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 -  (7 children)

Plenty of people are other than XX or XY.

XXY and XYY are the most common that live.

Yeah and they're all chimeras.

They would argue that they're women, because they were assigned woman at birth.

You don't know what you're talking about which is surprising considering how much time you spend here with said rabid conservatives. Must not be doing enough listening. And fun fact: the term "assigning a gender at birth" originally meant and still means (despite the broad-scale co-option) performing surgery on an infant with ambiguous genitals. Now everyone likes to pretend they were "assigned" a gender just because a doctor looked at them and observed their sex.

So socially and legally they're a woman?

Definitely legally. But they're still different.

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

Yeah and they're all chimeras

No. XXY and XYY aren't chimeras. They're humans with one DNA but it has an extra sex chromosome.

Definitely legally. But they're still different.

So they're legally a woman ... But they're a man, but not legally?

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

Fun fact: chimeras... are humans... with human DNA. They're people who start as twins and then early in development, they fuse into one person.

So they're legally a woman ... But they're a man, but not legally?

I don't get hung up on whether people with DSDs are "a woman" or "a man". Excluding chimeras, they are biologically male or (XOR - exclusive or) female. I don't see any reason why people with CAIS should legally be considered male when I think about all the legal contexts in which sex is relevant. Doesn't change the fact that they are biologically male.

What are you even objecting to in my argument? The fact that I'm acknowledging that they're males when they are? It's interesting how CAIS and other conditions like it affect human sexual development. Females can have CAIS too, but often there are no symptoms because they are female anyway and their sexual development barely involves androgens. A female with CAIS is XX and develops all their female reproductive organs properly. Is your argument that there's no difference between a female with CAIS and a male with CAIS?

edit: You know what, I'll even concede that in the social sense, SOME male people with DSDs can be considered "women" because of how highly charged that word is with social implications. I don't know enough about female DSDs to say whether any of those people (excluding chimeras / people with fucky chromosomes) could be, at least legally and possibly socially "men". It doesn't matter and I don't care. But biologically they are male or female. Again, these arguments are in reference to people with a typical XX or XY karyotype.

And again, none of this is relevant in a normal social interaction. Only in the contexts of medicine, sex and reproduction, and the law.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Fun fact: chimeras... are humans... with human DNA. They're people who start as twins and then early in development, they fuse into one person.

That's right. A person with one DNA isn't a chimera. And neither is a person with a small some cells that are the same DNA as their others, but with an omitted chromosome.

Doesn't change the fact that they are biologically male.

You're not using a biological definition of male. The biological definition of male for animals is the sex of an organism that produces sperm. (Whether on not they do.)

Is your argument that there's no difference between a female with CAIS and a male with CAIS?

My argument is that "there are only two sexes" is not true, because intersex of many kinds exist.

But biologically they are male or female.

For a weird DNA and not whether you've got a cock matters definition of "male or female".

And even that falls down for unusual DNA.

It doesn't matter and I don't care.

I suspect it matters to them. Which is why we bother to point out that "there are only two sexes" is wrong.

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

A person with one DNA isn't a chimera.

This is worded so goofy.

But after doing more reading, a gamete may very rarely carry two sex chromosomes, meaning that people can be XXY, XYY, or XXYY without being chimeras. So okay.

The biological definition of male for animals is the sex of an organism that produces sperm. (Whether on not they do.)

Yes exactly. People with CAIS are modified biological males. They would have produced sperm, did they not have the condition that makes their body not react to androgens. They do not produce ova and never will.

Some biological males such as them can fairly be legally treated as female, but their doctors MUST know they are not so they can treat them accordingly.

Such edge cases are complicated and should be evaluated case-by-case to determine a legal gender.

They vary too widely to be grouped together under a legal "intersex" category, and are too rare to have their own spaces such as prisons.

I suspect it matters to them. Which is why we bother to point out that "there are only two sexes" is wrong.

I'm not sure at this point why you are still arguing because you are only taking an ideological position and not proposing any solutions, which matters a lot more to such people than whatever people call them. Do you have anything meaningful to argue about in terms of how they should be treated, or are you only concerned with defending your talking point?

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yes exactly. People with CAIS are modified biological males.

I disagree. They're closer to females. Their genitalia look female, their body shape is more female.

I think you're using the DNA as a definition because you think that that's how you can support the thesis that there is only two sexes: The most reasonable approach given the reality of what we have in reality is to say that most people are male or female, but there is a range: Sex is bimodal not binary.

Such edge cases are complicated and should be evaluated case-by-case to determine a legal gender.

Yep. And in some cases, that evaluation is neither.

Do you have anything meaningful to argue about in terms of how they should be treated, or are you only concerned with defending your talking point?

The claim that "there are only two sexes" denies the existence of intersex people. That is not how they should be treated. At the very least they should be acknowledged.

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

Do you have any arguments on what your views should mean practically? I'm tired of arguing semantics.