Why "Unchangeable" Definitions of Sex Based on Genitals Are Wrong, According to Science

[phands]

more uncomfortable facts for religiturds....

Not every human being fits into a neat male-female binary when they're born
Both male and female sex organs start out from the same tissue, according to the Mayo Clinic. Whether an infant ends up with male or female sex organs depends on both sex chromosomes and on the presence (or lack) of male hormones.


Genetically female infants have two X chromosomes, while genetically male infants have one X and one Y chromosome.


During gestation, the Y chromosome prompts the growth of testicles, leading to the production of male hormones and the development of male genitals, the Mayo Clinic explains. Fetuses that don't have a Y chromosome develop female genitals.


But not every infant ends up neatly in one category or the other. Some fall into a category known as "intersex".


"'Intersex' is a term to describe people who have genitalia that's not exactly female and not exactly male," Meera Shah, a family medicine physician specializing in gender affirming care, and a Fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Health, told INSIDER.

https://www.sciencealert.com/trump-...angeable-definitions-of-sex-based-on-genitals

 

[fast]

I'm having an issue with the word "assigned." I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it seems to me that it's a rare occurance compared to what normally happens. What normally happens isn't an assignment but a reporting. That said, infants that are clearly male are reported (not assigned) as being male; same with females.

There are (presumably) instances where the sex is unclear. That might require making choices and assigning that infant as having a particular sex. In those instances, a test to determine (not gender) but sex is in order. Perhaps there are few cases where it could go either way.

 

[Politesse]

There are (presumably) instances where the sex is unclear. That might require making choices and assigning that infant as having a particular sex. In those instances, a test to determine (not gender) but sex is in order. Perhaps there are few cases where it could go either way.

About one in every two thousand live births. Rare, sure, but not so rare that we aren't talking about several million people around the world.

Why the hell should we require such a test? And what difference would it make? The person would still have ambiguous "gender" both to anyone they met, and likely in terms of their own self-perception. And neither of those things should be a crime.

And genders are, in any case, assigned. One's genitals do not make one embrace a particular cultural model of gender. While gender may be based on biological sex to a certain degree, the rest is obviously cultural construction, considering it all varies from culture to culture.

Suppose instead of sex, a certain culture of people on the other side of the world all obsessed about height, dividing all people into Talls and Shorts. Talls are believed to prefer emotional and social pursuits, being naturally talented at the arts and diplomacy, but poor at math and science. Shorts are believed to be natural logicians and very good with systems, but socially deficient. Since children are raised according to these expectations, these become self-fulfilling prophecies more often than not. But only in this one culture are these predictions ever true; we know that these associations they are not based on the biology of height such as it is, but on the cultural properties associated with them. In such a case, would you consider consignment to a Tall or Short category to be an assignment, or a report? It is quantifiably true that people all fall above or below a certain average height, but the assignment to the category, with all of its extra social implications and widely differing personal destinies, is not a function of that property but rather the cultural associations tied to it.

 

[steve_bank]

Reproduction is not perfect and uniform. If you argue there is no normal or all is normal, then what?

Do we say a serious birth defect is normal? Normal is always a statistical baseline from which variations and departures occur.

Are Siamese twins normal or a reproductive anomaly?

I am not arguing eugenics or any such thing, but there is a normal defined by the majority of results falling into a window.

Biologically there is a continuum, such as distribution of height. Sexuality appears to be a continuum.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Assigned at birth?

What happens if the doctor is drunk and writes the wrong thing on the birth certificate? Can it never be changed? (I can realistically imagine something of the sort happening with a multiple birth.)

 

[fast]

Why the hell should we require such a test?

I was taken back by that question so I reread what I wrote. There was a failure on my part to communicate clearly. I didn't mean it the way it sounds. I do not think a test is in order. Yet, that's what I wrote. But why?

I'm hesitant to say, in fear of remaining unclear, but I meant a test is in order to factually determine sex accurately. No where am I of the opinion a test should be done, save simply looking at the genitals in all cases except those 1 in 2000 you speak of. It's a look and report situation without guesswork. It's in those 1 in 2000 cases where there would be an assignment. So again, a test would be in order (assuming we wanted a factually correct reporting that didn't depend on an arbitrary assignment). I apologize for the ambiguity. I agree with you in that it appears that I'm saying a test is in order, but there's a silent "if" in that it's in order if we want it not to be an assignment.

Please don't ask why we would want to. My entire point was only to discredit the notion that sex is generally assigned at birth as if that was to say the truth of ones sex can be a product of opinion. There's apparently no scientifically accepted way of determining for fact whether a claimed gender by a transsexual is correct, and I want to be clear that although that may not be the case regarding gender, it is the case regarding sex; hence, a transgender might can pull the wool over our eyes should one want to--but only with gender--not sex.

If a transgender who wants to be regarded as a woman and referred to as she, that is palatable because we cannot objectively determine gender and scientifically prove them wrong, so okay, accomodate them and let them deny whatever gender others may think they are. But but but, the buck stops with gender and may not be done regarding sex except those 1 in 2000 cases where the truth remains unknown without a test--not that I'm advocating a test.

 

[Politesse]

Why the hell should we require such a test?

I was taken back by that question so I reread what I wrote. There was a failure on my part to communicate clearly. I didn't mean it the way it sounds. I do not think a test is in order. Yet, that's what I wrote. But why?

I'm hesitant to say, in fear of remaining unclear, but I meant a test is in order to factually determine sex accurately. No where am I of the opinion a test should be done, save simply looking at the genitals in all cases except those 1 in 2000 you speak of. It's a look and report situation without guesswork. It's in those 1 in 2000 cases where there would be an assignment. So again, a test would be in order (assuming we wanted a factually correct reporting that didn't depend on an arbitrary assignment). I apologize for the ambiguity. I agree with you in that it appears that I'm saying a test is in order, but there's a silent "if" in that it's in order if we want it not to be an assignment.

Please don't ask why we would want to. My entire point was only to discredit the notion that sex is generally assigned at birth as if that was to say the truth of ones sex can be a product of opinion. There's apparently no scientifically accepted way of determining for fact whether a claimed gender by a transsexual is correct, and I want to be clear that although that may not be the case regarding gender, it is the case regarding sex; hence, a transgender might can pull the wool over our eyes should one want to--but only with gender--not sex.

If a transgender who wants to be regarded as a woman and referred to as she, that is palatable because we cannot objectively determine gender and scientifically prove them wrong, so okay, accomodate them and let them deny whatever gender others may think they are. But but but, the buck stops with gender and may not be done regarding sex except those 1 in 2000 cases where the truth remains unknown without a test--not that I'm advocating a test.

No one, as far as I know, has ever asked anyone to refer to them as a different "biological sex" than they are. We're not even really talking about a correct attitude gender in this thread, or needn't be. The point of the OP as I understand it is that biology does not present one with clear distinctions between two mutually exclusive karyotypic categories of sexual expression, this being a rather more complicated reality in many cases. Socially, the implication is that while many societies choose to describe gender in biologically exclusive categories, the idea that this is expressive of a scientific reality is a cultural invention meant to justify a social practice by means of obfuscated or simply omitted facts. A culture might choose to do whatever it likes. But one which either allows for fluid gender expression or simply creates intermediate gender categories is no more or less allied with science than one which prefers dualism. Because neither "science" nor scientists have a practical need for clear categorizations of social role-by-karyotype. That is a social, not biological, pressure.

 

[Kharakov]

more uncomfortable facts for religiturds....

Not every human being fits into a neat male-female binary when they're born
Both male and female sex organs start out from the same tissue, according to the Mayo Clinic. Whether an infant ends up with male or female sex organs depends on both sex chromosomes and on the presence (or lack) of male hormones.


Genetically female infants have two X chromosomes, while genetically male infants have one X and one Y chromosome.


During gestation, the Y chromosome prompts the growth of testicles, leading to the production of male hormones and the development of male genitals, the Mayo Clinic explains. Fetuses that don't have a Y chromosome develop female genitals.


But not every infant ends up neatly in one category or the other. Some fall into a category known as "intersex".


"'Intersex' is a term to describe people who have genitalia that's not exactly female and not exactly male," Meera Shah, a family medicine physician specializing in gender affirming care, and a Fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Health, told INSIDER.

https://www.sciencealert.com/trump-...angeable-definitions-of-sex-based-on-genitals

That comes from the age old religious question about people pestering God with questions. Don't ask Y (the Father), because they can bullshit you for at least 100 years, maybe more if you're lucky. Why, you ask?

I'd love to tell you.

 

[bilby]

I'm hesitant to say, in fear of remaining unclear, but I meant a test is in order to factually determine sex accurately.

You are assuming your conclusion. The fact is that in many cases it is IMPOSSIBLE to 'factually determine sex accurately', when using a model whereby all people belong to one and only one of two possible sexes. The model is wrong; Many people do NOT belong to one and only one of two possible sexes. Therefore all rules, regulations, actions, assumptions, expectations and societal norms that are based on the premise that 'all people belong to one and only one of two possible sexes' are misguided and wrong, and such things should be discouraged as they are contrary to reality.

Rules and regulations based on binary sex assignment are as useful and necessary as rules and regulations based on the assumption that the world is flat, and for the same reason.

 

[fast]

I'm hesitant to say, in fear of remaining unclear, but I meant a test is in order to factually determine sex accurately.

You are assuming your conclusion. The fact is that in many cases it is IMPOSSIBLE to 'factually determine sex accurately', when using a model whereby all people belong to one and only one of two possible sexes. The model is wrong; Many people do NOT belong to one and only one of two possible sexes. Therefore all rules, regulations, actions, assumptions, expectations and societal norms that are based on the premise that 'all people belong to one and only one of two possible sexes' are misguided and wrong, and such things should be discouraged as they are contrary to reality.

Rules and regulations based on binary sex assignment are as useful and necessary as rules and regulations based on the assumption that the world is flat, and for the same reason.

That's like saying dogs don't have four legs because not all dogs have four legs.

Sometimes (only sometimes) does an 'all' quantifier apply.

When you ask someone how many legs does a dog have, the answer is four. Demonstrating that there are many dogs with only three legs, two, one, none, or even five or more does not in any way alter the general rule that dogs have four legs while those that don't are exceptions.

There are two sexes in humans: male and female. That there are exceptions (call them intersex, if you like) does not alter that truth.

If I say there are two (and only two without exception), that's a claim of different sorts. That would be like saying all dogs have four legs.

So, what is it do you think people are saying when people like myself say that for humans, there are two sexes: male and female? What I'm not doing is denying exceptions to the rule. But, I regard the claim as being that of a rule with exceptions, unlike the claim, for all humans, there are only two sexes without exceptions.

 

[bilby]

I'm hesitant to say, in fear of remaining unclear, but I meant a test is in order to factually determine sex accurately.

You are assuming your conclusion. The fact is that in many cases it is IMPOSSIBLE to 'factually determine sex accurately', when using a model whereby all people belong to one and only one of two possible sexes. The model is wrong; Many people do NOT belong to one and only one of two possible sexes. Therefore all rules, regulations, actions, assumptions, expectations and societal norms that are based on the premise that 'all people belong to one and only one of two possible sexes' are misguided and wrong, and such things should be discouraged as they are contrary to reality.

Rules and regulations based on binary sex assignment are as useful and necessary as rules and regulations based on the assumption that the world is flat, and for the same reason.

That's like saying dogs don't have four legs because not all dogs have four legs.

Sometimes (only sometimes) does an 'all' quantifier apply.

When you ask someone how many legs does a dog have, the answer is four. Demonstrating that there are many dogs with only three legs, two, one, none, or even five or more does not in any way alter the general rule that dogs have four legs while those that don't are exceptions.

There are two sexes in humans: male and female. That there are exceptions (call them intersex, if you like) does not alter that truth.

If I say there are two (and only two without exception), that's a claim of different sorts. That would be like saying all dogs have four legs.

So, what is it do you think people are saying when people like myself say that for humans, there are two sexes: male and female? What I'm not doing is denying exceptions to the rule. But, I regard the claim as being that of a rule with exceptions, unlike the claim, for all humans, there are only two sexes without exceptions.

How many exceptions do you need in order to invalidate a rule? There are about 150,000 Americans who don't fit either of your 'two sexes'.

And people ARE denying exceptions to the rule. Which is the whole problem.

If you go to get pain medication for your (now) three legged dog after he was hit by a car, only to be told that your dog officially has four legs, because the law only recognizes dogs as having four legs; And that therefore you may not purchase the medication for that purpose, and so your dog must continue to suffer - how would you feel about that?

Your dog cannot possibly need post-amputation care, because officially, all dogs have four legs, and no canine amputees exist. Are you happy with that assessment?

 

[fast]

That's like saying dogs don't have four legs because not all dogs have four legs.

Sometimes (only sometimes) does an 'all' quantifier apply.

When you ask someone how many legs does a dog have, the answer is four. Demonstrating that there are many dogs with only three legs, two, one, none, or even five or more does not in any way alter the general rule that dogs have four legs while those that don't are exceptions.

There are two sexes in humans: male and female. That there are exceptions (call them intersex, if you like) does not alter that truth.

If I say there are two (and only two without exception), that's a claim of different sorts. That would be like saying all dogs have four legs.

So, what is it do you think people are saying when people like myself say that for humans, there are two sexes: male and female? What I'm not doing is denying exceptions to the rule. But, I regard the claim as being that of a rule with exceptions, unlike the claim, for all humans, there are only two sexes without exceptions.

How many exceptions do you need in order to invalidate a rule? There are about 150,000 Americans who don't fit either of your 'two sexes'.

And people ARE denying exceptions to the rule. Which is the whole problem.

If you go to get pain medication for your (now) three legged dog after he was hit by a car, only to be told that your dog officially has four legs, because the law only recognizes dogs as having four legs; And that therefore you may not purchase the medication for that purpose, and so your dog must continue to suffer - how would you feel about that?

Your dog cannot possibly need post-amputation care, because officially, all dogs have four legs, and no canine amputees exist. Are you happy with that assessment?

Well gee, you started out with a good question, but you descended into madness, lol.

Male vs female

VS

clearly male vs clearly female vs intersex

-----------

XY vs XX

VS

XY obviously vs XX obviously vs XY or XX

-------------

This all sprang about from a notion that a test was in order. I wasn't pro-test, but let's suppose I were.

Of course, I'd prefer we take easy examples while I'm sure this would descend into the most difficult cases of all, but let's take an average typical case where there may be a shade of questionability as to ones sex. Could we scientifically determine with a test to figure out whether the person was male or female? Think of an easy case. One where we don't know, test, then know. How many of those 150k are we down to after the easy cases?

There could be a third sex out there, or are we just left with not knowing which one of the two that some belong to?

 

[Jokodo]

Of course, I'd prefer we take easy examples while I'm sure this would descend into the most difficult cases of all, but let's take an average typical case where there may be a shade of questionability as to ones sex. Could we scientifically determine with a test to figure out whether the person was male or female? Think of an easy case. One where we don't know, test, then know. How many of those 150k are we down to after the easy cases?

You could make any number of tests, and define them such that they yield an unambiguous result. That doesn't mean they're meaningful, or consistent with each other.

For example, you could define a cut-off length for the penis/clitoris: anything longer than that, and you'll consider it a penis, and the infant a boy, any shorter and it's a girl.

Or you could go for testosterone levels: Any value above X, it's a boy, anything below, it's a girl.

Or you could go for the fine structure of the gonadal tissue: whatever its external looks, if it looks more like it's going to produce ova under a microscope, define it as an ovary and the infant as a girl.

Or you could do chromosome testing. If you find Y chromosomes in a majority of cells, it's a boy, otherwise a girl (an unknown but not negligible number of people are born comprising different cell lines - tetragametic chimerism. There is at least one known case of a woman with 80-90% XY cells who became pregnant and gave birth twice: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190741/).

But none of these would be anything but arbitrary, and they don't necessarily agree with each other.

 

[fast]

Of course, I'd prefer we take easy examples while I'm sure this would descend into the most difficult cases of all, but let's take an average typical case where there may be a shade of questionability as to ones sex. Could we scientifically determine with a test to figure out whether the person was male or female? Think of an easy case. One where we don't know, test, then know. How many of those 150k are we down to after the easy cases?

You could make any number of tests, and define them such that they yield an unambiguous result. That doesn't mean they're meaningful, or consistent with each other.

For example, you could define a cut-off length for the penis/clitoris: anything longer than that, and you'll consider it a penis, and the infant a boy, any shorter and it's a girl.

Or you could go for testosterone levels: Any value above X, it's a boy, anything below, it's a girl.

Or you could go for the fine structure of the gonadal tissue: whatever its external looks, if it looks more like it's going to produce ova under a microscope, define it as an ovary and the infant as a girl.

Or you could do chromosome testing. If you find Y chromosomes in a majority of cells, it's a boy, otherwise a girl (an unknown but not negligible number of people are born comprising different cell lines - tetragametic chimerism. There is at least one known case of a woman with 80-90% XY cells who became pregnant and gave birth twice: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190741/).

But none of these would be anything but arbitrary, and they don't necessarily agree with each other.

Conclusions: The range of phenotypes observed in this unique family suggests that there may be transmission of a mutation in a novel sex-determining gene or in a gene that predisposes to chromosomal mosaicism.

I'm not particular fearful of the arbitrariness one might find chromosome testing. In fact, I think it might highlight the degree to which the sheer number of cases are inflated.

That any number of arbitrary tests can be performed is not indicative of which ones would be a prudent choice. For instance, historical scientific reasoning that gives rise to the notion that there are two sexes (along with all its arbitriness to boot) would seem to be a fair test.

Surely there must be more behind the idea there are more than two sexes (or that it's bunk in that there are sexes at all) ... more than gender/body disassociation.

 

[Jokodo]

Conclusions: The range of phenotypes observed in this unique family suggests that there may be transmission of a mutation in a novel sex-determining gene or in a gene that predisposes to chromosomal mosaicism.

The unusual part of this case is not the mosaicism - micro-chimerism is very frequent (this study comes up with about 1/4 of infants, but there's a distinct possibility of underdetection) - that is the case where some maternal cells (or the cells of older siblings) have transversed the placental barrier and embedded themselves in the embryo; tetragametic chimerism -- where what would have become a pair of fraternal twins merges into one embryo consisting of two cell lines -- is rarer, but probably too in the 0.1-1% range.

What's special about this case is that a woman who had given birth twice was found to have 93% XY cells in her ovaries. More often, in cases of tetragametic chimerism, the person is infertile if their's a mix of XY and XX cells in the gonads, or they happen to have overwhelmingly one or the other in their gonads (the cells aren't necessarily evenly distributed across the body -- like this woman who had 93% XY in the ovaries, but 100% and blood).

By your test, this mother of two is a man. If a test is useless for cases where our intuition tells us that the answer should be clear, it cannot be used for cases that appear unclear. Most likely, this means we were asking the wrong question.

I'm not particular fearful of the arbitrariness one might find chromosome testing. In fact, I think it might highlight the degree to which the sheer number of cases are inflated.

You're missing the point. Chromosome testing is intrinsically incapable of highlighting anything like that. It can show that all human cells either do or do not have a Y chromosomes, and most (by no means all) humans have a clear majority of either one or the other. But by phrasing this as "showing that the number of cases are inflated", you're assuming your conclusion: that there's two and only two biological sexes, and that the chromosomes can tell you which one it is when all else fails.

 

[Peez]

If you produce relatively small, motile gametes, then you are male. If you produce relatively large, non-motile gametes, then you are female. If you produce both relatively small, motile gametes and relatively large, non-motile gametes, then you are a hermaphrodite. If you don't fall into one of these categories, then you don't fall into one of these categories and nobody should lose any sleep.

Peez

 

[Gun Nut]

How many exceptions do you need in order to invalidate a rule? There are about 150,000 Americans who don't fit either of your 'two sexes'.

There are about 325 million people in America. 150,000 of them make up0.04% of the total. I don't know exactly how many exceptions are needed to invalidate a rule, but it's a shit ton more than that for god damned sure.

 

[J842P]

If you produce relatively small, motile gametes, then you are male. If you produce relatively large, non-motile gametes, then you are female. If you produce both relatively small, motile gametes and relatively large, non-motile gametes, then you are a hermaphrodite. If you don't fall into one of these categories, then you don't fall into one of these categories and nobody should lose any sleep.

Peez

Hey, we have a biologically informed answer! How quaint.

 

[Jokodo]

How many exceptions do you need in order to invalidate a rule? There are about 150,000 Americans who don't fit either of your 'two sexes'.

There are about 325 million people in America. 150,000 of them make up0.04% of the total. I don't know exactly how many exceptions are needed to invalidate a rule, but it's a shit ton more than that for god damned sure.

0.00785% percent incline on a km are enough to make the notion of a flat earth False.

 

[Gun Nut]

How many exceptions do you need in order to invalidate a rule? There are about 150,000 Americans who don't fit either of your 'two sexes'.

There are about 325 million people in America. 150,000 of them make up0.04% of the total. I don't know exactly how many exceptions are needed to invalidate a rule, but it's a shit ton more than that for god damned sure.

0.00785% percent incline on a km are enough to make the notion of a flat earth False.

flat planets are not the "rule" for which an "exception" is sought. But nice try, Negative Nancy.