you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 22 insightful - 3 fun22 insightful - 2 fun23 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

Okay, so if there's no such thing as a male or female brain, why can't we just start calling people by their sex chromosomes and do away with gender entirely if that's the road they want to go down. 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. Then people can dress up, surgically alter themselves and morph into the most stereotypical depiction of xx or xy imaginable without being discriminated against, but at the end of the day their identity xx, xy, xxy will be based on scientific evidence that can't be refuted.

[–]MarkTwainiac 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 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.