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 -  (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...

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

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.

fairness in sport is not a right, but it is something that is striven for, because a heavily imbalanced competitiong just isn't very interesting, neither for the atlethes, nor the spectators.

Which is a lie since trans athletes are allowed to participate, they are only asked to compete according to their sex

so, are transgender men that are on HRT allowed to compete in the women's division?

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 IOC was of the opinion, that requiering a gonadectomy is not compatible with human right and would exclude transgender people from countries where transitioning is illegal 1 , 2 . And, no, as you correctly pointed out, I confused the IOC and the IAAF, which means that the rules for the next olympics are apparently still the same one from the 2015 decision 3. So, no, there will not be suddenly vastly more transgender women competing. Btw. regarding the 10 nmol/L limit in place for the olympics: did you know that the testosterone level for a typical human male is 7.7 to 29.4 nmol/L ?

The article of World Athletics is not about the IOC, but the IAAF.

looks like I messed up and confused the IAAF and IOC with each other. My bad.

Also it’s not about trans athletes, but intersex ones...

The rules are the same, and for good reason. Caster Semenya - the person responsible for the IAAF contniously redefining what, for the purpose of elligilability a "woman" is - has an intersex condition called 5α-Reductase deficiency, which, if anything, is closer to male than female. Nevertheless, she identifies as a woman, and deserves to be treated as such. So, there is good reason to treat the two issues analogously.

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The IOC was of the opinion, that requiering a gonadectomy is not compatible with human right and would exclude transgender people from countries where transitioning is illegal 1 , 2 . And, no, as you correctly pointed out, I confused the IOC and the IAAF, which means that the rules for the next olympics are apparently still the same one from the 2015 decision 3. So, no, there will not be suddenly vastly more transgender women competing. Btw. regarding the 10 nmol/L limit in place for the olympics: did you know that the testosterone level for a typical human male is 7.7 to 29.4 nmol/L ?

The IOC decided against gonadectomy in 2015, not in 2004. So, I stand by what I said: we're going to see more trans natal males in the next Olympics.

Did you know normal leves of testosterone for healthy menstruating women under 40 years are below 2 nmol/l? Even testosterone levels in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) don't reach 5nmol/. That is were limit imposed by the IAAF comes from. So, even if current testosterone levels were the only thing that matters in sports (a view I disagree with), the IOC limit is still to high.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6391653/

The rules are the same, and for good reason. Caster Semenya - the person responsible for the IAAF contniously redefining what, for the purpose of elligilability a "woman" is - has an intersex condition called 5α-Reductase deficiency, which, if anything, is closer to male than female. Nevertheless, she identifies as a woman, and deserves to be treated as such. So, there is good reason to treat the two issues analogously.

5α-Reductase deficiency is a DSD only in males. This enzime converts testosterone in dihydrotestosterone (DHT). Males with this condition have unusual looking genitalia due to lack of DHT. They can secrete testosterone, though, and after reaching puberty they undergone virilization due the increase of testosterone. In fact, a considerable percentage of these males who were raised as girls end up adopting a male identity after puberty.

More on 5α-Reductase deficiency:

https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/5-alpha-reductase-deficiency/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK539904/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4031759/

[–]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 -  (0 children)

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.

Yes, the reference values are based on biological sex, because biological sex and hormone profile typically correlate strongly.

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.

Again., no, it actually doesn't. Because of course when the hormone profile returns to the one typical for the birth sex, you have to go by that.

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.

Which actually a lot of transgender women do, since there is much less prejeduice against transgender people than against women (not saying there isn't prejeduice against women). In fact, "going stealth" (e.g. only intimate partners and medical caretakers being supposed to be in the know) is the goal for quite a lot of transgender people I know.

Also, if you think that thats how it works - what's keeping you (or other non-transgender women) from claiming to be a passing transgender woman at the next job interview? The employer isn't going to pull down your pants to check (at least I would hope so. If they do, it's most definetly not a place I would want to work at)

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.

Thing is, for transgender men it works the other way around - a passing transgender man (assuming stealth here) isn't going to be assumed to be able to become pregnant even if he can (because some who pass can, some who don't can't. Hormones are funny 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?

well, a significant reason behind this is that in the past there had been more transgender women than transgender men transitioning. Lately, this has been changing. Also, transgender men have been butting in on the discourse - remember this meme ?

Another reason is also, that the stereotypes against transgender people are quite different for both types, with transgender women being seen as dangerous predators and and transgender men as confused women. Which stereotype do you think is more likely to cause someone to become angry and outspoken against?

And finally, the opposite side also regulary forgets about transgender men entirely in the discourse. When people opposed to transgender people in the sex-seggregated spaces of their gender identity talk about that, they only ever think about it meaning that transgender woman would now be outside of the womens bathroom, they never think about it also meaning that transgender men would now be requierred to use the womens.

(reminds me of a case I once read. Essentially, a transgender men - who, based on what happend was clearly already passing- , living in a place where it was going by legal ID, was at a offical place to change his legal ID to male, had to use the restroom and - not wanting to break the law - went into the womens. Except someone was already there. Let's just say that "awkward" does not even begin to describe it)

[–]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.

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

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.

so, now you are back to defining sex on active gamete production? Either you changed your definition yet again, or you are using a paper for supporting your position despite the paper using definitions different enough from yours that it can't be used to support your position.

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.

your understanding of the "Biological sex as a spectrum"-modell is comparable to a creationists understanding of the theory of evolution. Because, again, the "biological sex as a spectrum"-modell does not make a claim towards a "third gamete".

So, do you believe sex is a spectrum or sex is bimodal? Because these are two different things.

Biological sex is a bimodal spectrum. The above case in your link actually quite nicely illustrates a bimodal spectrum - a population with two distinct peaks representing two modes. For Biological Sex in the "Biological sex as a spectrum"-modell it looks (Note regarding the link: for that illustration, please cross "gender" mentally out and replace it with "biological sex". The article it's from was argueing for both sex and gender being bimodal spectra and they didn't bother making essentially the same graph twice) the same, with the peaks being the typical (i.e. most likely to be fertile) positions on the spectrum, and the middle between the modes being a minima. This is not the same as biological sex being a binary, because if it were a binary, there would be absoloutly no overlap instead of only little overlap (i.e. the middle in between the modes being completly empty, instead of there just being very few cases).

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.

that would be the case if I were claiming sex to be an unimodal spectrum, which I never did.