Scientists: Sex Chromosomes are a "belief system"

submitted by GuacLettuceBacon from self.GenderCritical

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MarkTwainiac 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I'm with you generally speaking, and think sex chromosome testing should be done to determine who qualifies for participation in female sports. But outlier conditions like CAIS and mosaicism would make doing this impolitic for society as a whole.

Also, it wouldn't be fair - or IMO morally right - to put rules and customs into place that would out people with unusual sex chromosomes (X0 for example) and constantly force them to disclose and be identified by their rare medical conditions.

but at the end of the day their identity xx, xy, xxy will be based on scientific evidence that can't be refuted.

A person's sex chromosomes are not an "identity." I know I have XX chromosomes coz I've had genetic testing. But I don't "identify" as XX, just as I don't "identify as" a woman, or as mother, or as old. Those are just facts about me.

If we started "calling people by their sex chromosomes" as you suggest, that could easily lead to people being referred to - and discriminated against - coz of other aspects of our genetic profiles.

Most people have mutations or "genetic defects" that they are entirely unaware of that are causative, predictive or associated with one or another of the many known rare inherited diseases. If we classify and identify people based on sex chromosomes, it opens the door to all of us being identified and classified based on what genetic defects we carry - or don't carry. If history is any indication, this would not take the human race to a good place.

Identifying people based on their chromosomes would most likely lead to another caste system like they have in India and South Africa based on the hue of one's skin. Or to mass slaughter and genocide like what was done to the Armenians circa 1915 and the Jews during the Holocaust.

[–]slushpilot 13 insightful - 4 fun13 insightful - 3 fun14 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

We're really just making this harder than it needs to be, aren't we? We know what biology is for men and women in 99.99% of cases, so we could just keep doing that, maybe?

I'd be totally fine with special consideration to those with a verified genetic or developmental condition—sure, let them legally identify themselves. There may be situations where that gets challenged, like Caster Semenya, but hey, the world is messy and we can deal with it as it comes up.

There's no sense arguing about such a tiny proportion of people. Whatever the conclusion of this scientific article is—it's just derailing the topic and is completely irrelevant to the "trans rights" issue that everyone is actually talking about for the vast majority of those who want to self-identify.

I see it like,

"I believe men shouldn't be admitted into women's prisons & shelters & sports."

— "But the scientific truth says! XXY! klinefelter! bimodal! seahorses!" —

"Sir, this is a Wendy's."

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Agreed, in all but a teensy tiny number of human beings, the sex is clear at birth and can be determined by the appearance of the external genitals, which usually conforms to sex chromosomes. In the rare cases where the external genitalia look ambiguous at birth, nowadays the sex of the child can be determined with accuracy by a full medical workup involving genetic testing, scans and a physical exam.

And BTW, Caster Semenya's sex is clear too: as the IAAF/WA successfully argued in court, Semenya is a healthy male whose external genitalia didn't develop properly in utero, so it looked atypical at birth. But Semenya's male gonads - testes - function just fine, like any other healthy guys testes to; what's more, Semenya is androgen responsive as other healthy males are, so Semenya was/is able to utilize the T Semenya's testes pump out to develop a masculinized physique and all the physical advantages that males have over females in sport.

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

My only point about Semenya was that this is a pretty unique example of someone who was raised as a girl, but was only found to be male as an adult. It's a messy situation, and we need to allow for it & have some sympathy. It's so rare that such a person is not going to turn society upside down or be a threat to women—unlike opening the gates to self-id. I believe such a person should be allowed to live the life they've always known—although the new information is very relevant to issues like international sport where sex, not gender, still apply. It has to be evaluated on a case by case basis, and never over-generalized.

[–]just_lesbian_things 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

that would out people with unusual sex chromosomes (X0 for example) and constantly force them to disclose and be identified by their rare medical conditions.

People with Turner's Syndrome have a number of physical tells from short stature, webbed neck, high waist-to-hip ratio, specific facial characteristics, and low set ears. I doubt it would "out" them; people probably already noticed and wondered.

Identifying people based on their chromosomes would most likely lead to another caste system like they have in India and South Africa based on the hue of one's skin. Or to mass slaughter and genocide like what was done to the Armenians circa 1915 and the Jews during the Holocaust.

No, there's an economic/political incentive tied to those acts, and I would argue that sex itself is already a caste system. But I digress, I am of the opinion that it is possible to differentiate people without oppression or exploitation. We have managed to differentiate people based on blood type (it is more popular in asian countries) and by birth months (Horoscopes) without devolving into a shit show. The problem isn't in differentiation, it's in power and control. I think you're letting your bad experience skew your perception and judgement.

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

People with Turner's Syndrome have a number of physical tells from short stature, webbed neck, high waist-to-hip ratio, specific facial characteristics, and low set ears. I doubt it would "out" them; people probably already noticed and wondered.

Of course this is true, as with many other conditions. But you really think people with genetic conditions or mutations for those conditions, visible or invisible - whether Turners, BRCA, deltaF508, HBB and so on - should have to have them listed on all official ID documents? And that's how society should be organized? And in online dating, everyone should be be pigeonholed according to their genetic profile? Coz the comment I was responding to said essentially that.

We have managed to differentiate people based on blood type (it is more popular in asian countries) and by birth months (Horoscopes) without devolving into a shit show.

People in Asian countries have their blood types on all their official documents? So instead of saying, girls use that loo/locker room, boys use this other one, schoolchildren are sorted by blood type? Which Asian countries? I know in Japan there are weird beliefs and hangups about blood type, but...

And by "blood type" what exactly do you mean? A,AB, B,O? Rh factor? Clotting factor? Ferritin levels? Antibody levels? Whether a person previously has been pregnant?

You really think sun signs/Horoscopes are akin to sex? And facilities and medical services and rights should be doled out accordingly? What next, making everyone divulge whether they are a "winter" or "summer" or whatever amongst the "colour types"?

What's going on in China with the Uighars is not a shit show? What the Japanese did to the Chinese and the people in other Asian countries during WW2 was not a shitshow? What the Khmer Rouge did wasn't a shit show?

I agree that the problem isn't differentiation; the problem is the way recognition of differentiation has been used, and is used, to create/justify hierarchies. But you're naive if you think progress and liberation will come from defining and dividing everyone according to their blood profiles, sun signs, hair color, types of food we like, race, genetic anomalies.

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

But you really think people with genetic conditions or mutations for those conditions, visible or invisible - whether Turners, BRCA, deltaF508, HBB and so on - should have to have them listed on all official ID documents?

If we are to put biological sex on official ID documents, then people should have their biological sex on it. Not the sex they wish they were, not the sex they're role-playing as, not the sex they kinda sorta resemble. In the case of the huge variation of different genetic conditions, I'm not opposed to a general umbrella marker. Nor am I against people willfully hiding their biological sex, though that option should be open to everyone, and they can only mask it, not claim to be a sex they are not. (Also, they would, obviously, be responsible for any consequences that were to result from their decision to obfuscate their basic biological information). But if I'm required to have my biological sex on my official ID, if you think that's something fair to ask of me, why should an exception be made for everyone or anyone else?

And in online dating, everyone should be be pigeonholed according to their genetic profile? Coz the comment I was responding to said essentially that.

It's probably not enforceable, but why shouldn't I be allowed to filter people out based on it?

People in Asian countries have their blood types on all their official documents? So instead of saying, girls use that loo/locker room, boys use this other one, schoolchildren are sorted by blood type?

No, because blood type doesn't affect the bathroom you use. And it's A, AB, B, O. It's been a while, I'm not sure if Rh factor is included.

You really think sun signs/Horoscopes are akin to sex? And facilities and medical services and rights should be doled out accordingly? What next, making everyone divulge whether they are a "winter" or "summer" or whatever amongst the "colour types"?

Actually, facilities and medical services are doled out according to blood type, not horoscopes. You're being disingenuous. People do self-segregate or stereotype according to horoscope.

What's going on in China with the Uighars is not a shit show? What the Japanese did to the Chinese and the people in other Asian countries during WW2 was not a shitshow? What the Khmer Rouge did wasn't a shit show?

More disingenuous arguments. Biological sex has long been used to oppress women. I'm well aware of the ways recognition of differentiation has been used to create and justify hierarchy from that alone.

But you're naive if you think progress and liberation will come from defining and dividing everyone according to their blood profiles, sun signs, hair color, types of food we like, race, genetic anomalies.

No, I don't think progress and liberation will come from categorizing people, but I think being required to be dishonest about who you are is not progress. Having to lie about your sex, your genetic anomaly or your sexual orientation to fit in is not going to improve any situation. The goal is to create a system that can acknowledge differences without denying people opportunities based on them, and we're not going to be able to create such a system if we have to lie about everything all the time. People with genetic anomalies will often require some form of medical intervention. I'm never going to need a prostate exam. And people who are attracted to, and engage in relationships with the same sex will want their relationships recognized the same way opposite sex relationships are. Society has to account for those differences while respecting the human rights of everyone. But we're not even going to be able to have that conversation if we can't recognize differences for fear of the possibility of failure and injustice.

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

I thought I accounted for variations.

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

Yes, you did account for variations, but the way I read your post I thought you were saying that we should all have our sex chromosomes stated on ID documents, and that we should

start calling people by their sex chromosomes and do away

with the two sex categories, male and female.

No more women, no more men, just xx, xy, xxy and whatever other variations exist. Dating sites can be xy seeking xx, xx seeking xx etc. A driver's license or birth certificate can state your sex chromosomes.

But in terms of sex chromosomes, it's the presence or absence of a Y that is most important - or rather, the presence of the SRY gene that's usually on the Y chromosome. Coz that usually is what determines sex. Someone who is XXY is just as male as someone who is XY. Just as someone who is XO is just as female as someone who is XX, coz of the absence of a Y.

I took your proposal that there should be "No more women, no more men" just people identified by sex chromosomes at face value, and tried to express one of the many reason I think that an unwise approach. Perhaps I misunderstood? If so, apologies.

Also, perhaps I am oversensitive to this topic because I and other members of my family were denied health insurance coverage in the USA because we carry genetic "defects" associated with/causative of a fatal disease, and one family member was fired from their job once the employer was informed by the employer-funded insurance carrier what genetic testing revealed about my family member. As a result, I was involved in the push for legislation that would make discrimination based on genetic information illegal in the US. This finally led to the US passing landmark federal legislation in 2008:

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) of 2008 protects Americans from discrimination based on their genetic information in both health insurance (Title I) and employment (Title II). Title I amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the Public Health Service Act (PHSA), and the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), through the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), as well as the Social Security Act, to prohibit health insurers from engaging in genetic discrimination. Title II of GINA is implemented by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and prevents employers from using genetic information in employment decisions and prevents employers from requesting and requiring genetic information from employees or those applying for jobs.

https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/Genetic-Discrimination

[–]chrysthefeminist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

XO is just as female as someone who is XX, coz of the absence of a Y.

Except if the X has a transposed SRY on it. I agree with you, don't want to nitpick, just going by what you said about the SRY, not the Y per se, being determinative. Yes, the SRY gene is normally and mostly found on the Y chromosome, except in the case of rare transpositions to the X.

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

Agreed.