You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Does that answer your question?
No. Two views were stated in a post and you claimed in reponse to that post that some beliefs are less valid than others.
I'm asking you which of the two is least less valid.
Here they are again:
Some trans people assert that e.g. transwomen are women, and that “some women have penises”. Some think that biological women that are lesbians must consider transwomen with penises as partners (see: “cotton ceiling”).
To disagree with those statements is fundamentally offensive to the people making them, because to deny them, is to deny their identity.
Some women assert that only biological “cis” women are women, and that if you have a penis, you are absolutely and fundamentally not a true woman. In their opinion trans people can be a transwoman but never a “woman”.
To disagree with those statements is fundamentally offensive to the people making them, because to deny them is to deny their identity.
I suppose what I am saying is that given the lack of comprehension among the general population and the ease with which offense is caused than step lightly and listen to those directly affected seems a decent attitude to take
Well said TJ.
Not sure how this:
not all opinions and beliefs are equally valid.
is stepping lightly in this specific context.
Well, I’ve no idea what posts or messages you’re referring to either so you may well be right. In my experience though, most often when people complain in public about unfair treatment the truth is somewhat closer to what I just said than is claimed.
I can't find the relevant thread and the evidence I asked for was never supplied, so you'll have to take my word for it or not!
Anyway, enough of the derailment. One interesting aspect about this debate is that gender and sex are often conflated in public but also in law. In law, there are two ways to become a woman ("sex"). One is to be born female. The second is to obtain a gender reassignment certificate. This does create some problems for which there are no easy answers, for example the housing of prisoners.
Cougar - another aspect being this place is a private playground and has no need to provide a platform for any view and indeed every right to shut down views that go against corporate values - no matter if I or anyone else agrees.
Yes, both points are equally valid, as points, topics for discussion.
People once marginalised have found a voice.
You can respond to this with decency, apathy or from a point of ignorance.
Inevitably, we will be judged by our response.
Human nature, innit?
Absolutely. We’re on STWs page so we play by their rules. If we don’t like the rules we can go somewhere else, or even start our own page. I’ve only been modded once (I believe), and I thought my comment should have stood, but I don’t think STW or the mods were bang out of order - I understood the reasoning, and it was easy enough to make the same point in a way that was deemed to be ok.
Tl:dr
Other sites are available.
I’m asking you which of the two is least less valid.
I think they're both bollocks. But my point was rather that instead of asking me, you'd be better served asking the people they're talking about. What I think is an irrelevance.
I’d defend a racists right to say racist things, yes.
Coincidentally, this just popped up in my Twitter feed. Defensible? Perfectly acceptable "opinion"?
So..... just to recap.... there's actually more to this than an attitude towards soft furnishings?
We've gone leather.
It's so practical.
But how many cushions?
A lass I know likes her Chesterfield.
Cougar
That’s an interesting question you asked.
In that case I’d say it was personally abusive as well as being racist, so I’d probably remove it (probably - I’m glad I don’t have to make these decisions).
If the racist was making a general claim then I’d probably let it stand. Probably.
Cougar
Subscriber
(And Point the Third, Eddie Izzard refers to himself as a “bloke in a dress” – he’s TV rather than TG.)
Actually, he refers to himself as trans-gender nowadays. Historically he called himself an "action transvestite" but on the Joe Rogan podcast recently I immediately picked up on him referring to himself as trans-gender
Actually, he refers to himself as trans-gender nowadays.
I was not aware of that.
Historically he called himself an “action transvestite”
Running jumping climbing trees.
So I have always found the subject matter of gender/trans gender an interesting subject matter that at the current moment in time isn’t discussed openly and logically (that would be the engineer in me).
First off is there only two genders - on face value I would say that there is only two genders but within them you get different degrees of masculinity and femininity of a person within that gender which I can see where you could end up needing different pro nouns. That still does not change what gender you are though or potentially have an effect of sexual orientation. The thing that I feel can and does break this idea is hermaphrodites (which again does prove that sex, gender and genetics is not a simple and I dare say binary (but you do have to take in to account it’s not a normal event (sorry I can’t think of better wording for this)).
If gender isn’t something that you are assigned by at birth, what other things could a person feel they are not? Race and age spins to mind. You can get black people what have absence of pigment in their skin and hair (albinos). If you are of mixed race/parents do you identify to one race background more than another?
I don’t know if being transgender is more of a metal health issue (in the same way there are plenty of people that are never happy with how they look so go down the route of plastic surgery to fix a problem that was never really there).
As I said I don’t have all the answers, just more questions
First off is there only two genders – on face value I would say that there is only two genders
Then you've fallen at the first hurdle.
I don’t know if being transgender is more of a metal health issue
Would you consider homosexuality a mental health issue?
There doesn't seem to be a lot of point in getting too rigid about these things unless you're forced to decide something really awkward, like whether someone belongs in a women's prison or a shelter or whether you should do surgery on children. For most of us in most social situations, politeness and sensitivity is a better option than yelling "Chromosomes!".
For people my age, it's weird because we thought the way the world was going was that you wouldn't be able to say that there was a particular way that men or women dressed or acted - everyone would be able to do what they wanted and labels would become unimportant. Whereas the world we're ending up with thinks that labels are extremely important, but the individual gets to label themselves fairly definitively, and also that making up new labels is perfectly valid.
I've got a huge amount of value out of Natalie Wynn's Youtube channel Contrapoints. Long talks, quite useful.
Morning cougar,
First off I don’t want to start an argument with you and am happy to listen to what are your thoughts and hopefully have my views changed by you.
If there are not two genders then how may are there and what are they? And why isn’t there just one more than said number? Is is where I go back to what I said with there are only two genders but different degrees of masculinity and feminism within the gender. I view sexuality as not being tired to how masculine or feminine you are (eg there is different levels of of campness (I am not using this in a negative way, again I don’t know what other word you should use) between graham norton and say Steven fry for example, they are both still gay men. And I’m sure there are plenty of other straight camp people as well.
I see being gay or lesbian as not a mental health issue and just as sexual preference (and I’m not trying to trivialise it but again it’s the only way I can compare) in the same way someone might have a preference to blonds or brunettes, skinny or fuller figure. What someone is attractive to is what they are attractive to. Being attractive to someone of the same sex is just another preference.
Do you think people that are religious have metal health problems? They have the ability to speak and hear the voice of their god? They believe (we’ll Christians anyway) that benevolent SOVIET zombie will come back to save everyone while you pretend to eat his flesh and blood.
If there are not two genders then how may are there and what are they?
I googled this and found:
The following are the 58 gender options identified by ABC News:
Agender
Androgyne
Androgynous
Bigender
Cis
Cisgender
Cis Female
Cis Male
Cis Man
Cis Woman
Cisgender Female
Cisgender Male
Cisgender Man
Cisgender Woman
Female to Male
FTM
Gender Fluid
Gender Nonconforming
Gender Questioning
Gender Variant
Genderqueer
Intersex
Male to Female
MTF
Neither
Neutrois
Non-binary
Other
Pangender
Trans
Trans*
Trans Female
Trans* Female
Trans Male
Trans* Male
Trans Man
Trans* Man
Trans Person
Trans* Person
Trans Woman
Trans* Woman
Transfeminine
Transgender
Transgender Female
Transgender Male
Transgender Man
Transgender Person
Transgender Woman
Transmasculine
Transsexual
Transsexual Female
Transsexual Male
Transsexual Man
Transsexual Person
Transsexual Woman
Two-Spirit
I'm guessing they are social or cultural genders rather than biological genders. (I'm pretty sure there are only two biological genders, although obvs not everyone fits smoothly into them.)
And why isn’t there just one more than said number?
Good question. I don't know who defines/lists social or cultural genders.
Do you think people that are religious have metal health problems?
Only Rustifarians
Oi!
The following are the 58 gender options identified by ABC News:
Two-Spirit
I’m guessing they are social or cultural genders rather than biological genders. (I’m pretty sure there are only two biological genders, although obvs not everyone fits smoothly into them.)
For clarity it is easier to use the term biological sex.
I have metal issues - all bikes I buy are steel. That list is crazy. Why can’t people be what they are without having to affix labels? Labelling things just seems like a way to guarantee division and to help create an ‘other’ mentality
Labelling things just seems like a way to guarantee
division and to help create an ‘other’ mentalitypleasurable and lengthy internet squabbles.
Fixed that for you. Without a bewildering array of social and cultural genders all we could argue about would be wheel size, where's the fun in that?
...and if there's an emotive word that has two distinct meanings... ...well it's a chance for a load of us to have a squabble-gasm.
while a trans person will appear as much as possible as female.
No, not necessarily. For some trans folk (men) trying to look as much like a woman (short of surgery) is the goal, for some it's an approximation, for some it's neither of the above and something else entirely.
Personally I think it's easier (for me at least) to think about these sorts of things as a blurry continuum rather than seperate boxes. With biological and cultural "trad" definitions at each end, and then everything else some where between them
There are more than two biological genders or sex. There is a whole range of intersex people.
(I’m pretty sure there are only two biological genders, although obvs not everyone fits smoothly into them.)
My aunt had turner's syndrome so she was X chromosome only (probably- its more complicated)
Chromosomal syndromes like that are rare. (Tho moasaicism probably under reported)
But the jump from genotype to phenotype is not straightforward
In my work I isolate colonic crypts from tumours, these are tiny genetically homogenous glands from the intestinal wall , in tumours we sometimes see glands that when we sequence the DNA they are genetically normal, but they look like the far larger tumour glands & their RNA & chromatin sequencing looks tumour like. Probably because the tumour microenvironment is changing their phenotype.
My rambling point is that there are big gaps in our knowledge about how genetics works & how that relates to phenorype and big variation within the population regards phenotyoe- hormone levels can have a huge range between people.
On top of that (tho it's still related & there's undoubtedly interplay) you have the mental/ neurological aspects that we probably understand even less
All of this is coming up against cultural & societal rules that become more complex as communication has exploded- writing, printing press, telegrams, phones, TV, MTB internet forums...
(What it's hard for many people to grasp is that culture is not static, nor is it homogenous, it's fluid & dynamic, always has been)
In summary 'it's complicated'
IIRC around 2% of the population are born with intersex traits and only around 0.0006% can truly be classed as neither male nor female. Anything else is psychological and is as much a matter of faith and belief as religion is.
The meaning of gender has morphed from what is now referred to as an individuals sex, which we think of as male or female. However, there are several cases of diverse sexual development which covers a range of conditions such as the guevedoces whom are born appearing as female and then develop as male when they hit puberty. Due to our culture we've been taught a very simplified view of what constitutes as a human being, with anyone who is different regardless of the reason being classed as weird, challenging and inferior. We have also been taught that our physical appearance is our identity and our sexual orientation is a conscious choice, but we are learning that there are several different elements which form us and how they are influenced.
Gender is thought of at the moment as a social construct based upon how we expect males and females to behave. Yet it's shown across our genome that each chromosome pairing can vary, leading to a spectrum of different results from autism; which according to Simon Barron-Cohen is extreme male brain with male behaviour patterns, to a homosexual whom we may think as having an extreme female brain. That doesn't mean that the autistic female is gay nor does it mean that the gay male is autistic, yet they represent what we think of as opposing behavior patterns.
Regardless of difference all are valid expressions of what it is to be human, whether or not you understand the nuances, be kind. That doesn't mean that you can't question or have a laugh but be willing to accept if you accidentally make a faux pas, apologise and try not to repeat.
There are more than two biological genders or sex. There is a whole range of intersex people.
Would you argue that humans aren't bipedal because some people are born without legs?
My aunt had turner’s syndrome so she was X chromosome only
That's not a biological gender. That's just a person who doesn't fit into the two biological genders. Unless you're saying it is a biological gender in which case state what that biological gender it is so we can all google it for ourselves.
The meaning of gender has morphed from what is now referred to as an individuals sex, which we think of as male or female.
No it hasn't the definitions have been posted in the first post and it's clear that the term has two distinct meanings in common use. A meaning has been added, the original meaning is still in use.
As long as we're clear about which meaning we're referring to there's no problem. Which is why people on internet forums are *never* clear about which meaning they're referring to! 😀
How about we build a society that accepts outliers for what they are and seeks to include them rather than exclude them?
Would you argue that humans aren’t bipedal because some people are born without legs?
People born with without legs are still humans, and making sure, for example, that we build public spaces so that they can access them just like other humans is the kind of progress we need to ensure we continue to build on, not roll back from.
That’s just a person who doesn’t fit into the two biological genders.
But they’re still a person, yes? And if we (or they) think that they don’t fit neatly into one of two genders (that most of us do fit into without question) that shouldn’t lead to us excluding, or abusing them, or denying their existence.
This whole issue has been made far more complicated than it needs to be 😂
That’s just a person who doesn’t fit into the two biological genders.
Turner syndrome is a female-only chromosomal abnormality
exclude them
Exclude outliers from what, specifically?
Turner syndrome is a female-only chromosomal abnormality
Thanks. 🙂
There are two sexes. Intersex conditions and DSDs are not separate sexes.
Mammals cannot change sex.
I don’t really know what gender means - everyone seems to have their own definition. If someone wants to define themselves as one of the genders above they should go ahead, it’s nobody else’s business.
Convicted rapist with male bodies should not be in women’s prisons.
That’s just about my interest in the subject done
If there are not two genders
I'd turn that around and ask why you'd assume that there are only two genders?
As an example, in the Thai language it's polite to add a gender-specific particle to the end of sentences. AFAIK there are three particles...
A meaning has been added, the original meaning is still in use.
again, language is dynamic, it is constantly evolving
Turner syndrome is a female-only chromosomal abnormality
as I said before its more complicated- Turners syndrome also includes mosaicisms that can lead to males with partial Y chromosomes
https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/jog.13617
my point is that rigidly classing people into either of 2 sexes/ genders, or syndromes even, misses entirely the diversity within populations & people
eg Polycystic Ovary syndrome is thought to be as high as 18% and is caused by excess androgens, tho testosterone still usually below normal male levels
& I take the point that gender dysphoria has psychological factors as well, as I mentioned
as I said before the relationship between genotype & phenotype is not simple, pretending it is may help you feel like you are getting your head round the world better, but its ignoring the realities
again, language is dynamic, it is constantly evolving
Yup, but both definitions of Gender are in use today as evidenced by the OED.
my point is that rigidly classing people into either of 2 sexes/ genders, or syndromes even, misses entirely the diversity within populations & people
No it wasn't, your point was to defeat the idea that there are only two biological genders by identifying Turner Syndrome as somehow evidence of a third biological gender.
You had to do that because there is no third biological gender so you can't identify one. People have tried to use the vagaries of the Thai langage as evidence of a third biological gender for the same reason. Facts beat feelings when it comes to biological gender.
Social or cultural Gender on the other hand has a vast array of genders and nobody is disputing that.
So, OK. Assuming for the sake of argument for a moment that you are correct and there are "only two biological genders," what criteria are you using to define which one a person corresponds to? Genitals? Chromosomes? Something else?
In my view, there are two genders in the same way that a road has two sides - a left and a right side. However it's perfectly possible to be in the middle of the road, as it is possible to be intersex. The middle of the road is not a new 'side'.
You could define fully male or fully female as having all the biological characteristics that are commonly aligned to that gender, but acknowledge that you may have a combination of characteristics from both genders.
So, OK. Assuming for the sake of argument for a moment that you are correct and there are “only two biological genders,” what criteria are you using to define which one a person corresponds to? Genitals? Chromosomes? Something else?
No idea of the criteria and I'm not claiming that 100pc of people fit neatly into those biological genders. I'm merely disputing the claims that there are >2 biological genders. Mainly on the basis that I've only ever heard of two. (Plus the fact that the people who claim there are >2 won't name them makes me think there aren't.)
In my view, there are two genders in the same way that a road has two sides – a left and a right side. However it’s perfectly possible to be in the middle of the road, as it is possible to be intersex. The middle of the road is not a new ‘side’.
That's my take on biological gender.
In contrast, social and cultural gender has at least 48 lanes, and if you are between two lanes that 'boundary' becomes a new lane.
No idea of the criteria
If you cannot define the criteria then how on earth can you argue there are only two possible states which meet them?
I’m not claiming that 100pc of people fit neatly into those biological genders.
But you kind of are. You're arguing that a coin only has two sides and refusing to acknowledge "edge" or the existence of dice.
So what do we call those people, then? Surely that by its very definition implies that if someone cannot fit into one or the other then there must be a third? Intersex? Non-gender-specific? "Other"?
Mainly on the basis that I’ve only ever heard of two.
So if you haven't heard of something your conclusion is that it doesn't exist?
(Plus the fact that the people who claim there are >2 won’t name them makes me think there aren’t.)
There's a somewhat absurd list you can choose from on the previous page if you insist on needing labels.
In my view, there are two genders in the same way that a road has two sides – a left and a right side. However it’s perfectly possible to be in the middle of the road, as it is possible to be intersex. The middle of the road is not a new ‘side’.
... that being the case, it's possible to spend your entire life driving on the wrong side of it, n'est-ce pas? That must be an awful situation, you'd probably want to change lanes if at all possible.
In my view, there are two genders in the same way that a road has two sides – a left and a right side. However it’s perfectly possible to be in the middle of the road, as it is possible to be intersex. The middle of the road is not a new ‘side’.
Assuming we're talking "biological gender" (i.e. sex) I believe that, in this analogy, on a standard-ish 8m wide road, the middle would be around 5mm wide.
… that being the case, it’s possible to spend your entire life driving on the wrong side of it, n’est-ce pas? That must be an awful situation, you’d probably want to change lanes if at all possible.
Short of completely re-writing your DNA, how could you accomplish this?
If you cannot define the criteria then how on earth can you argue there are only two possible states which meet them?
So, OK. Assuming for the sake of argument for a moment that you are correct and there are more than two biological genders, what criteria are you using to define which one a person corresponds to? Genitals? Chromosomes? Something else?
Short of completely re-writing your DNA, how could you accomplish this?
So, your criteria is DNA based then…? Over to @kimbers for a reply to that … way too complicated for most of the rest of us (including you).
And there are people assigned one gender at birth, only to later discover that the decision was based on surgical convenience… and they have been struggling along on the “wrong side of the road” due to the choices made by others.
Then of course there are people for whom gender was clear cut at birth, but doesn’t ring true as they grow into adulthood. Let them take the side of the road that is right for them. If they confuse you, don’t lash out at them through (understandable) fear of outliers.
No it wasn’t, your point was to defeat the idea that there are only two biological genders by identifying Turner Syndrome as somehow evidence of a third biological gender.
not really
more that genders are 2 diverse blobs & defining them is hard because those definitions get fuzzy at the edges
its not as daft as trying to define race by biology, but it runs into similar problems
Short of completely re-writing your DNA, how could you accomplish this?
you wouldnt have to rewrite all of your DNA just add in a few bits chop a bit (well, lots of bits) out & as Kelvin rightly says, I have no idea which ones ( that tech is way beyond us at the moment, its not a million miles away tho)
what Im trying to say is that a biological definition of gender is hard to pin down, because biology doesnt just mean DNA or chromosomes, its a complex system from DNA to Protein & everything in between, rather than adding or subtracting genes, to change a gender it would be more about turning the right genes on & off
at the moment we can change things by adding or removing hormones, these also effect things at the epigenetic level (the machinery that turns genes on & off) which in turn creates its own feedback loops
taking PCOS as an example, its >3x more common in lesbians than straight women & even more common in trans men, even though testosterone levels are usually below normal range for men, they are above normal for women, where do they fit into rigid categories (bearing in mind the 18% prevelancy in the general pop)
Im in no way advocating that any girl with PCOS should be immediately given hormone therapy to turn them into blokes
just that its way more complicated than many people would like it to be
Then of course there are people for whom gender was clear cut at birth, but doesn’t ring true as they grow into adulthood.
this is also a good point hormone levels have a huge range and that range can show great variability with age, even varies by time of day ( Im not saying that people can switch genders because its a full moon or anything 😉 ) & hormones being just 1 part of the picture, obvs
@kimbers - on the previous page you mentioned neurological elements and I maybe incorrectly read that as phsycological . (which you then repeated). Would it be correct to say that it's possibly a bit of both or is our understanding not that developed?
@kelvin - I don't see anyone on this thread "lashing out".
Would it be correct to say that it’s possibly a bit of both or is our understanding not that developed?
Im no expert fwiw! (though I work with an expert in non binary cancer treatment, who Id be tempted to bring into this debate, but she'd probably start a riot)
& I d use the 2 interchangeably, because we really dont know how to separate how they influence each other, so definitely bit of both
as I said, Id broadly agree that there are 2 genders/ sexes, but they are impossible to define completely, so theres ample room for people to come in and add extra ones and be neither right or wrong about it
Eben the linean idea of species<genus<family<order<class<phylum<kingdom is rather arbitrary & has run into trouble in the age of genomics
I worked at the Sanger when they 1st sequenced the human genome (#humblebrag) and the expectation was that we'd find 200000- 50000 genes (there was a sweepstake), when it was realised there were only 30000 genes in humans (we now think about 20000)
-it was a big shock, that something so complex was controlled by so few genes, I think it gives geneticists an appreciation of how little we understand about everything!
So, OK. Assuming for the sake of argument for a moment that you are correct and there are more than two biological genders, what criteria are you using to define which one a person corresponds to? Genitals? Chromosomes? Something else?
Well, that rather runs into the same problem.
Complicated, isn't it. Who knew.
biology doesnt just mean DNA or chromosomes
No, but I'm willing to bet that chromosomes have a reasonable correlation to biological gender and a pretty good correlation to social and cultural gender as well. It would pick out the vast majority of cis males/cis females, obviously it wouldn't spot the Two-Spirits etc.
If you're going to argue people with chromosomal abnormalities are a new biological gender you could equally argue people with chromosomal abnormalities are a new biological species. (As opposed to social and cultural species like trans animals.)
Well, that rather runs into the same problem.
So, if you cannot define the criteria then how on earth can you argue there are three or more states which meet them?
such as what a humblebrag is? 😂I think it gives geneticists an appreciation of how little we understand about everything!
Outofbreath, your attempts to make things simpler than they really are just result in you going around in circular loops, sadly. It’s easier to just think of a spectrum, rather than binary, with nearly everyone right up at one end of the spectrum or the other, and a tiny outlier of people occupying the rest of the spectrum… and… importantly… some being classified wrongly and having a hard life as they attempt to reposition themselves while so much of society seems to want to prevent them from doing so. Some of this is understood biology, and some of it is not biology, or understood.
It’s easier to just think of a spectrum, rather than binary, with nearly everyone right up at one end of the spectrum or the other, and a tiny outlier of people occupying the rest of the spectrum
The latter is more accurate in biological terms though. Over 99.99% of the human race lie at the two "extremes". It's a spectrum where, viewed from a very slight distance, it contains only Red and Violet.
Yes, yes, we get that most people fit neatly into one end of the spectrum or the other, with no need to move, but if we chose to pretend that the outliers do not exist, or for some odd reason try and make it hard for them to live their lives, it has a very real effect on them.
I get that people want things to be simpler, that it’s easier if we only consider the majority, “people like us”, but bit by bit, we’ve managed to open up society to the outliers, and need to be very wary of people seeking to close it down again. Language is part of this, especially where it meets the law.
All mammals use sexual reproduction to procreate.
*Two* mature adults contribute parts of their genome to make up the offspring.
The definition of male sex is the adult that provides the spe*m, female the egg. The egg and spe*m are known as gametes. There is no third gamete. An individual can be seen to fit in one of the two categories (even if sterile).
As we note there are a range of anatomies and physiologies beneath this umbrella definition. This definition copes with 'all' chromosomal variants and DSDs.
This definition of sex has not changed...
Science will continue to debate and explore this area.
HTH...
So, if you cannot define the criteria then how on earth can you argue there are three or more states which meet them?
As I said, "Complicated, isn’t it. Who knew."
This is the point I'm trying to make, and what I said in my first post in the thread. We've held for years that there are two genders, and now we're beginning to understand that that may not always be the case. Whilst we can't definitively say that there are 3, 4 or 58 genders it's surely true to say that gender is non-binary. This is what others are saying when they talk about a spectrum.
It's kinda similar with sexuality; we've (mostly) come to terms with the concept of homosexuality, and we're now realising that as well as being straight or gay people can be bisexual, asexual, or even have a primary partner preference but open to relationships with a non-primary choice - if you like "a little bit gay" (or straight). Ie, it's not black and white, which is why the LGB+ acronym now contains half the alphabet.
Pinpointing why or how is - here's that word again - complicated, and poorly understood. If we look at chromosomes say, as well as XY and XX we have XXY, XYY and a raft of others, so if we're using this to define gender then there is demonstrably more than two. Or there was a study a few years back which looked post-mortem at the brains of trans people and found areas consistent with their destination sex rather than birth, so perhaps it is (in a non-pejorative sense) a "mental illness" or rather a difference in the brain chemistry which makes some people feel that they were born into the wrong body. As someone else said, a small number of babies get surgically assigned a gender due to (sigh) complications and it's feasible that the doctor got it wrong.
And yes, I know I'm mixing around sex, gender and trans here, but they're all sides of the same non-binary argument - some people don't fit into your nice neat little boxes and demanding they do so from the comfort of your own perfectly-defined box is cruel.
All mammals use sexual reproduction to procreate.
I don't, I've never reproduced. I expect plenty of homosexual people haven't either.
An individual can be seen to fit in one of the two categories (even if sterile).
Sure about that? What if someone was born with neither?
What if someone was born with meat & two veg, went through full gender reassignment surgery and wound up with fully-working ladyparts? By your definition then I presume you'd be 100% in agreement that they had, in fact, changed sex and were now a bona fide honest-to-goodness card-carrying woman?
This definition of sex has not changed…
Gender and sex aren't entirely the same thing.
Complicated, isn’t it.
As I said, “Complicated, isn’t it. Who knew.”
This is the point I’m trying to make
The point you made, that I am disputing, is your claim that there are three or more biological genders. (When you can only name two of them and you can't define any of them.)
Not sure I agree it's complicated either: Biological Gender: Two biological genders. (Plus some people who don't fully match with either.) Social and Cultural Gender: Anything goes. Job jobbed.
Gender and sex aren’t entirely the same thing.
According to Google the second definition of 'sex' matches the OED definition of biological gender as far as I can see:
"Sex: 2. either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions."
reassignment surgery and wound up with fully-working ladyparts
Full gender reassignment surgery although quite a major set of procedures is cosmetic. It only gives an appearance of the desired morphology. The individuals biological sex does not change.
Even if someone is born without either e.g. sterile or rare DSD they can fit into these definitions.
Wether or not you actually procreate is irrelavent.
Yes, I explicitly separate the terms sex and gender.
(When you can only name two of them and you can’t define any of them.)
Problem is defining just 2 is just as hard
If fertility is the defining feature, those who are infertile due to hormonal imbalance are more or less than one of the genders?
Biological Gender: Two biological genders.
Biology doesn't just mean chromosomes or DNA
What if someone was born with neither?
In a fetus there's no outward sign of gender until about nine weeks, but they still have a gender from the moment of conception. (Unless there's some abnormality as discussed.)
The point you made, that I am disputing,
You're not disputing it, you're ignoring it. I've already replied to all those arguments and I'm not going round in circles again.
Full gender reassignment surgery although quite a major set of procedures is cosmetic. It only gives an appearance of the desired morphology. The individuals biological sex does not change.
And if it wasn't?
Your argument is "sperm = man, egg = woman." So if someone is surgically altered to be able to produce the opposite then by your own definitions either they've changed sex or your definition needs some work.
(Aside, I read a post on Twitter the other day by a M2F trans woman who had just experienced her first orgasm, which would suggest it's rather more than just 'cosmetic'?)
Problem is defining just 2 is just as hard
Cougar's not claiming there's two he's claiming there's three or more. ...and the definition argument is Cougar's not mine, I just chucked it back at him.
Although I can't define it, biological gender is determined at conception for the vast majority of us and where it can be meaningfully determined it is male or female. There are some rare people who don't fit either.
If fertility is the defining feature, those who are infertile due to hormonal imbalance are more or less than one of the genders?
I did state that being infertile does not prevent the use of this definition of biological sex. Am trying to be succinct e.g. it also covers post menopausal women. Hormonal issues are often found in DSDs. These individuals can also be found to be one of the two sexes using the criteria.
they still have a gender from the moment of conception.
You can't define what gender is, can't explain how it's measured, yet can confidently state that it's assigned at the point of conception?
I think I need a drink.
Cougar’s not claiming there’s two he’s claiming there’s three or more
In case you missed it, https://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/gender/page/4/#post-11067243
where it can be meaningfully determined it is male or female. There are some rare people who don’t fit either.
Once more with feeling,
Those rare people who don't fit either that you talk about, which box do they go into? If gender is binary then by definition they cannot "not fit either," they must fit into one or the other. If they don't then gender is non-binary. Which is a posh way of saying "not two."
Which is it to be?
You can’t define what gender is, can’t explain how it’s measured, yet can confidently state that it’s assigned at the point of conception?
Biological sex is observed in most at birth or during ultrasound scan. Biological sex being defined as the individual should be capable of producing one of the male or female gametes when an adult. Note they don't have to be actually capable of this.
The default masculine for boys/males or feminine for girls/females societal gender is assigned by parents, family, society...it would be so much better if societal gender was treated in a less either or manner.
And if it wasn’t?
Your argument is “sperm = man, egg = woman.” So if someone is surgically altered to be able to produce the opposite then by your own definitions either they’ve changed sex or your definition needs some work.
(Aside, I read a post on Twitter the other day by a M2F trans woman who had just experienced her first orgasm, which would suggest it’s rather more than just ‘cosmetic’?)
You are entering the realm of science fiction/fantasy. Apart from having to rewrite the genome in every cell of the body you'd probably have to appropriate anothers sexuality via organ donation of uterus etc. Also many the effects of a male puberty cannot be changed later.
...re - orgasm I did say the surgery can be quite major. SImply put, the skin of the removed pe*nis may be used to line the neo-va*ina. If the nerve connections are intact there could well be an 'orgasm'.
Maybe, but you're dodging the question.
All mammals use sexual reproduction to procreate.
I don’t, I’ve never reproduced. I expect plenty of homosexual people haven’t either.
This is covered by "humans, as a species, are bipedal even if born with one, none or additional legs".
Maybe, but you’re dodging the question.
I am describing current and foreseeable reality.
Your argument is “sperm = man, egg = woman.” So if someone is surgically altered to be able to produce the opposite then by your own definitions either they’ve changed sex or your definition needs some work.
What? Seriously? I don't know what you're reading to come to this conclusion. clarkpm4242 is the only person posting sense on this page.
I'm baffled that people keep confusing sex and gender on here and differences of sexual development do not mean sex is a spectrum. It's grossly offensive to suggest men and women with DSDs are not men and women.