"Assigned __ at birth" is a bizarre and goofy expression that should never be used

submitted by [deleted] from self.GenderCritical

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Lyssa 21 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 0 fun22 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

chromosomes don't have much bilogical function, they're just an inactive bundle of genes.

That's a pretty ridiculous statement. Chromosomes carry both active and inactive genes. Otherwise: where should our active genes reside?

And of course they have a biological function and in 99,98% of cases male and female are a very binary categories. Just because a coin somebody lands on its edge (coincidentally they do in about 0,02% of coin tosses...) does not mean it has three sides or that "sides of coins are actually far more complicated than heads or tails".

You will also find persons with 12 fingers or no arms. Nevertheless, "humans are a two-armed and ten-fingered species" is a correct statement.

[–]kardamom 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

chromosomes in the form that we usually think of them only exist during mitosis or meiosis and the dna they carry is always completely inactive while bundled up. when a cell is not undergoing division chromosomes don't really exist as those visible, countable structures, the dna is just a ball of chromatin inside the nucleus. if you genetic code is a library, chromosomes are like bookshelves. boookshelves don't carry any information, they just organize information. but the books themselves are not always in perfect order, so relying on the shelves to tell you what kinds of books are in your library is just a rough approximation. and in the case of intersex people, the books/genes usually are out of order, so the shelves/chromosomes are kinda irrelevant beyond giving you a hint that something has to be unusual.

[–]Terfenclaw 19 insightful - 2 fun19 insightful - 1 fun20 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Chromosomes as bookshelves is a bad analogy because bookshelves contain no information. Bookshelves are merely containers. Chromosomes are literally made of DNA; they're just bundled up into a specific form. A better analogy is an open book versus a closed book. Sometimes pages can be ripped out of one book and put inside another book, but those books are still vitally important to development.

Also, if we start breaking down definitions and saying they're meaningless because a 0.01% outlier breaks the standard rules, then we will be left with no meaningful language or definitions. Humans having 10 fingers is "fifth grade biology." Humans having chromosome pairs is "fifth grade biology" because it ignores cases of trisomy. Just because some people have colorblindness doesn't mean that red and green don't exist. Outliers do not disprove the rule that works in the vast majority of cases. They only show that sometimes there are exceptions. And it is intellectually dishonest, self-serving, and erasing for the people who do have those outlier conditions when trans people appropriate this for their own agenda.

[–]3MistersAndAMissy 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You worded that so much better than I could have. Thank you!!

I think I remember you from Reddit. 🙂welcome. I was GeneralRow7

[–]Terfenclaw 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Thank you! I am actually new to GC. JKR, the banning of GC and other female-centric spaces on reddit, and the aggressive, woman-silencing, science-denying rhetoric of TRAs is what made me join.

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

There was someone w a similar name on GC Reddit 🙂

Welcome!

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

then maybe use "stacks" instead of shelves. a chromosome is just a collections of genes and the genes themselves are not defined by the chromosome they occur on. the idea that someone with xx chromosomes is always genitically female is false by definition, if a persons genes lead to a male phenotype, this combination of genes is considered male, regardless of the way in which the genes are sorted into chromosomes. also, there's a lot of different systems of sex-chromosomes and to make it even worse, not all animals have sex chromosomes.

to use chromosomes as some holy way to indentify biological sex is just plain wrong. they can give you a very educated guess. but in the end, sex is a physiological trait, not a genetic feature.

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

The fact that extremely rare mutations occur in the form of chromosomal deletions and translocations does not discredit the entire science of genetic mapping. There is a huge amount of research devoted to mapping the human genome. Chromosomal structure actually is holy--or let's say stable--enough to base an entire branch of research off of mapping which genes are located where on them.

These are constant enough that we are able to categorize many different birth defects based on chromosomal abnormalities. Cri du chat syndrome is because of a deletion on chromosome 5, down syndrome a result of an extra chromosome 21, Tay-Sachs a mutation in chromosome 15. Many more illnesses can be linked to mutations in genes in very specific locations, but you don't see anyone wailing on about how chromosomes are unimportant here because in a few incredibly rare cases, someone's down's syndrome is actually a result of a translocated piece of chromosome 21 being put on, say, chromosome 20, rather than existing independently as in the standard presentation of trisomy 21.

Calling chromosomes an "educated guess" of biological sex is an extreme distortion of how powerful a predictor they are. In over 99.9% of cases, they accurately predict sex.

Bringing up animals is some actual fifth grade logic here. We are talking about distinct populations here. Humans are not the same as lizards or clownfish. Intersex people are not the same as transgender people (though there is some overlap). Just because clownfish can change their sex, doesn't mean humans can. Just because some intersex people are essentially XY females or XX males, doesn't mean that transgender people are.

but in the end, sex is a physiological trait, not a genetic feature.

This doesn't make even sense. Physiology is determined by genetics. That's why you're grasping at SRY translocations and deletions.

[–]kardamom 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

In over 99.9% of cases, they accurately predict sex.

yup. and the op was talking about the other 0.1%, intersex people. where a dogmatic view of sex as chromosomal is just plain wrong. ("DNA is the final arbiter. If there is a "Y" chromosome, that baby is male. No ambiguity about it.")

Physiology is determined by genetics.

not always. in case of sex, there's other oprions beyond genetics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-determination_system#Environmental_systems

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

and the op was talking about the other 0.1%, intersex people. where a dogmatic view of sex as chromosomal is just plain wrong

No they weren't. They were making a statement about sex determination that applies to over 99.99% of the population. That exceptionally rare sliver of intersex people who it doesn't apply to are NOT the same as trans people.

not always. in case of sex, there's other oprions beyond genetics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-determination_system#Environmental_systems

Lmao. Humans are not lizards. This would be like me bringing up bacteria to argue that humans are capable of binary fission.

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

I thougt you were referring to the fact that large parts of our DNA are what researchers used to refer to as "trash", i.e. not builing body parts even in mitosis or meiosis but just being copied along with the parts actually doing something...

Anyhow: Of course genes re "active" technically when read. Just like a library. Nevertheless, a library of cooking books is fundamentally different from a library on aeronautics and not at all "the same" or "not important" unless currently being read. Yes, you can use both as fancy wallpapers. But that is the equivalent for a library of a biological death of the carrier for DNA.

Your chromosomes decide what your body looks like, what your IQ potential is (note I've said potential, not IQ) and if you e.g. have Huntington's Chorea. If you had one of the more dramatic variations (like Huntington's...) the notion "it's only important during cell devision, but so TOTALLY irrelevant for your life" would probably be rather infuriating...

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

Just because a coin somebody lands on its edge (coincidentally they do in about 0,02% of coin tosses...) does not mean it has three sides or that "sides of coins are actually far more complicated than heads or tails".

You will also find persons with 12 fingers or no arms. Nevertheless, "humans are a two-armed and ten-fingered species" is a correct statement.

Well said. Very well said. Outliers are just that. Just the other day a plane crashed into a home in Utah, but of all the things I worry about before bed, a plane crashing through my roof is not one of them. Without generalizations, we would not be able to communicate.