XY female. As I said, there are other genes involved in sex determination, so an XY female and XX male may be result from mutations in other genes.

None of this disprove the fact that, for humans, sex is binary and immutable. It only show that biological process are complex and sometimes mistakes happens. Moreover, all of this is irrelevant when discussing trans issues because most trans identified individual don’t have any DSD.

I didn't say anything about a "third gamete"

I was emphasizing they were either female or male, not another sex.

yes, it does. Since chromosomes are not the sole determining factor on classifying biological sex, it does not make sense to treat them as such when discussing transgender topics.

I already explained this above.

and if you presented a human that doesn't know about chromosomes or gametes with a passing post-op transgender woman, said human would no doubt consider her to belong to the female sex. So since you argue otherwise, clearly the definition changed.

We don’t need to examine someone’s chromosomes or gametes to tell their sex. As I said elsewhere in this thread, secondary sex characteristics don’t define sex, but they are usually a good way to tell someone’s sex. Sex is about reproduction and we have evolved to be able to tell the sexes apart. If we weren’t able to say who kind of humans are able to get pregnant and what kind of humans can impregnate the former our continuity as species will be quite complicated.

Most trans identified individuals are still recognizable as their actual sex, especially IRL. But in the event of the very rare case of a passing trans, so what? Other people being mistaken about your sex doesn’t make you the opposite sex, it makes you a good liar. But a lie can’t be kept forever.

I did not state, that all biological functions become indinstinguashable from the opposite sex due to cross-sex hormones. i did state that biological functions become more similar.

You didn’t answer the question. If not all biological functions become indistinguishable from the opposite sex because of exogenous hormones, then how we can talk about a sex change induced by hormones? Biological functions becoming more similar (which is quite the overstatement) doesn’t make you the opposite sex and, since there are only two sexes, therefore you can’t talk about a sex change.

This represents a change in biological sex in the (increasingly accepted in academia) conceptualization of biological sex as a spectrum, where the cases of all the biological functions being either clearly male or clearly female being on the respective ends of said spectrum.

Show me a single peer reviewed study where is proven that sex is a spectrum. You’ll found none because it’s nonsense. There is, however, an increasing number of scientists and scientific institutions pandering to this ridiculous idea despite they should know better. All for profit and ideology. And of course, let’s not forget the big pressure coming from the trans activists. Dissenting voices are in academia are being shut up as result of this.

Despite that there are several academics speaking out against the “sex is a spectrum” idea and here are some links showing this:

https://projectnettie.wordpress.com/

https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/33/2/in-humans-sex-is-binary-and-immutable

https://colinwright.substack.com/p/the-dangerous-denial-of-sex

https://www.womentalkback.org/post/emma-hilton-sex-denialists-have-captured-existing-journals-we-are-dealing-with-a-new-religion

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11845-020-02464-4

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (28 children)

I was asking you for pancreas in general. Ok, I will reframe the question to make clearer what I meant. Is one of the functions of the pancreas to secrete insulin? Yes or not? Is a lack of insulin secretion pathological? Yes or not?

The production of insulin is the function of the pancreas. A pancreas that does not produce insulin is still a pancreas. The lack of insulin secretion is pathological, since the lack of insulin is inimical to the physical health of the organism in question.

I've said multiple times that what defines sex is gametes. Female is the sex that produce large gametes (eggs) and male is the sex that produce small gametes (sperm). Gametes are produced in the gonads: sperm in the testes and eggs in the ovaries. Testes are part of the male reproductive system. Ovaries are part of the female reproductive system.

1.) and now you are back to defining biological sex based on active gamete production, ignoring that not all people are producing gametes. In particular do transgender people on hormone therapy stop producing the gametes of their birth sex.

2.) yes, testes and ovaries are part of the respective reproductive systems. And are quite often removed by transgender people, meaning they no longer have the complete reproductive system of their birth sex.

3.) gonads that are neither testes nor ovaries do exist, for example undifferentiated streak gonads in people with swyer syndrome or ovotesticular disorder.

Therefore, the following karyotypes are male: 46, XY (typical male karyotype); 47, XXY; 47, XYY; 48, XXYY; 49, XXXYY. And the following karyotypes are female: 45, X; 46, XX (typical female karyotype); 47, XXX; 48, XXXX; 49, XXXXX.

In rare cases, there are mutations involving the SRY gen. This gen may be translocated from the Y chromosome to X chromosome resulting in an XX male. In other cases the SRY gen remains in the Y chromosomes but it becomes dysfunctional because of mutations, resulting in a XY female. As I said, there are other genes involved in sex determination, so an XY female and XX male may be result from mutations in other genes.

4.) this still means that there are people with male birth sex and XX and people with female birth sex and XY. Therefore there is still an overlap of chromosome-sets between the biological sexes.

5.) what about mosachism? People don't always have only one type of sex-chromosome sets in their body.

6.) what about androgen insensitivity syndrome?

You didn’t answer the question. If not all biological functions become indistinguishable from the opposite sex because of exogenous hormones, then how we can talk about a sex change induced by hormones? Biological functions becoming more similar (which is quite the overstatement) doesn’t make you the opposite sex and, since there are only two sexes, therefore you can’t talk about a sex change.

None of this disprove the fact that, for humans, sex is binary and immutable. It only show that biological process are complex and sometimes mistakes happens.

precisely because of these mistakes not "all biological functions" have to become indinstingushable from the typical case, since, by your own admission, one doesn't have to have "all biological functions" of a particular sex to be grouped in your systematic with that sex. So, since sex can not be boiled down to gamete production (since not all people produce gametes) nor chromosomes (since there are people of the female sex with XY and people of the male sex with XX) nor müllerian vs. wolffian structure (which would be the closest thing to considering a particular structure to be "what gamete the body is organized around" - compare Müllerian Agenesis [neither müllerian or wolffian structures] and Persistent Müllerian duct syndrome [wolffian structures and varrying parts of müllerian structures]), what biological function, anatomical feature or list thereof is always completly and immutably in one state in all people of one particular sex and always immutably in a different state in all people of the other sex?

There is no such biological function, anatomical feature or list thereof that is absoloute. Instead we have a list of factors (in particular: chromosomes, gonads, sex hormones, internal reproductive system, external reproductive system , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_differentiation_in_humans#Sex_determination ) that for the vast majority of people neatly all align to one of two states (male and female), with the atypical cases sorted in by which way they lean towards in this list of factors. The "sex as a spectrum"-conception is simply the aknowledgement that this list isn't a clean binary in the sense of these factors not always being perfectly alligned and that there are cases where it becomes difficult which way this combination of factors lean towards.

We don’t need to examine someone’s chromosomes or gametes to tell their sex. As I said elsewhere in this thread, secondary sex characteristics don’t define sex, but they are usually a good way to tell someone’s sex. Sex is about reproduction and we have evolved to be able to tell the sexes apart. If we weren’t able to say who kind of humans are able to get pregnant and what kind of humans can impregnate the former our continuity as species will be quite complicated.

secondary sex characteristics are typically the result of sex hormones (one of the factors in the 5 factor list) which typically correlate with functional gonads of the respective binary sex (a different factor in the 5 factor list) which together with external reproductive organs (another factor in the 5 factor list, and the usual basis for considering a person to belong to one binary sex or the other at birth, with the rest of the factors assumed to allign until proven otherwise, since, again, the factors all alligning is the typical case) are already 3 of the 5 points. Of course, it is still fully possible for the other two factors not to allign and it is also not guaranted for the gonads to allign (complete androgen insensitivity syndrome). But evolution does not care all that much for atypical cases other then selecting them out, as the atypical cases (e.g. not all 5 factors alligned) tend to have either no or significantly less reproducrtive sucess.

Also, interesting that you mention secondary sex characteristics, as that is usually the first thing medically transitiong transgender people try to change.

But in the event of the very rare case of a passing trans, so what? Other people being mistaken about your sex doesn’t make you the opposite sex, it makes you a good liar. But a lie can’t be kept forever.

someones physical body is not a lie. Also, the example was someone who (due to lack of knowledge about chromosomes or gametes) only defines sex based on primary and secondary sex characteristics. From the point of view of such a person, there would have been a sex change, just with the result being infertile.

Most trans identified individuals are still recognizable as their actual sex, especially IRL.

do you have statistics regarding this?

Show me a single peer reviewed study where is proven that sex is a spectrum.

a.) can you show a peer reviewed study disproving that model? In the sense of this study finding a clear cut biological function, anatomical feature or list thereof that is in one state in all female and another in all male humans?

b.) in scientific procedure, you can not "prove" a theory, you can present evidence fitting the theory (which is what all those intersex cases here are about, since they fit better with the "biological sex as a spectrum"-modell than with the "biological sex as a strict binary"-modell) or disprove it.

c.) the "biological sex as a spectrum"-modell is not even a theory, it is a categorization methodology.

Despite that there are several academics speaking out against the “sex is a spectrum” idea and here are some links showing this:

https://projectnettie.wordpress.com/

https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/33/2/in-humans-sex-is-binary-and-immutable

https://colinwright.substack.com/p/the-dangerous-denial-of-sex

https://www.womentalkback.org/post/emma-hilton-sex-denialists-have-captured-existing-journals-we-are-dealing-with-a-new-religion

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11845-020-02464-4

I've read those links. None of them present any new point and several of them misrepresent the "biological sex as a spectrum"-modell (for example https://colinwright.substack.com/p/the-dangerous-denial-of-sex conflating biological sex and gender identity and claiming that a denial of biological sex was taking place, or https://projectnettie.wordpress.com/ claiming that "biological sex as a spectrum"-modell means that biological sex were a social construct )

[–]BiologyIsReal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Part 1

The production of insulin is the function of the pancreas. A pancreas that does not produce insulin is still a pancreas. The lack of insulin secretion is pathological, since the lack of insulin is inimical to the physical health of the organism in question.

Oh, good, so you do understand the difference between normal function and a disorder. That is exactly what happens with DSDs. They're rare medical conditions. Exact symptomatology depends on which specific condition we're talking about, but infertility is a common issue. However, people with these conditions are still either male or female despite this.

1.) and now you are back to defining biological sex based on active gamete production, ignoring that not all people are producing gametes. In particular do transgender people on hormone therapy stop producing the gametes of their birth sex.

2.) yes, testes and ovaries are part of the respective reproductive systems. And are quite often removed by transgender people, meaning they no longer have the complete reproductive system of their birth sex.

I've already addressed this point, but if you I repeat it for you, here we go. Male reproductive system is intended to produce sperm at some point in the life of a male individual. Female reproductive system is intended to produce eggs at some point in the life of a female individual. This fact remain true despite that sometimes things go wrong and some people are unable to produce gametes, or only can produce abnormal gametes or a lower number of gametes than normal. The fact that some people undergone gonadectomies doesn't mean their bodies weren't/aren't built around the potential capability of producing a certain type of gamete.

3.) gonads that are neither testes nor ovaries do exist, for example undifferentiated streak gonads in people with swyer syndrome or ovotesticular disorder.

Swyer syndrome are female XY and we have talked about them already even if none of us used this name beforehand.

Ovostesticular disorder is very rare and I guess it's probably best to be analyzed in case by case basis.

4.) this still means that there are people with male birth sex and XX and people with female birth sex and XY. Therefore there is still an overlap of chromosome-sets between the biological sexes.

I'll repeat it as many times as I need it: what define sex is not chromosomes, but gametes.

5.) what about mosachism? People don't always have only one type of sex-chromosome sets in their body.

Mosaicism, not mosachism (did you confuse it with masochism?), is the presence of two or more cell lines with different genetic material (not necessarily the sex chromosomes) in a same individual caused by errors in the cell division during embryo development. The clinical effects of this depends on the tissues involved and the percentage of cells with the abnormal genetic material. Usually people with mosaicism present milder forms of the disorder associated with the abnormal genetic material.

6.) what about androgen insensitivity syndrome?

Are you really going to name every genetic anomaly under the sun?

Androgen insensitivity syndrome is a male only condition where their bodies don't respond to androgens as the name says. The lack of sensitivity can be partial or complete.

precisely because of these mistakes not "all biological functions" have to become indinstingushable from the typical case, since, by your own admission, one doesn't have to have "all biological functions" of a particular sex to be grouped in your systematic with that sex. So, since sex can not be boiled down to gamete production (since not all people produce gametes) nor chromosomes (since there are people of the female sex with XY and people of the male sex with XX) nor müllerian vs. wolffian structure (which would be the closest thing to considering a particular structure to be "what gamete the body is organized around" - compare Müllerian Agenesis [neither müllerian or wolffian structures] and Persistent Müllerian duct syndrome [wolffian structures and varrying parts of müllerian structures]), what biological function, anatomical feature or list thereof is always completly and immutably in one state in all people of one particular sex and always immutably in a different state in all people of the other sex?

Testes and ovaries are developed from the bipotential gonad. In male embryos, once testes are formed, they secrete testosterone and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH). The former stimulates the Wolffian ducts and these develop into the rete testis, the ejaculatory ducts, the epididymis, the ductus deferens, and the seminal vesicles. AMH, meanwhile, causes the regression of Müllerian ducts. In female embryos, the absence of testosterone causes the regression of Wolffian ducts, and the absence of AMH causes Müllerian ducts to develop into the uterus, the fallopian tubes and upper part of the vagina.

Persistent Müllerian duct syndrome (PMDS) is a DSD that affects males, where uterus and fallopian tubes are present because of mutation on the AMH gen on its receptor gen. They have otherwise normal male reproductive organs.

Müllerian agenesis is DSD that affects females, where the uterus and vagina are underdeveloped or absent. Usually, they have functioning ovaries.

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Oh, good, so you do understand the difference between normal function and a disorder. That is exactly what happens with DSDs. They're rare medical conditions. Exact symptomatology depends on which specific condition we're talking about, but infertility is a common issue. However, people with these conditions are still either male or female despite this.

I did at no point of that use the word "disorder". And, if you look correctly, I wrote "inimical to the physical health of the organism in question". This does not cover infertility.

I've already addressed this point, but if you I repeat it for you, here we go. Male reproductive system is intended to produce sperm at some point in the life of a male individual. Female reproductive system is intended to produce eggs at some point in the life of a female individual. This fact remain true despite that sometimes things go wrong and some people are unable to produce gametes, or only can produce abnormal gametes or a lower number of gametes than normal. The fact that some people undergone gonadectomies doesn't mean their bodies weren't/aren't built around the potential capability of producing a certain type of gamete.

And what defines which gamete the body is "intended to produce"? Since apparently neither gonads nor müllerian vs. wolffian ducts.

Swyer syndrome are female XY and we have talked about them already even if none of us used this name beforehand.

Müllerian agenesis is DSD that affects females, where the uterus and vagina are underdeveloped or absent. Usually, they have functioning ovaries.

for swyer you argue that these people fall under female, despite the gonads not being ovaries but undifferentiated streak gonads (e.g., typically ), with müllerian ducts present. For müllerian agnesis you also argue that these people fall under female, despite the absence of müllerian ducts (meaning the body is lacking the parts intended to deal with the gametes produced by the gonads) based on the presence of ovaries. So, which one is the defining element? The ovary, the müllerian duct, both or neither (in which case, again, how do you define which gamete the body is intended to produce) ?

Ovostesticular disorder is very rare and I guess it's probably best to be analyzed in case by case basis.

I'm not putting into question, that it is rare. But your aknowledgement of "case by case"-basis betrays, that it is a spectrum were assigment can become rather arbitary, with both types of gonadal tissue present in varrying proportions.

(did you confuse it with masochism?)

no, I just misspelled "mosaicism"

is the presence of two or more cell lines with different genetic material (not necessarily the sex chromosomes) in a same individual caused by errors in the cell division during embryo development. The clinical effects of this depends on the tissues involved and the percentage of cells with the abnormal genetic material. Usually people with mosaicism present milder forms of the disorder associated with the abnormal genetic material.

so on what basis do you decide, for each person with any particular percentage of cells with XY/XX ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/46,XX/46,XY ) or X/XY ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/45,X/46,XY_mosaicism ) what biological sex they belong to? Since you insist on a clear binary, it must be an unambigious, clearly defined criteria.

Are you really going to name every genetic anomaly under the sun?

if necessary, yes. Thats why I didn't wanted to get into this type of debate in the first place.

Androgen insensitivity syndrome is a male only condition where their bodies don't respond to androgens as the name says. The lack of sensitivity can be partial or complete.

People with complete androgen insensitivity are male? so, this person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanne_Gaby_Odiele (they admittedly identified as a women - which was the gender assigned at birth - last time I looked them up) is male?

Persistent Müllerian duct syndrome (PMDS) is a DSD that affects males, where uterus and fallopian tubes are present because of mutation on the AMH gen on its receptor gen. They have otherwise normal male reproductive organs.

they have a male reproductive system and parts of the female reproductive system. So they have parts intended to support sperm and parts intended to support ova.

[–]BiologyIsReal 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I did at no point of that use the word "disorder". And, if you look correctly, I wrote "inimical to the physical health of the organism in question". This does not cover infertility.

Infertility may not be harmful, but it's a problem for the people who want to have biological children. And I didn't say this was the only possible issue, just a common one across a heterogenous group of medical conditions that affects sexual development.

And what defines which gamete the body is "intended to produce"? Since apparently neither gonads nor müllerian vs. wolffian ducts.

for swyer you argue that these people fall under female, despite the gonads not being ovaries but undifferentiated streak gonads (e.g., typically ), with müllerian ducts present. For müllerian agnesis you also argue that these people fall under female, despite the absence of müllerian ducts (meaning the body is lacking the parts intended to deal with the gametes produced by the gonads) based on the presence of ovaries. So, which one is the defining element? The ovary, the müllerian duct, both or neither (in which case, again, how do you define which gamete the body is intended to produce) ?

At not point, I said Müllerian and Wolffian ducts define which gametes the bodys produces. You're the one who said it. The gonades are the place where gametes are produced. And I already explained the basics of sex determination even if you "forgot" about it.

I'm not putting into question, that it is rare. But your aknowledgement of "case by case"-basis betrays, that it is a spectrum were assigment can become rather arbitary, with both types of gonadal tissue present in varrying proportions.

It would depend on the predominant features. This disorder is very, very rare, yet you're here trying to use it as a gotcha. I've told you this already: we don't use edge cases for making generalizations.

so on what basis do you decide, for each person with any particular percentage of cells with XY/XX ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/46,XX/46,XY ) or X/XY ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/45,X/46,XY_mosaicism ) what biological sex they belong to? Since you insist on a clear binary, it must be an unambigious, clearly defined criteria.

I'm not going to analize every single case of mosaicism just because you're this desperate to prove me wrong.

Anyway, your first link is not about mosaicism, but chimerism. Both refer to a fenomenon where a single individual has two different cell populations within their bodies. However, while in mosacism these populations derive from a single zigote, in chimerism they derive from two different zygotes. More about chimerism:

https://scihubtw.tw/10.1002/ajmg.c.30213

https://time.com/4091210/chimera-twins/

People with complete androgen insensitivity are male? so, this person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanne_Gaby_Odiele (they admittedly identified as a women - which was the gender assigned at birth - last time I looked them up) is male?

They are genetically males. They have testes even if they body don't respond properly to androgens. They don't have ovaries. In the case of CAIS, it makes sense to treat them as women in most cases since fenotipically they look female, they are raised as female, and they don't find out about their condition until their teenage years at least. But they're still genetically male.

And before you said anything about this, no, CAIS doesn't prove trans people can change their sex. I repeat, neither most trans people don't have any DSD nor "medical transition" can change your sex.

they have a male reproductive system and parts of the female reproductive system. So they have parts intended to support sperm and parts intended to support ova.

You make it sound like they were hermaphrodites, they are not. They have uterus and fallopian tubes, but they don't have ovaries where to produce ova. They can't get pregnant. They have testes. They are males.

[–]BiologyIsReal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

Part 2

There is no such biological function, anatomical feature or list thereof that is absoloute. Instead we have a list of factors (in particular: chromosomes, gonads, sex hormones, internal reproductive system, external reproductive system , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_differentiation_in_humans#Sex_determination ) that for the vast majority of people neatly all align to one of two states (male and female), with the atypical cases sorted in by which way they lean towards in this list of factors. The "sex as a spectrum"-conception is simply the aknowledgement that this list isn't a clean binary in the sense of these factors not always being perfectly alligned and that there are cases where it becomes difficult which way this combination of factors lean towards.

secondary sex characteristics are typically the result of sex hormones (one of the factors in the 5 factor list) which typically correlate with functional gonads of the respective binary sex (a different factor in the 5 factor list) which together with external reproductive organs (another factor in the 5 factor list, and the usual basis for considering a person to belong to one binary sex or the other at birth, with the rest of the factors assumed to allign until proven otherwise, since, again, the factors all alligning is the typical case) are already 3 of the 5 points. Of course, it is still fully possible for the other two factors not to allign and it is also not guaranted for the gonads to allign (complete androgen insensitivity syndrome). But evolution does not care all that much for atypical cases other then selecting them out, as the atypical cases (e.g. not all 5 factors alligned) tend to have either no or significantly less reproducrtive sucess.

The sex is a spectrum is pushed by transactivists because if they can convince the public that you can't trust biology to decide who is female and male and, therefore, it's better deciding it by gender identity. There is nothing scientific about it, it's pure ideological nonsense pushed by people who have no problem to appropriate someone else's struggles in order to erase the hard earned rights of half the population.

Also, interesting that you mention secondary sex characteristics, as that is usually the first thing medically transitiong transgender people try to change.

Yes, try is the key word here. Often this is not enough.

someones physical body is not a lie. Also, the example was someone who (due to lack of knowledge about chromosomes or gametes) only defines sex based on primary and secondary sex characteristics. From the point of view of such a person, there would have been a sex change, just with the result being infertile.

Your body is not a lie, but if you deceive people about your actual sex you're a liar since you can't change sex. Someone being mistaken about your sex, whatever the reason, doesn't make you the opposite sex.

a.) can you show a peer reviewed study disproving that model? In the sense of this study finding a clear cut biological function, anatomical feature or list thereof that is in one state in all female and another in all male humans?

There is not such study because until a few years ago nobody would have taken seriously the idea that sex is a spectrum. However, I easily found some reviews stating how there are two sexes, even limiting my search to open access articles.

Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes

What do isogamous organisms teach us about sex and the two sexes?

Two sexes, one genome: the evolutionary dynamics of intralocus sexual conflict

b.) in scientific procedure, you can not "prove" a theory, you can present evidence fitting the theory (which is what all those intersex cases here are about, since they fit better with the "biological sex as a spectrum"-modell than with the "biological sex as a strict binary"-modell) or disprove it.

Sorry, I didn't expect you were aware about how science works after seeing you arguing things like definitions must be inclusive. Now, where are all these peer reviewed papers disproving the sex binary?

c.) the "biological sex as a spectrum"-modell is not even a theory, it is a categorization methodology.

Call it however you want, it's still nonsense.

I've read those links. None of them present any new point and several of them misrepresent the "biological sex as a spectrum"-modell (for example https://colinwright.substack.com/p/the-dangerous-denial-of-sex conflating biological sex and gender identity and claiming that a denial of biological sex was taking place, or https://projectnettie.wordpress.com/ claiming that "biological sex as a spectrum"-modell means that biological sex were a social construct )

Yeah, I figured out you won't be convinced there are only two sexes not matter who says it. My point was to show there are scientists speaking out against sex denialism. And for the sex is not a social construct, tell that to the many racist transactivists who claim sex is a social construct invented by the white man.

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

I'll repeat it as many times as I need it: what define sex is not chromosomes, but gametes.

then why does the argument against transgender people always go on about "you are still XY" (towards transgender women) "you are still XX" (towards transgender men). And no, you aren't defining it by gametes either, since clearly neither gamete production nor present/absent parts of the reproductive system whose function is handling the gametes are the defining features either.

The sex is a spectrum is pushed by transactivists because if they can convince the public that you can't trust biology to decide who is female and male and, therefore, it's better deciding it by gender identity. There is nothing scientific about it, it's pure ideological nonsense pushed by people who have no problem to appropriate someone else's struggles in order to erase the hard earned rights of half the population.

You are pulling that one straight from your rear end. Of course biology is real, it's just not a strict binary in this regard. And, no, gender identity and biological sex are not the same, and no one who has any sense (admittedly, not everyone does) and the whole basis for the transgender identity is this seperation, as transgender means, that there is a mismatch between ones position on the gender identity spectrum and on the spectrum of biological sex, with medical transitioning being an attempt to bring the two spectra into better allignment.

And, no, sex based rights aren't erased because there is no such thing in the first place ( https://rgellman.medium.com/there-is-no-such-thing-as-sex-based-rights-in-the-uk-140554a2c42c describing it specifically for the UK [note: it's what I had at hand right now], which applies for a lot of other countries too. I don't know in what country you live, so if your country does have sex based right in its law, please point them out to me). What does exist are protections against sex based discrimination, with some exemptions that are subject to considerations of practicality.

However, I easily found some reviews stating how there are two sexes, even limiting my search to open access articles.

Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes

What do isogamous organisms teach us about sex and the two sexes?

Two sexes, one genome: the evolutionary dynamics of intralocus sexual conflict

again, no one is saying that biological sex doesn't typically fall into two modes. Its just that there are atypical cases that do not cleanly fall into either of the typical modes.

Sorry, I didn't expect you were aware about how science works after seeing you arguing things like definitions must be inclusive.

definitions must be inclusive of everything falling under said definition. The definition of chair for example has to include every object that is a chair, regardless of how unusual the chair in question is.

And, yes, as a master of science in physics, I am well aware of how science operates.

Now, where are all these peer reviewed papers disproving the sex binary?

I'm bombarding you now for literal days with phenomena disproving the strict binary of biological sex, and all you have been doing is shove these phenomena into these binary boxes, without defining concrete criteria (or, more precisely, changing your criteria arbitarily, in the sense of a criteria being used for one case and completly ignored ion another one).

And for the sex is not a social construct, tell that to the many racist transactivists who claim sex is a social construct invented by the white man.

do any of the academics espousing the "biological sex as a spectrum"-modell claim that biological sex is a social construct?

Yeah, I figured out you won't be convinced there are only two sexes not matter who says it

there are two typical sexes, covering the vast majority of humans spanning up a spectrum. And, no, it doesn't matter who says something, it only matters whether they have evidence (which, for disproving the "biological sex as a spectrum"-modell would mean a anatomical feature/biological process only and always found in one distinct state in one sex and only and always in a different distinct state in the other sex).

[–]BiologyIsReal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

then why does the argument against transgender people always go on about "you are still XY" (towards transgender women) "you are still XX" (towards transgender men). And no, you aren't defining it by gametes either, since clearly neither gamete production nor present/absent parts of the reproductive system whose function is handling the gametes are the defining features either.

Becuase that is indeed the case for most trans people. I repeat, most people who identify as trans don't have any DSD, therefore, most trans identified males are 46, XY and most trans identified females are 46, XX (1, 2).

You are pulling that one straight from your rear end. Of course biology is real, it's just not a strict binary in this regard. And, no, gender identity and biological sex are not the same, and no one who has any sense (admittedly, not everyone does) and the whole basis for the transgender identity is this seperation, as transgender means, that there is a mismatch between ones position on the gender identity spectrum and on the spectrum of biological sex, with medical transitioning being an attempt to bring the two spectra into better allignment.

There are only two sexes: male and female. And you can't change sex, nor naturally not through "medical transition". Most trans identified individuals have no DSD, yet people like you keep using DSDs as gotcha in order to further their cause. Yourself have admitted this much in this thread when you said that because DSD exist we have to take your claims of being the opposite sex seriusly.

And, no, sex based rights aren't erased because there is no such thing in the first place ( https://rgellman.medium.com/there-is-no-such-thing-as-sex-based-rights-in-the-uk-140554a2c42c describing it specifically for the UK [note: it's what I had at hand right now], which applies for a lot of other countries too. I don't know in what country you live, so if your country does have sex based right in its law, please point them out to me). What does exist are protections against sex based discrimination, with some exemptions that are subject to considerations of practicality.

Every law in the world regarding women issues is sex based (or, in some countries, it was before gender identity was enshrined in law) because utill very recently everyone understood there are only two sexes and that SEXism was based on sex.

again, no one is saying that biological sex doesn't typically fall into two modes. Its just that there are atypical cases that do not cleanly fall into either of the typical modes.

If you had actually bothered to read them, you would know the authors meant two sexes, and only two sexes, not two typical sexes among other atypical ones. So, yes, you along many others are saying there are more than two sexes in order to justify self-ID.

And, yes, as a master of science in physics, I am well aware of how science operates.

Well, now we know why you suck at biology. Maybe you should try to learn more about biology, anatomy, physiology, genetics, endocrinology, and etcetera before arguing things like sex is a spectrum or you can change sex or a "neovagina" is totally like a vagina.

BTW, it's very weird that a master of sciences is so keen to use Wikipedia as a main source.

And I'm still waiting for those papers disproving there are only two sexes.

I'm bombarding you now for literal days with phenomena disproving the strict binary of biological sex, and all you have been doing is shove these phenomena into these binary boxes, without defining concrete criteria (or, more precisely, changing your criteria arbitarily, in the sense of a criteria being used for one case and completly ignored ion another one).

And I've been correcting all your mistakes for the same amount days. And sorry to disappoint you, but I'll keep doing it. Also, I've not changed my criteria, you're the one who keeps either misunderstanding or misrepresenting it.

[–]ColoredTwiceIntersex female, medical malpractice victim, lesbian 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Body is not changing at all structurally. Bones are still placed and jointed differently, lunghs and hearts are still bigger, muscle mass in percentage to weight is still bigger, estrogene and progesteron are not started being produced on its own, and so on. There are too many structural differences on a basic level between male and female bodies.

what about people with chromosomal abnormalities regarding the sex chromosomes

Chromosomal anomalies are happening more rare than in 0.01% of people. Most of us aren't transgender and most transgenders aren't intersex. So sayingg XX/XY or just speaking about SRY gene alone is enough to determine sex of 99.9% of all people. And in 0.01% our bodies are still developed to support either male or female gametes, even if we are most often infertile. Infertile woman is not a man.

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

Chromosomal anomalies are happening more rare than in 0.01% of people. Most of us aren't transgender and most transgenders aren't intersex. So sayingg XX/XY or just speaking about SRY gene alone is enough to determine sex of 99.9% of all people. And in 0.01% our bodies are still developed to support either male or female gametes, even if we are most often infertile. Infertile woman is not a man.

The argument from chromosomal anomalies doesn't have anything to do with claiming that transgender people have chromosomal anomalies, it is to refute the argument "A transgender man/woman still has XX/XY chromosomes and is therefore forever female/male", since you can be male wuth XX-chromsomes/female with XY-chromosomes. And for definitions, edge cases (which yes, chromosomal anomalies are) matter, especially since transgender people are edge cases themself.

[–]ColoredTwiceIntersex female, medical malpractice victim, lesbian 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Same as with other people, 99.99% of transgender people would have XX of they were born female and XY if they were born male. Maybe 99.95%, because of modern intersexphobia and all this wording like from WPATH (who called women with CAIS - "mutants") and "less female" - young people with DSD and their parents may be pushed to do IGM to become not "lesser female" but "fully transman", for example.

Chromosomal anomalities are all sex based as well.

I don't understand why this even dragged on into discussions about transgender people - we are not related in any way. And we are not proving any point either. We are just dragged along.

[–]BiologyIsReal 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

DSDs and transgenderism are not related. However you want to classify people with chromosomical anomalies, it doens't impact on trans identified people. And people with chromosomical anomalies are still either male or female. Saying they are something in between is likely to cause more IGM.

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

And people with chromosomical anomalies are still either male or female. Saying they are something in between is likely to cause more IGM.

if anything, it is the other way around. by saying that everyone is either clearly male or female, the point is made that anyone who doesn't is broken and needs to be fixed, causing more IGM.

[–]BiologyIsReal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

IGM happens because the kids are not considered fully male or female. You're saying the same stuff in a new package.

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, IGM's happen because people are stuffed into a strict binary that accepts only male and female, with anything other being considered a "disorder" that must be corrected. Full acceptance of the "biological sex as a spectrum"-model would also mean full acceptance of everyones position on said spectrum, and therefore not pathologizing people with intersex conditions as "broken men/women".

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

most of the differences in biological function (fat distribution, pheromones, muscle development, secondary sexual characteristics) depend on the hormone levels, which, in medical transitioning are changed

Again, utter rubbish. Most of the differences in the biological function of female and male humans are not visible to the eye. The secondary sex characteristics you are so focused on represent just a teensy-tiny fraction of the sex differences in female and male human beings.

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Most of the differences in the biological function of female and male humans are not visible to the eye.

preciesly. And since they aren't perceived, they are irrelevant to sexual attraction and therefore in regards to sexual orientation.

The secondary sex characteristics you are so focused on represent just a teensy-tiny fraction of the sex differences in female and male human beings.

But they represent the vast majority of the sex differences relevant for sexual attraction.

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You keep shifting the topic, pretending we were talking about something different than the specific issue under discussion in a particular instance.

My response was to your claim that

most of the differences in biological function (fat distribution, pheromones, muscle development, secondary sexual characteristics) depend on the hormone levels, which, in medical transitioning are changed

Which was a blanket and entirely false claim about the "differences in biological function" between males and females across the board, not just a claim solely about the small number of differences that in your opinion are the only ones "relevant to sexual attraction."

As for the rest, you're just making it clearer and clearer that your knowledge of human sexual relations is all or mostly theoretical.