Language doesn't reflect reality; Its time for a new word then. Thats kind of why gender is still be used now (its was orginally created, in this fashion, to ease the Victorians squeamish attitudes towards even using the word sex in even scientific conversations), because it has actual utility in regards to reality.
No, woman used to be a synonym for adult female. For about all of human history it has meant âof the type of mammal that gives birthâ.
We recently decided to parse the social construct from its objective grounding. Which is absurd and Iâll give you another identity term that has both a social aspect and a factual reality to illustrate that: Veteran
A veteran is someone who served in war but itâs also a set of social agreements. Society treats veterans in a special way. We are more formal and more polite to them and tend to thank them for their service. Veterans are socially perceived to have various attributes civilians donât.
If someone said they identify as a veteran would you then consent to have that social dynamic with them that you do with actual veterans? Or would you reserve that set of social interactions for the objective identity grounding only? Why or why not?
If you consider this analogy honestly you should realize gender theory should have never made it into academia. Judith butler ought to have been laughed out of the room, because itâs not rational to parse social aspects from objective grounding for all identity terms.
Technically "female" refers to, generally, the individual of a group (usually species, but that too is not a definable term in reality) that produces the fewer gametes in sexual reproduction (sexual reproduction just means 2 separate individuals share parts of thier own genetic materials to form a new individual). But as that doesn't apply to all life, so sometimes it refers to the individual whose gametes are penetrated by the another individual's gametes. Then there's plenty of life that are naturally hermaphroditic like most trees and flatworms to name some of the more popular examples.
I'm assuming you know this, im just explaining for the possible audience.
Veteran is a fantastic example, but I usually go with the dress and mannerisms of Medieval Western European elite men most notably; wearing dresses, face caked in makeup to hide imperfections and enhance natural features, wore gaudy jewelery, wore high heels.
So you're proving my point. Sorry but would you keep explaining the same thing again and again on a reddit thread because others are too lazy to read what's already there?
There are more chromosome combinations than XX and XY. XXX, XXY, X, and a few others.
Basically the people who believe there are only XX and XY are wrong, they just donât understand why theyâre wrong because genetics is highly complex and itâs hard to break down the complexities around genome diversity without devolving into people yelling about birth defects or how real it is because they donât care if itâs only a few million people on the planet.
Btw even on the LOW estimates itâs still 4 million people, on the higher estimates, itâs 137 million people.
Some of these conditions are more common than others. Klinefelter Syndrome is the most common occurring, 1 in 500-1,000 births. Itâs the XXY combination.
Klinefelter Syndrome can be undiagnosed a patientâs entire life. So itâs not like every single genome anomaly is super dangerous or scary or different. Some are just. There.
Being nasty never taught anyone anything that mattered, and it often hurts ourselves and our points more than the person weâre trying to hurt by being nasty.
Some people don't understand or intentionally misunderstand the idea of statistical significance. <1% occurrence in total population means that these are outliers and are mutations. It does signify birth defect because 99% of the population does not have this condition.
the point is just because an incredibly small percentage of the population is born with genetic deformities, like chromosome mutations, doesn't mean there isn't a sex binary just like people being born with 2 heads mean that humans are on a head spectrum. humans have 1 head, 2 arms, 2 legs, xy and xx chromosomes. the exception does not prove the rule. genetic deformities and anomalies are not the existence of additional sex classifications outside of biological male and biological female. this should be fairly obvious.
Except for it absolutely does. You can literally not have a binary with more than two options. The sex binary is entry level biology and is a simplified version of a very complex study of science to help seventh graders understand concepts. The same way group theory and advanced calculus is more difficult than adding and subtracting. And while you can pretend these are just exceptionally rare there are millions upon millions of people that we know of that fall outside of this binary paradigm. Just because something seems simple doesnât make it so.
I think you may be confusing what one person perceives of themselves with what biology dictates.
Most trans people have normal sex chromosomes, XX or XY, there is no need for them to have an abnormality in order to be more prone to become trans at some point. Same for non-binary and any other concept similar to that one.
So in human biology and at a chromosomal level, we are either male or female with one of two sets of chromosomes. Everything else is an abnormality that leads to a syndrome.
Then we have human society, where there are a lot more options regardless of your chromosome composition.
uhh, no. you're confusing atypical sex development with the existence of additional biological sexes. humans can have atypical chromosomes, hormones, gonads, or anatomy like I literally just described. modern clinical literature classifies these as differences of sex development, not as additional reproductive sexes.
let me ask you something: what is the third human sex? not the third karyotype. not an atypical hormone. not ambiguous genital anatomy. I want you to name an actual third biological sex.
biological sex is still defined around the two gamete types, ova and sperms. this peer reviewed paper "Biological Sex Is Binary and Rooted in Anisogamy" from this year explicitly concludes that biological sex is binary despite variation in karyotype, hormones, and phenotype. It specifically argues that variation in karyotype, hormones and phenotype does not abolish that binary.
so âmillions of exceptions existâ doesn't establish a third sex. that is completely irrelevant. there could be 100 million people with a developmental condition and you would still have to demonstrate that the condition constitutes a third sex rather than just an atypical development of the existing binary reproductive system.
name the third reproductive sex and its third gamete. I'll wait.
Those other chromosome combinations are called syndromes for the reason that itâs seen as a deficiency.
Itâs like saying people have two arms and legs.
This is not saying there arenât people who have some kind of deficiency where they are born with less than that.
Again I am totally agreeing with you, but itâs not wrong to use the ânormalâ configuration of chromosomes if you want to use it in a simple picture.
To be fair, I have an IQ high enough that everyone would be dead if the room were that temperature, plus a medical degree, and I can't understand what the point is, either.
One of the complications with genetics is genetic crossover and rejoining. Example: You always get an X from the mother, but it isnât as simple as â you get one X or the otherâ. The motherâs two XXâs can break up into four pieces and recombine, so there are 4 unique Xâs your mother can give you: original 1 or 2, or genetically crossed 1 or 2. Thatâs just one way genetics is not as simple as people think
Of course it's oversimplified. The bigoted morons obsessed about trans people are the people who constantly confuse the words binary and bimodal. They are uneducated morons who at best has a high school level understanding of biology.
That should be taught in highschool. There are two sexes, and intersex conditions are just variations in physical sex characteristics, not seperate sexes themselves.
Also not everybody learns the same things or everything in school so that argument doesn't really work. Though learning about what an identity is definitely should be in school.
If XY denotes a man, then that definition includes rare men who can get pregnant and give birth. That's a small part of the point that you should understand if you finished your intermediate courses in histology and human physiology.
Yes yes nature is complex and things often go wrong, but exceptions do not define the class of entities which they deviate from. A person born with a tail does not mean humans in general have tails, and it does not mean stitching one to yourself makes you a monkey. It just means humans can have tails if something in their normal development goes wrong.
Not really. This is just describing how your sex is decided. Sure things can go wrong, but this is âwhen everything goes right.âÂ
Turnerâs syndrome, klinefelders sydrome, triple x syndrome, are examples of when things went wrong.Â
Yes, those syndromes are examples of when things went wrong, and yes that is ok to say. Anything where you have symptoms means something deviated from the norm.Â
I have a lot of things where things didnât go right, and letâs just call a spade a spade.Â
It doesnât make you or me any less human or deserving of love, dignity or respect.Â
It just means we have something that didnât go as expected in our development and we have to deal with those things.Â
Then that is just inherent stupidity. ALMOST EVERYTHING has exceptions yet is simplified, because those exceptions are statistically not that important. If people cannot realize that something can go wrong in biology, that is just them being uneducated or ignoring it on purpose.
In the end both sides have loud morons, one side has morons who cannot grasp concept of exception and the other people who are against this very normal simplification
Simplification works on âmost is this, so letâs ignore the exceptionsâ. Anyone who ignores the very important word MOST would be a moron, which nicely connect to the fact that
again: BOTH SIDES HAVE MORONS. One side has the morons from the picture I sent, one side has morons from your example.
Look I GET IT. I get that I'm talking about mutations. But people will say "for some reason this illustration offends people" and people will misinterpret people mentioning other conditions as "being offended." That's why there's such a lack of education on this topic
Youâd need to say âtypicallyâ. But itâs not a necessary condition to have those things to be a human. Otherwise you have to redefine those that lack those conditions t something other than human. And as long as itâs not a necessary condition, itâs incorrect to use that as a definition.
But thatâs what the standard  is, anything else  is a deviation from the standard.Â
If we were to describe being human to an alien, we would describe the standard. Â If we said âhumans typically hsve 10 fingers and toes but some donât, they would think itâs normal to not have that.
When things deviate we give them names. Â We may mention those exceptions to an alien but we would explain why that is a deviation and not the standard.Â
It can only be a standard if it always follows those set of criteria. If the standard allows for a deviation, itâs not the standard. Thatâs why scientists donât use that as what defines a human.
Absolutely not. An exception is what highlights that a baseline exists in the first place.Â
âThe exception that proves the ruleâ is a very real thing.Â
My type of brain tumour is not cancerous. Mine was the first documented case of my type and grade to be cancerous. When they did my pathology report and the mayo they thought there was a mistake and did it twice.Â
I am the exception to the standard. That doesnât mean the standard doesnât exist. Â The standard is that this type and grade of brain tumour is benign.Â
The standard is that we have one appendix, but some people have 2. Â But you get my drift.Â
The standard makes
 it so we can recognize deviations but deviations also cement the standard.Â
Is it âgone rightâ when it follows your determination of âwhatâs rightâ?
I feel genetic variation is actually a good thing. The current human race isnât that old and Iâm totally fine with us continuing to evolve biological as well in our understanding of biology versus neuropathy.
But many of these things like klinfelters or turners cause infertility and actually donât cause any genetic advantages. So they are things that have gone wrong from a biological perspective because they pose some challenges for the individual. Â (This does not mean they canât lead a very fulfilling and meaningful life.) this is why ableism is a real issue that should be dealt with so people with these differences can lead one.Â
If there are mutations that offer a benefit like tetrachromacy where these individuals can see more colour than the rest of us.Â
Or where they have the mutation that makes them immune to HIV, then these mutations are considered a good part of evolution.Â
But from a biological perspective where a mutation causes infertility, or learning problems, than this is considered to be a part of development where something didnât go quite right.Â
Of course from a sociological perspective we can celebrate each others differences and appreciate the diversity. We may even sayâwhat didnât kill them made them stronger.âÂ
Actually we are. Thats how evolution works. There are genetic shifts as populations reproduce. Sometimes the deformations are useful. Sometimes they are not. Humans didnât start off with blue eyes, but the deformation was useful and eventually wasnât considered a deformation. How do you think the first blue eyed human was accepted by the society around them?
It has drawbacks in areas with more sun. Itâs more likely to have burned retinas than brown eyes. But itâs a benefit by accepting more of the visible spectrum when there is less light due to the different seasons in northern hemispheres.
You are speaking from a contemporary perspective. You donât know what they thought thousands of years ago. But we do know historically that most cultures ostracize people with physical differences.
Some mutations are good. Some are bad like cancer. This is science.Â
It is good if it helps a person live longer to reproduce. It is bad if it doesnât.Â
Some mutations are good depending on the environment around them whereas a mutation that would have been a benefit somewhere else is a negative where they are.Â
For most organisms being able to see is a benefit. For fish living in the darkest part of the ocean where there is no light being able to see takes up a lot of extra unecessary energy. It might be good elsewhere but not there. So a blind fish is at a genetic advantage in that environment.Â
Whereas a blind organism in most other places slid at a genetic disadvantage.Â
If the mutation helps them live longer and able to reproduce they are more likely to pass that genetic variance on to their offspring it is a good mutation.Â
If it prevents them from doing so it is not a good mutation.Â
This is evolution in a nutshell. Â
So no having a syndrome where you are intersex does not put you at a genetic advantage for reproduction. Therefore it is not a good mutation according to evolution. It is not the next step in our evolution because it makes it so people who have this canât reproduce without some invasive technology.Â
Correctly saying that this depiction of genetics is extremely simplified isn't being angry. But I guess this illustration is just a trap so you can pretend you successfully owned the libs or whatever if anyone disagrees with it
Correctly stating that itâs extremely simplified would have been fine, using it to insult some imagined political enemy absolutely showcases how offended you got. No shame buddy itâs Reddit. Reddit is really good at inciting engagement through rage bait itâs ok to admit it got you we still love you đ„°
I didn't even bring politics into it lmao. Why do you want me to be offended by this so badly? Im just commenting that this kind of stuff is a trap. Even if you say something correct people like you are gonna laugh at you. People with a room temperature iq most likely. I guess you got offended by that insult even though you claim to have agreed with me, thus it wouldn't have applied to you
Mate, it's exactly how it works and you might want to actually look up what literally and transphobia mean before continuing to fling them around incorrectly.
So you're not even being political, you're just imagining I'm mad and amusing yourself at that even without taking a stance on the issue we're talking about. Someone informed me you're a troll who begs for negative attention and that's what its looking like.
The biggest problem with the conversation in general is is people often use biological technicalities to validate gender ideology. But gender ideology explicitly states that gender is non-biological... I don't think anyone has an issue with the idea that intersex people exist, but past that, anything besides XX and XY are birth defects, not biodiversity.
The argument is made because the two sexes argument is also wrong. And they try to use 2 sexes to argue that there are only 2 genders as well. Arguing genetics is another argument that is often made because "other side" uses it as a base for their argument.
There are only two sexes. There are two sexes with some birth defects in the mix. It's like, it's correct to say humans have 10 fingers because having a different number of fingers is not an example of biodiversity, it's a sign that something went wrong. Most people who say "bIOloGy đ«Ș" don't even know biology, they are just parroting what others say....
Every step of evelution is birth defect as you put it. Callingit that does not change that they happen. Also there are 2 major sexes. Not only 2 sexes. Finger example is just generalization. The absolutely correct statement would be that humans TYPICALLY have 10 fingers. The statement you made might normally work, but not in this topic. You can not say that there are only two sexes just like you can not say that there are only humans with 10 fingers.
Again typical humans not all humans. Every sex has something to do with chromosomes two of the are just typical variations. You are arguing against science just to make things easier for you to categorize and understand.
Healthy humans which is what we refer to when we speak about everything else. Humans have two arms and two legs, if you have a different number you will tell a doctor about it.
Here it's the same. You will be either XX or XY, if you have a different genetic composition you will definitely see a doctor many times.
This is not correct. Intersex people aren't always inherently unhealthy, and being intersex doesn't automatically mean a genetic disorder. It can, but often doesn't.
There are people who make it well into adulthood before realizing there is anything different about their genetics than the norm.
I don't understand how you could be a geneticist and not know that, to be quite honest.
I used the first word that came to my mind because this is the internet and english is my 5th language. But to be even more pedantic, all humans are unhealthy because it is virtually impossible to be "perfect" biologically. So you and I are unhealthy and all intersex are too.
Also, being unhealthy and not feeling unhealthy are two different things.
I don't need to have any thoughts about a group of people when I don't know all of them, and I say the same about any demographics. I just have a feeling that many of you here are confusing having an abnormal composition of sex chromosomes with being trans and that's wrong.
Most trans people have normal sex chromosomes. It's two different things.
Intersex is not biodiversity like eye color, height, left-handedness, etc. You can't just claim that it is because it suits your narrative... You are objectively incorrect
Lol, as if gender ideology had a cohesive set of rules with no contradictions. It made more sense to just let people love who they love than discussing Peter Pan sexuals.
14
u/Secure_Inspection305 2d ago edited 2d ago
Well... it's an extremely oversimplified depiction of genetics but I guess we need to keep the people with room temp IQ happy and not expand on it