you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

I want to argue out of principle, but it would be pretty dope if humanity evolved a new sex class that was actually fertile from these kinds of people. But as of now, there isn't one, and these people are accurately classified as either male or female with certain developmental disorders affecting the reproductive system. Still, I'd have no qualms calling such a person whatever they wanted to be called. And conceivably their brains could fall somewhere outside of / between masculine and feminine because of hormones in utero, but I've yet to meet someone who can't be basally classified as one or the other, unless their development means they lack any sexuality at all.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

But as of now, there isn't one, and these people are accurately classified as either male or female with certain developmental disorders affecting the reproductive system

Nope. They're in between.

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

Except they aren't and that isn't offensive? Do you have an actual argument? Someone with CAIS is a male whose body doesn't react to androgens at all, so they don't develop as a phenotypical male. If they did not have that condition, they would have developed as a phenotypical male and not the non-phenotypical male that they are. Sex as a distinction literally only matters in reproduction. If these people could reproduce, it would be a different story; they'd be a sex other than male or female. But literally speaking, they are males or females with a developmental disorder affecting the reproductive system.

Can you at least try and refute one of my points or object to one of my assumptions? That's sort of how an argument works as opposed to a shit-flinging contest.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Do you have an actual argument?

The definition of sex as binary and defined by XX or XY fails.

There are XY females, with CAIS or with Swyer syndrome, there are XXY males, there are XY|XX chimeras who can be intersex, fertile male, fertile female or true hermaphrodites.

Someone with CAIS is a male whose body doesn't react to androgens at all, so they don't develop as a phenotypical male.

That's right. They develop as a female.

Sex as a distinction literally only matters in reproduction. If these people could reproduce, it would be a different story;

If that's where you want to move the bar, it still fails. XX|XY chimeras can be fertile: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6575956/

Here is a case study with a predominantly XY female who was fertile: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190741/

But all the intersex people who are infertile are still not one sex or the other.

They exist, they are infertile, and they are intersex.

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

There are XY females, with CAIS

People with CAIS can't reproduce and they don't have any female internal organs. Swyer syndrome people usually can't either.

That's right. They develop as a female.

Except they aren't female. We can argue about your Swyer syndrome case study but people with CAIS are not female. If anything, they're closer to lacking a sex due to a hormonal issue, without which they would be normal males.

If that's where you want to move the bar, it still fails.

Perhaps it's just getting late but that's irritating, seeing as I have moved no bar anywhere because that was my first comment to you in regards to this subject.

chimeras

Chimeras are a different story. They have some male and some female genes. They're literally a physical combination of both sexes, so you putting them in the same category as people with a typical set of chromosomes and a hormonal disorder is inconsistent.

There are two sexes, but some people who are genetically part one sex and part the other can, in some very, very rare cases be fertile. These people are the only ones with any ambiguity in classification, only because physically, they literally have parts of both sexes.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

People with CAIS can't reproduce and they don't have any female internal organs. Swyer syndrome people usually can't either.

So in the general case they're not female or male?

Or are you claiming that they're male?

Even the fertile female ones?

Chimeras are a different story. They have some male and some female genes. They're literally a physical combination of both sexes, so you putting them in the same category as people with a typical set of chromosomes and a hormonal disorder is inconsistent.

So XX|XY chimeras are not one sex or the other?

These people are the only ones with any ambiguity in classification, only because physically, they literally have parts of both sexes.

Great! We agree. There are people who have ambiguous sex.

So "there are only two sexes" doesn't work for people.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

People with CAIS are male. No one with CAIS has ever been able to reproduce. I don't understand why you insist on putting people with a genetically defined chromosomal sex in the same category as chimeras who have the genes of both sexes. The only people with Swyer Syndrome who can reproduce are chimeras and are both male and female.

So XX|XY chimeras are not one sex or the other?

They're male and female because they have the genes of both sexes.

There are people who have ambiguous sex.

It's really not ambiguous when we can point out the genes of each sex and accurately say they have the genes of both.

So "there are only two sexes" doesn't work for people.

There are two sexes and a very tiny minority of people who literally have the genes of two different people combined into one can have both male and female genes and are technically both male and female.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

People with CAIS are male.

Really?

They've got a vagina. They've got a uterus. They've got no penis.

How is that male?

No one with CAIS has ever been able to reproduce.

Remind me what's that for to do with it? Are you saying people that can't reproduce are not intersex but male?

XY people have been able to reproduce as a fertile female.

I don't understand why you insist on putting people with a genetically defined chromosomal sex in the same category as chimeras who have the genes of both sexes

I'm not sure it's the same category. But they're certainly not precisely male or female.

The only people with Swyer Syndrome who can reproduce are chimeras and are both male and female.

Nope. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190741/

It's really not ambiguous when we can point out the genes of each sex and accurately say they have the genes of both.

So not one of the two sexes, but both?

So "there are only two sexes" didn't work for people?

There are two sexes and a very tiny minority of people who literally have the genes of two different people combined into one can have both male and female genes and are technically both male and female.

Okay, so they're both sexes. And the XY woman in The case study who had two unassisted pregnancies, and have birth to the daughter was ... Male?

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

Really?

They've got a vagina. They've got a uterus. They've got no penis.

How is that male?

Because they're XY.

You must be confused because people with CAIS don't have uteruses and their vaginal canals are about 5-6cm.

Are you saying people that can't reproduce are not intersex but male?

What lol.

Remind me what [reproduction] has to do with it?

For someone who can't reproduce due to extreme variation in sexual development, sex is barely relevant.

Nope. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190741/

This is the same study you just sent me and I suspect you didn't even read it because it doesn't support your point. I gave my response to your reposted article in the other comment. Again, no one who is 100% XY has ever gotten pregnant and given birth.

So not one of the two sexes, but both? So "there are only two sexes" didn't work for people?

Except "not one of the two sexes" is inaccurate because they are both sexes. Is this person female? Yes. Is this person male? Yes.

This is asinine.

the XY woman in The case study who had two unassisted pregnancies, and have birth to the daughter was ... Male?

Yes. She was also female.

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

For someone who can't reproduce due to extreme variation in sexual development, sex is barely relevant.

So someone can be neither male nor female, but so long as it's barely relevant to you?