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 - 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.

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

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.

except that would requiere to define biological sex solely by present gonads, which, as we had already established when talking about swyer syndrome and when talking gonadectomy is not what you define biological sex on.

I only brought müllerian vs. wolffian ducts up because it is the closest I) can come up with to make sense of your "what gamete the body is intended to produce"-criteria.

It would depend on the predominant features. This disorder is very, very rare, yet you're here trying to use it as a gotcha

"depend on the predominant features" - exactly. It is a spectrum, and you put a case that is somewhere in between into one of the two typical modes based on an arbitary judgement about which mode the case is closer toward to.

I've told you this already: we don't use edge cases for making generalizations.

one doesn't include edge cases when making generalizations, no. But when someone makes a claim that is supposed to apply to everyone, edge cases have to be included. So, when you make a claim towards their being a strict binary with no one ever falling outside it, you have to include every single edge case.

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 a passing, post-op transgender woman does fenotypically look female and is - with increasing time since transition - increasingly female socalized. If they did social transition in early childhood, they may even be raised female. Therefore, does - by the same line of logic - it not make sense to treat them as female despite being genetically male?

Also, to find the path back to the actual topic of this thread: if sexual orientation is based on biological sex, and CAIS women are biologically male, does that mean, a man/women who is sexually attracted to a CAIS woman, even after being informed of her condition, would not be heterosexual/homosexual ?

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.

actually, sometimes there are ovaries ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4800541/ ). I actually (when researching the condition) found on reddit a transgender woman with this condition, that had one functional testicle and one non-functional (but hormone producing) ovary ( https://www.reddit.com/r/TransDIY/comments/gcvnwl/transitioning_mtf_while_intersex_how_to_approach/ note: this was in transDIY, were she was pretty much asking on how that would mean for her medical transition), and then there is also the mikey chanel case ( https://www.timesnownews.com/the-buzz/article/mikey-chanel-pmds-trans-teen-who-was-raised-a-boy-is-four-months-pregnant-after-finding-she-has-ovaries-womb/683136 - unfortunately I do not know on how that case developed, as her instagram and tiktok acounts appear to have disappeared)

And, additionally, you don't make "can get pregnant", "does produce ova" or "does have ovaries" a criteria for the intersex cases you sort in as female to do so.

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

one doesn't include edge cases when making generalizations, no. But when someone makes a claim that is supposed to apply to everyone, edge cases have to be included. So, when you make a claim towards their being a strict binary with no one ever falling outside it, you have to include every single edge case.

Yet, somehow, you know the pancreas is supposed to secrete insulin. It seems you understand the difference between what is normal and what is an anomaly, but you refuse to take this approach when it comes to sex.

And a passing, post-op transgender woman does fenotypically look female and is - with increasing time since transition - increasingly female socalized. If they did social transition in early childhood, they may even be raised female. Therefore, does - by the same line of logic - it not make sense to treat them as female despite being genetically male?

Most trans identified males don’t look like women and their behavior often makes it clear they were socialized as males. What is more, their idea of a woman is rooted in sexist stereotypes.

Also, to find the path back to the actual topic of this thread: if sexual orientation is based on biological sex, and CAIS women are biologically male, does that mean, a man/women who is sexually attracted to a CAIS woman, even after being informed of her condition, would not be heterosexual/homosexual ?

Since they have a female phenotype, my guess is that their partners remain heterosexual/homosexual. Though, I’ve no idea how said partners would feel about the situation. I’ve no personal experience with this.

actually, sometimes there are ovaries ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4800541/ ). I actually (when researching the condition) found on reddit a transgender woman with this condition, that had one functional testicle and one non-functional (but hormone producing) ovary ( https://www.reddit.com/r/TransDIY/comments/gcvnwl/transitioning_mtf_while_intersex_how_to_approach/ note: this was in transDIY, were she was pretty much asking on how that would mean for her medical transition), and then there is also the mikey chanel case ( https://www.timesnownews.com/the-buzz/article/mikey-chanel-pmds-trans-teen-who-was-raised-a-boy-is-four-months-pregnant-after-finding-she-has-ovaries-womb/683136 - unfortunately I do not know on how that case developed, as her instagram and tiktok acounts appear to have disappeared)

Re the case report: this is so rare that even the authors couldn’t find a similar case. I should remark, though, the authors refer to this patient as male. The patient refused to do further studies, so we don’t know if there were something else going on besides the PMDS.

Re the reddit thread: sorry, but I don’t find this sub trustworthy.

Re Mikey Channel: there is this thread.

And, additionally, you don't make "can get pregnant", "does produce ova" or "does have ovaries" a criteria for the intersex cases you sort in as female to do so.

I said you were making it sound like they were hermaphrodites and I explained why that wasn’t the case.

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

Since they have a female phenotype, my guess is that their partners remain heterosexual/homosexual. Though, I’ve no idea how said partners would feel about the situation. I’ve no personal experience with this.

precisely. Glad you finally understand. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with biological sex and all to that with Phenotype, aka what I called "apparent Gender".

Re the case report: this is so rare that even the authors couldn’t find a similar case. I should remark, though, the authors refer to this patient as male. The patient refused to do further studies, so we don’t know if there were something else going on besides the PMDS.

doesn't matter how rare.

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.

And, additionally, you don't make "can get pregnant", "does produce ova" or "does have ovaries" a criteria for the intersex cases you sort in as female to do so.

I said you were making it sound like they were hermaphrodites and I explained why that wasn’t the case.

are "can get pregnant", "does produce ova" and "does have ovaries" the criteria to be used or not? Because quite a few intersex phenomena I mentioned do not qualify for their respective sex you sorted them in under these criteria.

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

precisely. Glad you finally understand. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with biological sex and all to that with Phenotype, aka what I called "apparent Gender"

Trans natal males don't have CAIS, though.

doesn't matter how rare.

Unless I'm understanding that report wrong, he didn't have a functioning ovary, in fact the ovarian tissue was extirped among the cistic mass.

are "can get pregnant", "does produce ova" and "does have ovaries" the criteria to be used or not? Because quite a few intersex phenomena I mentioned do not qualify for their respective sex you sorted them in under these criteria.

I stand by what I said multiple times already female refers to the biological category of individuals whose bodies are built around the potential capability of producing large gametes (ova) at some point in their life. And likewise for males and sperm.

Not all females can get pregnant, but only females can get pregnant.

Anyway, I only mentioned the pregnacy thing to explain how males with PMDS are not hermaphrodites. Evidently, that went wrong, so I'll try to be more straightforward this time.

Hermaphrodites are individuals who can produce either gamete. Sequencial hermaphrodites start producing one kind of gamete and later swich to produc the other one. Simultaneus hermaphrodites can produce both kinds at the same times. We agree (I think) that humans can't swich the kind of gamete one can produce. So, humans are not sequential hermaphrodites. And we aren't simultaneus hermaphrodites either because our bodies develop either a male reproductive system or a female one. Moreover, the development of those systems are mutually antagonic. There are rare cases where things go wrong and you find a mixture of female and male feaures. However, there are no reported case of people both functional set of reproductive systems because we're not supposed to produce both ova and spermatozoa.

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

Trans natal males don't have CAIS, though.

how does that change the argument?

Unless I'm understanding that report wrong, he didn't have a functioning ovary, in fact the ovarian tissue was extirped among the cistic mass.

still means ovarian tissue.

I stand by what I said multiple times already female refers to the biological category of individuals whose bodies are built around the potential capability of producing large gametes (ova) at some point in their life. And likewise for males and sperm.

except that you don't define what "built around the potential capability of producing" a particular gamete means.

Not all females can get pregnant, but only females can get pregnant.

maybe. I mean, naturally? Of course yes (since anyone on the female side of the bimodal spectrum close enough to the "typical" case to be fertile would also be close enough to the typical case to be easily sorted in as female under the binary modell). Artifically? Maybe you only need an Uterus and a female hormone profile(though if we discount the Mikey Chanel case [which might or might not be a hoax] it is going to be hard to find volunters to test that, and I don't think any scientific journal is going to accept a paper to the effect of "I abducted some guy who, due to rare genetic abnormality had an uterus, subjected him into a hormone regime against his will, and forcibly impregnated him. Here's my results.")

Hermaphrodites are individuals who can produce either gamete. Sequencial hermaphrodites start producing one kind of gamete and later swich to produc the other one. Simultaneus hermaphrodites can produce both kinds at the same times. We agree (I think) that humans can't swich the kind of gamete one can produce. So, humans are not sequential hermaphrodites.

so far, yes.

There are rare cases where things go wrong and you find a mixture of female and male feaures.

precisely. Some amount of male or female or both or neither.

However, there are no reported case of people both functional set of reproductive systems because we're not supposed to produce both ova and spermatozoa.

No, there aren't reports of both being functional. But there doesn't have to be, since not having a functional one of either doesn't disqualify.

[–]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.

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

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 mising the point. The point is, that the fact that transgender people still have the chromosomes of their birth sex is utterly irrelevant.

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.

I make no claim of me being the opposite sex. And under the "biological sex as a spectrum"-modell, claims towards a change in position on the spectrum are waranted. The problem is, that you keep insisting on a strict binary were for a "sex change" it's either everything or bust, so under your conception a transgender person would have to change their chromosomes and start producing gametes opposite to the ones of their birth sex - despite you not demanding the same level of adherence to the biology of the typical binary sex in order to sort people with natal intersex conditions into those binaries.

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.

and which right would that be? How are they "Erased" by being instead based on gender identity?

So, yes, you along many others are saying there are more than two sexes in order to justify self-ID.

the "biological sex as a spectrum"-modell has nothing to do with self-ID.

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.

do these authors present any solid, concrete criteria that cover all cases?

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

again, I have been bombarding you for days with evidence proving that the strict binary is to simplistic for all cases.

Also, I've not changed my criteria, you're the one who keeps either misunderstanding or misrepresenting it.

then please name your criteria. Because I don't see a concrete criteria. "what gamete the body is intended to produce" is not a concrete criteria, unless you define it further. Which precise anatomical features or biological processes determine which gamete the body is "intended to produce"?

[–]BiologyIsReal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

you are mising the point. The point is, that the fact that transgender people still have the chromosomes of their birth sex is utterly irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant since trans people are only changing superficial things. Here're two news stories about how hiding hiding their actual sex nearly cost two trans identified females their lifes.

https://www.womenarehuman.com/woman-committed-to-passing-as-male-nearly-dies-from-medical-condition/

https://www.womenarehuman.com/how-the-gender-identity-movement-led-to-the-death-of-an-infant-endangered-a-womans-life/

I make no claim of me being the opposite sex. And under the "biological sex as a spectrum"-modell, claims towards a change in position on the spectrum are waranted. The problem is, that you keep insisting on a strict binary were for a "sex change" it's either everything or bust, so under your conception a transgender person would have to change their chromosomes and start producing gametes opposite to the ones of their birth sex - despite you not demanding the same level of adherence to the biology of the typical binary sex in order to sort people with natal intersex conditions into those binaries.

I don't know about you, but trans people often claim to be the opposite sex.

and which right would that be? How are they "Erased" by being instead based on gender identity?

You know very well why. By replacing sex with gender identity, trans identified males are allowed access to women's only spaces like bathrooms, changing rooms, shelters, prisson, and etcetera. They are also participating in female sport categories despite their biological advantage. They have access now to awards, scholarships and shortlists previously reserved to women. They're being counted in statistics as female, skewing important data. They're also demanding people base their sexual orientation in gender identity rather than sex. They're also changing language in such a way the word woman has become taboo, yet the word man has remained untouched (I'm making a thread about this, actually). Furthermore, pretending that women are not discriminated based on their sex makes it impossible to fight against all the unresolved sexism.

the "biological sex as a spectrum"-modell has nothing to do with self-ID.

It has everything to do with self-ID. The "sex is a spectrum" rethoric is pushed by trans activists in order to justify to being recognized as the opposite sex.

do these authors present any solid, concrete criteria that cover all cases?

Read the papers... The first one at the very least.

again, I have been bombarding you for days with evidence proving that the strict binary is to simplistic for all cases.

That is not evidence. You've been either misunderstanding or misrepresenting the science behind every genetic aomaly that you've bringed up. Now, show me those papers disproving there are only two sexes, please.

then please name your criteria. Because I don't see a concrete criteria. "what gamete the body is intended to produce" is not a concrete criteria, unless you define it further. Which precise anatomical features or biological processes determine which gamete the body is "intended to produce"?

Reread my posts. I've explained this to you several times already and so have done other users. I even gave you links where scientists explain what sex is. Maybe if you weren't so focused on extremely rare cases in order to justify your worldview you would understand. And, seriusly, read the paper about gamete competition and gamete limitation. And here you have another article explaining how there are two sexes.

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

It's not irrelevant since trans people are only changing superficial things. Here're two news stories about how hiding hiding their actual sex nearly cost two trans identified females their lifes.

https://www.womenarehuman.com/woman-committed-to-passing-as-male-nearly-dies-from-medical-condition/

https://www.womenarehuman.com/how-the-gender-identity-movement-led-to-the-death-of-an-infant-endangered-a-womans-life/

a.) it is hardly only superficial, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_hormone_therapy_(female-to-male)#Effects , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_hormone_therapy_(male-to-female)#Effects , https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0004563215587763 , https://bjanaesthesia.org/article/S0007-0912(20)30087-8/fulltext with the latter being particulary relevant to the first case you mentioned, let me quote: Laboratory values There is limited evidence to guide how best to interpret laboratory values in the transgender woman, particularly those who have been on hormonal therapies.22 These hormonal therapies have varying effects on haematological and biochemical parameters, and this should be considered when interpreting these results. There are many reference ranges and calculated laboratory parameters that use sex routinely, and examples include: (i) Renal function: creatinine concentrations are influenced by many factors, including diet and muscle mass. Creatinine concentrations decrease in transgender women taking hormone therapy as a result of a decrease in lean body mass.73,74 The Cockcroft–Gault formula for creatinine clearance and the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease glomerular filtration rate equation for calculating glomerular filtration are examples that utilise sex. A lower creatinine will correspond with a higher estimated glomerular filtration rate, giving the perception that filtration is occurring at a higher rate. There are no studies looking specifically on how to interpret renal function in the transgender woman, but it is important to consider whether the sex assigned at birth or the gender identity has been used in the electronic medical record, and which sex has been used for the calculation when commenting on any changes in renal function, particularly when hormone therapy has been recently commenced. Confusion over eligibility for transplant in a transgender patient has been reported because of this issue.67,73, 74, 75 (ii) Haematocrit and defining anaemia: reference ranges for the evaluation of haematocrit levels in transgender persons have not been established; however, a decrease in haematocrit is often observed in transgender women on hormonal therapy.53 The European Network for the Investigation of Gender Incongruence study53 found that, in transgender women, serum haematocrit had decreased to a level that can be found in the reference range of the identified gender from 3 months after the initiation of gender-affirming hormonal treatment. In transgender women continuing established hormone therapy perioperatively, haematocrit can be interpreted within the reference ranges for the female sex. It is unclear what reference range to use if there has been cessation of therapy; however, with parts of the world moving towards a unified haemoglobin reference range, this may not be of consequence in the future.

b.) weren't you claiming that transgender people almost never pass?

c.) the source you used consistently and clearly intentionally misgenders both men thoughout the entirety. This is highly offensive to transgender people.

d.) for the first case, the transgender man in question did not at all "hide" his birth sex. In fact, his doctor outright told him to stop testosterone ( https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200814-why-our-medical-systems-are-ignoring-transgender-people ), despite the fact, that the resulting change in muscle mass would suggest changing back to the female baseline, since that is what the relevant factor in question was.

e.) for the second case, the transgender man in question did not "hide" his birth sex either, he was just ignored. In fact, the transgender man in question (who had stopped taking testosterone after losing his insurance https://apnews.com/article/b5e7bb73c6134d58a0df9e1cee2fb8ad ) quite clearly stated that a pregnancy test had come up positive, which, together with the stated birth sex and interrupted hormone therapy clearly should put pregnancy into consideration for the stated symptoms.

I don't know about you, but trans people often claim to be the opposite sex.

they claim to be the opposite gender to their birth sex. No transgender person claims to have changed chromosomes or to have changed to produce the gametes of the opposite sex to their birth sex.

By replacing sex with gender identity, trans identified males are allowed access to women's only spaces like bathrooms, changing rooms, shelters, prisson, and etcetera.

as described in the article I linked, there is no such right to sex segregated spaces.

They are also participating in female sport categories despite their biological advantage

first, there is no right to fairness in sport. Second, how much of a biological advantage a transgender woman that has been on hormone therapy for at least a year (current olympic guideline) has, has been debated. Third, despite the olympics allowing transgender participants since 2004 there had been no transgender women athlethes taking any top spots in the olympics. And fourth, in regards to elite sport, the debate around biologicasl sex and fairness has quite clearly been centered around intersex cases (remember the Caster Semenya case?)

They have access now to awards, scholarships and shortlists previously reserved to women.

first, there is no right to awards, scholarships or shortlists. Second, on what basis do you conclude that these things should be restricted based on biological sex and not gender identity?

They're being counted in statistics as female, skewing important data.

there is no right for having statistics to be recorded in a manner one prefers. In that regard, I would actually prefer for both gender and birth sex to be recorded, so that systematic issues regarding transgender people can be analyzed.

They're also demanding people base their sexual orientation in gender identity rather than sex.

that is not a demand, that is a reconceptualization of sexual orientation as not being based on biological sex. I already explained, that in my view, sexual orientation is based on apparent gender, rather than pure "gender identity" (since a pre-everything transgender person is unlikely to appear as the gender they identify as) or pure "biological sex" (in the way you define it) )(since that would mean that a transgender that has significantly transitioned would still be attractive to people attracted to their birth sex)

They're also changing language in such a way the word woman has become taboo, yet the word man has remained untouched (I'm making a thread about this, actually)

The word "woman" is not becoming taboo. It is merely avoided in contexts were not everyone involved is a woman. That this avoidance can be problematic and often leads to clunky or downright dehumanizing language is an issue I wanted to tackle in a post I have been planning to make on this board for some time now.

Furthermore, pretending that women are not discriminated based on their sex makes it impossible to fight against all the unresolved sexism.

it's not quite that straightforward. It depends on which places one talks about and which acts of discrimination one talks about. Are sex-selective abortions, menstruation huts and female genital mutilation sex based? yes, but they aren't happening on a structural level (I'm not argueing, that there aren't cases of it happening) in the western developed world where the majority of transgender discourse is taking place. Are issues regarding acess to menstrual hygine products and abortions sex based? Mostly yes, with the "mostly" being aformentioned intersex issues (some women don't menstruate or can get pregnant, while I admittedly never heard of a case of a PMDS-Man being abducted by some dr. Frankenstein, forcibly getting an embryo in his uterus implanted and then needing an abortion), but in this regard transgender rights aren't erasing rights regarding these issues at all, transgender people aren't restricting access to menstrual hygine products or abortions. Are sexual harrasement and gender pay gap sex based? Not really, the groper isn't going to check whether that female appearing person has ovaries before groping her breasts, and no boss is going to base their decision on whether to pay that female appearing employee less based on whether said employee has ovaries. So these last issues aren't sex based, they are based on apparent gender.

It has everything to do with self-ID. The "sex is a spectrum" rethoric is pushed by trans activists in order to justify to being recognized as the opposite sex.

[–]BiologyIsReal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I didn’t include many of your quotes because I didn’t want to keep dividing the comments.

a.)This is ridiculous. Just because exogenous hormones change certain biochemical parameters, it doesn’t mean you should use the reference values of the opposite sex.

b.) weren't you claiming that transgender people almost never pass?

Yes, but I don’t see how these two examples disprove what I said.

d.) The BBC article says the same thing. Whitley was recorded as male in medical records and the doctors treated her accordingly until they saw her uterus through US. It’s only then that the doctor told her to stop testosterone.

e.) Touched. I saved the link a while ago and I’ve forgotten that the patient was upfront about her status in this case. However, she was too recorded as male in medical records.

they claim to be the opposite gender to their birth sex. No transgender person claims to have changed chromosomes or to have changed to produce the gametes of the opposite sex to their birth sex.

In practice is the same thing, because we’re asked to give preference to gender identity over sex.

as described in the article I linked, there is no such right to sex segregated spaces.

first, there is no right to fairness in sport. Second, how much of a biological advantage a transgender woman that has been on hormone therapy for at least a year (current olympic guideline) has, has been debated. Third, despite the olympics allowing transgender participants since 2004 there had been no transgender women athlethes taking any top spots in the olympics. And fourth, in regards to elite sport, the debate around biologicasl sex and fairness has quite clearly been centered around intersex cases (remember the Caster Semenya case?)

first, there is no right to awards, scholarships or shortlists. Second, on what basis do you conclude that these things should be restricted based on biological sex and not gender identity?

there is no right for having statistics to be recorded in a manner one prefers. In that regard, I would actually prefer for both gender and birth sex to be recorded, so that systematic issues regarding transgender people can be analyzed.

So, women don’t have right to have their own things despite that sex is a easily observed trait that has been acknowledged through millennia and that has shaped our lives. However, everyone must accommodate trans identities despite the fact gender identity being a very new belief. Why don’t you say directly women must submit to men and are done with it?

As I said, every law that has granted rights to women was based on sex, even if this is not being explicit, because until very recently everyone understood there are only two sexes. To say that women’s rights weren't granted on the basis of sex is to rewrite history.

As for fairness in sports, should we, then, abolish age categories, too? And what about weight categories in sports like boxing? Should the Olympics and the Paralympics be fused and disabled athletes compete against body-abled athletes?

And here’s a review of trans people and sports: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3

BTW, it’s only in 2015 that the IOC allowed trans identified males to participate in the female categories with the condition of lowering their testosterone levels for a year. We're going to witness the full effects of this policy in the next games whenever they're done.

Re sexual orientation: this is a reconceptualization that most people disagree with.

Re women’s discrimination: We’ve already gone over this. Someone else being mistaken about your sex doesn’t make you the opposite sex. And employers do discriminate women on the basis they’re the only ones who can get pregnant.

Edit: BTW, I'm from Argentina. Here, self-ID is a thing since 2012, but abortion wasn't legalized until last December. Don't tell me this nonsense is only happening in the developed world.

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

a.)This is ridiculous. Just because exogenous hormones change certain biochemical parameters, it doesn’t mean you should use the reference values of the opposite sex.

changes to renal functions caused by exogonous hormones are irrelevant for the reference values regarding renal functions?

d.) The BBC article says the same thing. Whitley was recorded as male in medical records and the doctors treated her accordingly until they saw her uterus through US. It’s only then that the doctor told her to stop testosterone.

first, please don't engage in malicious misgendering. Second, treating someone with a female hormone profile (which, obviously, without testosterone is present in a transgender man) with reference values that are incorrect under such a hormone profile is obviously incorrect. There needs more consideration on how to handle such cases, since the reverse case (aka, treating a transgender woman with a female hormone profile with male reference values) would also be incorrect.

In practice is the same thing, because we’re asked to give preference to gender identity over sex.

Sex should only matter in regards to medical issues (e.g. any transgender people in a medical setting absoloutly needs to inform their doctor towards their medical history, which includes medical transitioning) and sexual partner (e.g. tell you sex partner, just to make sure they are okay with it). Everywhere else it should go by gender identity (with allowances for making requierement regarding stages of physical transitioning, for cases where physical sex based differences are relevant).

So, women don’t have right to have their own things despite that sex is a easily observed trait that has been acknowledged through millennia and that has shaped our lives. However, everyone must accommodate trans identities despite the fact gender identity being a very new belief. Why don’t you say directly women must submit to men and are done with it?

As I said, every law that has granted rights to women was based on sex, even if this is not being explicit, because until very recently everyone understood there are only two sexes. To say that women’s rights weren't granted on the basis of sex is to rewrite history.

Where did I say anything about "women having to submit to men"? It's just that rights granted to women based on being women or female don't exist, what does exist are laws against discrimination based on sex, with some exemptions that are subject to considerations of practicality.

As for fairness in sports, should we, then, abolish age categories, too? And what about weight categories in sports like boxing? Should the Olympics and the Paralympics be fused and disabled athletes compete against body-abled athletes?

fairness in sport is something that is generally preffered (as otherwise the outcome of a competition would be too predictable). But it isn't a right.

And here’s a review of trans people and sports: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3

I have seen that article before, and I have seen it criticised. As I aid, the issue is being debated.

BTW, it’s only in 2015 that the IOC allowed trans identified males to participate in the female categories with the condition of lowering their testosterone levels for a year. We're going to witness the full effects of this policy in the next games whenever they're done.

actually incorrect. The Stockholm consensus ( https://www.pdga.com/files/StockholmConsensus_0.pdf ) concluded in 2003 that transgender women should be allowed to compete in the women category, which was adopted by the IOC in 2004 ( https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/wspaj/15/1/article-p3.xml ) . The document you linked actually mentioned said consensus. The document you linked was just the clarification of the 2015 rules, which set the maximum allowed level for testosterone in competing women (transgender and intersex) to be 10 nmol/L (this has been lowered to 5 nmol/L in 2018 https://www.worldathletics.org/news/press-release/eligibility-regulations-for-female-classifica )

Re sexual orientation: this is a reconceptualization that most people disagree with.

really? You think most people would think that a heterosexual man/ homosexual woman would be sexually attracted to this person https://www.reddit.com/r/transpassing/comments/lm3fjd/2_years_on_t_how_am_i_doin_still_feel_like_my/ ? Can you show me any such heterosexual man/homosexual woman?

Re women’s discrimination: We’ve already gone over this. Someone else being mistaken about your sex doesn’t make you the opposite sex. And employers do discriminate women on the basis they’re the only ones who can get pregnant.

irrelevant in this regard. If someone is discriminated based on apparent gender, that discrimination is gender identity based. And the employer-example is a good case for this, as they may discriminate based the assumption of a employee with a female apparent gender being able to become pregnant, but as far as I know, no employer is demanding fertility tests for women who apply. The employer just assumes the possibility of a pregnancy based on the employee appearing female, regardless of the employees biological sex.

Edit: BTW, I'm from Argentina. Here, self-ID is a thing since 2012, but abortion wasn't legalized until last December. Don't tell me this nonsense is only happening in the developed world.

Every transgender person I have met on the internet has been supportive of abortion rights.

[–]BiologyIsReal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Re sports (I’ll address the rest in another comment):

If fairness in sports is not a right, should we abolish age and weight categories? Should disabled people compete against able-bodied people? I’m sure the transabled, the transages and the transweight would like this very much.

And if sports is not a human rights issues, why trans activists claim it is when they are not allowed to participate in sports. Which is a lie since trans athletes are allowed to participate, they are only asked to compete according to their sex. Why sports organizations should validate trans identities?

You’re not saying all the important information about the IOC. Per the document you linked, these were the recommended guidelines for trans natal males in 2003:

Surgical anatomical changes have been completed, including external genitalia changes and gonadectomy Legal recognition of their assigned sex has been conferred by the appropriate official authorities Hormonal therapy appropriate by the assigned sex has been administered in a verifiable manner and for a sufficient length of time to minimize gender-related advantages in sports competitions. In opinion of this group, eligibility should begin no sooner than two years after gonadectomy.

While I don’t agree with these guidelines either, these are much stricter than the issued in 2015. The first requirement in particular is quite limiting for trans athletes considering that most trans don’t undergone genital surgery. So, it’s a reasonable assumption to say we’re going more trans natal males competing in the female’s categories in the next Olympics.

The article of World Athletics is not about the IOC, but the IAAF. Also it’s not about trans athletes, but intersex ones...

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

Re hormones and biochemical parameters.

Reference values are used as a diagnostic tool. In some cases, there are diferent references values for women and men. They are not based on hormonal profile, but on sex. In the case of FGR the formule used to calculate it is different for men and women.

Taking exogenous hormones alter biochemical parameters of that individual, but that doens't mean you should evaluate them using the reference values of the opposite sex. This case show how that is a bad idea, actually.

Re Argentina

My point was women's rights was far from being a done deal in my country, yet self-ID was legalized before abortion. And I'll add the former had more support from our lawmakers. I specifically mentioned abortion because this a issue who is obviously sex based.

Re women's rights in general

About the employer example, a passing trans natal male could only be discriminated in the basis of a potential maternity if said male has made sure the employer doesn't know his actual sex. This doesn't justify the employer either way, but your example is about self-imposed oppression. Women can't opt out of ours like that. If you don't think so, just take a look at trans politics. Who is dominating the discourse? Trans natal males or trans natal females? It's also (mainly) trans natal males who are telling us that sex doesn't matter as much and we should priorizate gender identity from now on. This is not unlike regular males saying sex equality has already been reached. In fact many regular males are more than happy to stand up for trans natal males over women. Ever have you wondered why many regular males takes trans natal males's issues seriously despite the fact the same regular males constantly dismiss women's issues?

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

just because biological sex is a spectrum, does not mean the position on said spectrum is arbitary. And, no, trans activists are not demanding to be recognized as the opposite sex (biology), they are demanding to be recognized as the opposite gender (social).

do these authors present any solid, concrete criteria that cover all cases?

Read the papers... The first one at the very least.

can you quote the solid, concrete criteria?

Now, show me those papers disproving there are only two sexes, please.

how exactly would such a disprove of biological sex as a strict binary even look like for you? Since even outright mixed gonads are dismissed by you. And don't ask for some third or intermediary gamete, because that is not the claim that is being made.

Maybe if you weren't so focused on extremely rare cases in order to justify your worldview you would understand

a complete definition of biological sex has to include all existing cases, no matter how rare.

Read the papers... The first one at the very least.

And, seriusly, read the paper about gamete competition and gamete limitation.

again, I do not dispute that the modell of biological sex as a binary is not an usefulll generalization, it's just not a complete modell. Let me explain it to you by physics: the general theory of relativity describes gravity and makes, compared to the newtonian theory of gravity that also describes gravity, several quite counterintuitive claims (gravity affecting time, there being such a thing as a space time continum that is "bended" by mass), is vasytly more difficult to apply (I'd know, I had a course in it) and was, at the time, quite controversial and seen as political ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity ). Today it would be rather easy to find a peer reviewed paper that calculates gravity based on the newtonian modell. Does that mean that the general theory of relativity is a bunch of nonsense? Of course not. It's just that for the vast majority of cases the simpler, easier to use modell is sufficent. Analogously, for the vast majority of cases the modell of biological sex as a binary is usefull, easy to use and intuitive. But when considering all cases one has to use the more complicated, difficult to use and counterintutive modell, as otherwise one starts to encounter problems with cases covered by the complicated but not the simple modell.

And here you have another article explaining how there are two sexes.

which defines the sexes based on gonads which we already had (if definition were solely based on gonads, a gonadectomy would mean that the person in question would no longer have a biological sex) while dismissing ovotesticular cases merely based on rarity (which for an all including definition of biological sex can not be done). Therefore this article is not providing a compelling case for dismissing the modell of biological sex as a heavily bimodal spectrum.

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

just because biological sex is a spectrum, does not mean the position on said spectrum is arbitary. And, no, trans activists are not demanding to be recognized as the opposite sex (biology), they are demanding to be recognized as the opposite gender (social).

As I said in other comment, in practice it's the same thing, especialy because gender identity is given preference over sex.

can you quote the solid, concrete criteria?

If you don't want to read the whole paper there is a nice glossary at the end where sex is defined.

how exactly would such a disprove of biological sex as a strict binary even look like for you? Since even outright mixed gonads are dismissed by you. And don't ask for some third or intermediary gamete, because that is not the claim that is being made.

Yes, a third or more gametes since that is how we define sex. And I want to know what reproductive roles the additional sexes have, too. How are babies made under this model?

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

If you don't want to read the whole paper there is a nice glossary at the end where sex is defined.

that paper defines biological sex based on active gamete production. Which, for the purpose of this discussion, we have already dismissed as that would mean that a person that, for whatever reason, doesn't actively produce gametes would be without a biological sex.

Yes, a third or more gametes since that is how we define sex. And I want to know what reproductive roles the additional sexes have, too.

you are essentially pulling the same thing that creationists do when they think that the non-existence of a "Crocoduck" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocoduck ) means that the theory of evolution is false. The "biological sex as a spectrum"-modell does not claim there to be a third gamete or additional reproductive roles. You clearly don't and don't want to understand the modell.

How are babies made under this model?

the spectrum of biological sex is a bimodal spectrum, where the vast majority of cases are on the position of the spectrum that is fully either one of two states (with these two states being centered around the two reproductive roles). The further away a case is from this position is on the spectrum (e.g. the greater the difference to being one of those two states), the less likely this case is to be fertile (depending on the specifics, assisted reproductive techniqes might help). If a fertile member from one mode and a fertile member of the other mode mate, there is some probability of conception taking place with (in humans) the member of the female mode carrying the fertilized ova in their uterus until birth.

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

that paper defines biological sex based on active gamete production. Which, for the purpose of this discussion, we have already dismissed as that would mean that a person that, for whatever reason, doesn't actively produce gametes would be without a biological sex.

No, you’re the only ones dismissing such definition. You asked me for a paper supporting my position and I gave you one.

you are essentially pulling the same thing that creationists do when they think that the non-existence of a "Crocoduck" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocoduck ) means that the theory of evolution is false. The "biological sex as a spectrum"-modell does not claim there to be a third gamete or additional reproductive roles. You clearly don't and don't want to understand the modell.

So, am I like creationists? LOL The irony is totally lost in you. I asked you for a paper disproving there are two sexes. A third gamete certainly would do.

the spectrum of biological sex is a bimodal spectrum, where the vast majority of cases are on the position of the spectrum that is fully either one of two states (with these two states being centered around the two reproductive roles). The further away a case is from this position is on the spectrum (e.g. the greater the difference to being one of those two states), the less likely this case is to be fertile (depending on the specifics, assisted reproductive techniqes might help). If a fertile member from one mode and a fertile member of the other mode mate, there is some probability of conception taking place with (in humans) the member of the female mode carrying the fertilized ova in their uterus until birth.

That is a rather convoluted way to say there is some probability a fertile woman get pregnant after mating with a fertile man.

So, do you believe sex is a spectrum or sex is bimodal? Because these are two different things. A spectrum implies there is a continuum between the male extreme and the female extreme. A bimodal distribution implies there are two distinct populations. Many sex related traits are indeed bimodal, height being a good example. Actually, I would say the fact many sex related traits are bimodal disprove the hypothesis of sex being a spectrum. If sex were a spectrum, we would see a single normal curve when plotting height distribution in the human population instead of the two curves we actually observe. In fact, a bimodal distribution support the “there is two sexes” model.