Genitalia vs Chromosomes: what makes you male of female?

Such as when opponents demand which pronouns transgender people use?

 

These are propaganda numbers by activists. To get to these numbers you've included people who have syndromes that result in producing less hormones. People of both sexes already produce varying levels of hormones for a variety of reasons. You don't get to take away someone's female card because they produce less estrogen than you. That's sexist! And it can be extremely harmful to the mental health of people who produce lower levels of estrogen due to a variety of issues. It's ironic to me that people who supposedly support "gender-affirming care" speak like this. It's a very hypocritical position to take.

 

If you are saying that genetic mistakes and abnormalities happen then I agree. I'm not so sure I would label them a different sex.

 

I've never heard of anyone disparaging DSD people. I see plenty of disparagement of trans, but they arent the same.

This says DSD is more like 1 in every 2000, or 0.05%
https://www.dsdfamilies.org/parents/what-dsd/brief-overview

Meanwhile close to 5% of youth in the US identify as 'trans'.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-r...s-different-from-their-sex-assigned-at-birth/

So why are there 100x more people identifying as having a gender that's different from their sex than there are people who actually have a difference of sex developement?

 

I respect an individual's capacity for recognizing personal gender identity that far exceeds the State's competence and power to impose one on everybody.

As all major medical associations recognize, based upon scientific reality, physical and psychological gender characteristics do not always align, even if dogmatic authoritarians believe their politicians should be empowered to dictate in all such matters.

 

HOW were they assigned "male" at birth? Genitalia? Chromosomes? Genetic clusters?

That's the question in the OP. Please read it.

So are you saying that children who are born with lower testosterone levels, a more feeble bone mass and more limited lung capacities are female even if they are born with XY chromosomes and a penis?

This is just an example. Children are born every day with a combination of any of the above: high levels of testosterone or denser bone mass but no Y chromosome. Low levels of testosterone and a penis.... ANY combination of the above. What are THEY. Male, female or something else?

Point is that there ARE people (no matter what percentage of the population) who are born with characteristics that are both typically male and typically female. At some point in their lives they'll have to make a choice. Why do right-wingers feel entitled to make that choice for them? Yes... they are relatively few. But it's the RIGHT that has made a huge deal of those who are trying to live their lives in as "standard" a way as they possibly can. We, on the left just say: leave them alone! And don't insult what they are.

 

“Each of us inevitable,
Each of us limitless—each of us with his or her right upon the earth,
Each of us allow'd the eternal purports of the earth,
Each of us here as divinely as any is here.”​

For authoritarians, every individual's self-aware uniqueness is surrendered to the State's imposition of uniformity.

​

 

Hmm.. so, to be specific, your first assertion was 1 in 100. And when i provided you the actual number, you claimed that you were still correct. And having been corrected once more, now your assertion is that it's 1 in 20000, which seem vastly different than the original, and you still haven't acknowledged that your first assertion was so terribly wrong. And no, your math is still spectacularly wrong here. The potential exists, statistically, which doesn't mean that it in fact is accurate. Can you actually document that 15k folks in the US are as you describe them to be? And if you cannot, why assert it? To build some faulty case of perspective?

If, your only claim is mass hysteria, why? The only cause of DSD is the super rare genetic condition, which is, as expressed 0.018%. That isn't remotely close to 1 in a 100. So even as you now admit your number is incorrect, you still assert that it's "associable" to "other" and then don't actually define what that "other" is, except we do know that it is essentially hysteria.

Is this just you trying to invent yet another mythical victim group that you can exploit? I'd say so.

 

I have seen no more demand of it than a housewife asking to be referred to as "Mrs" instead of "Miss", or a feminist wanting to be referred to as "Ms". Or a physician who wants to be referred to as "Dr" (despite the fact that most don't have a PhD), or a pastor who likes to be called "Rev". A slight correction and then it's up to you if you decide to be polite or not. Nobody seems to make as big of a deal about any of those.

But, in any case, "pronouns" and "titles" are not the topic of this thread.

 

Well... I congratulate you for never reading Breitbart, or listening to bigots like Alex Jones, or watching wingnut TV like Fox.

Transgenderism is a form of DSD. DSD is a generic term that encompasses a large number of conditions.

I found that nowhere in your link. The number is just an estimate.

Not a contradiction, but irrelevant to my point.

 

Quote from the link:

"What does 'Rare' mean?
The medical definition of a 'rare' condition is when it occurs in less than 1 person out of every 2000 (this means: less than 1/2000).

"1.7% (1/60) and as common as red hair?
A description sometimes used in popular media is that differences of sex development is as common as red hair. This is not very accurate. A more realistic statistic is 0.05% (1/2000 - DSD, including Klinefelter, Turner and MRKH) or 0.02% (1/5000 - DSD, babies with genital difference and/or atypical reproductive organs) "

So why are there 100x more people identifying as having a gender that's different from their sex ('trans') than there are people who actually have a difference of sex developement (DSD)?

 

Since you refuse to read, I will QUOTE my original assertion.

That is an ACCURATE assertion. But it's an estimate. Who knows what the real number is. Mostly because we are not sure what the causes of DSD are or how it develops. We know of chromosome discrepancies, and we know of genetic discrepancies with the "standard". So there are enough reasons to believe that many of these cases are set at birth. The OP mentions some of them. Point is that, from a biological viewpoint, there are more reasons to believe that gender is not a binary condition than to believe that it is. Therefore, those (mostly right-wingers) who disparage people who are in some way in the middle of the spectrum are victims of pure ignorance that fuels bigotry.

 

So you confused the number of people who are born with any of the many forms of DSD with the article's definition of "rare".

BTW, the 1 in 100 is an estimate. It's even possible that EVERYBODY is born with some form of DSD, given that almost everybody is born with genetic clusters that typically correspond to the opposite sex. But that in some cases it just never manifests.

However, the number is irrelevant to my point. If you want to use 1 in 2000, that means over 160 thousand in the US alone.

 

Because those are two different things, and trying to compare or equate the frequency of the two, is like comparing hiatal hernias with loss of the gall bladder because both will result in more frequent acid reflux

 

The only other possibility is they have no sex, and I would hesitate more on that than a third sex. But if a person is something that is neither man nor woman, which that .1% would be, then they have to be something, and that something would have to also be a sex.

 

What if you have two penises? Is that a different sex than male or female?

 

The 'stat' varies depending on the source, COPILOT AI offered this, with annotations:

• A study in Australia found that 3% of respondents with atypical sex characteristics used the term “disorders of sex development” (DSD) to define their sex characteristics when accessing medical services1.
• Another estimate suggests that DSDs occur in approximately 1 in every 1,500 births2.
• A more realistic statistic considers DSDs, including Klinefelter, Turner, and MRKH, and estimates the prevalence at 0.05% (1/2000). This includes babies with genital differences and/or atypical reproductive organs3.

I'm inclined to believe the 'more realistic' stat, above, so, one's mileage may vary on that point. But, demonizing people is wrong, and if the right is going it, they are to be criticized.

If I were a counselor, and a child with this anomaly came to me for advice, I'd say go with your genitalia, because you'll have fewer problems. I'd also say it's okay to be an effeminate male, a gay male, be proud, if that who is who you are.

 

Ah, the 'de la chapelle' syndrome, 'XX male'. That's 1 in 20-30k. But, I'd advise the child to wait until they are a mature adult before they make any life changing irreversible decisions. If the child was gay, or with a penis and wished he were a female, I'd say it's okay to be an effeminate male, but hold off on any life changing irreversible decisions until you are a mature adult and don't let any other adults change your mind on that point, because if you do make an irreversible decision, and you do happen to live to regret it, that will be a very very painful time in your life, indeed, and it has happened. I do agree with conservatives that sex change operations should be illegal on minors (though I don't know if it is being done, or not, but if it is, it should stop).

 

Makes no difference to my point. 1/2000 means 165K people in this country.

 

A good question. But then I am not the one who claimed that only 99.9% of people were either male or female, leaving .1% to be something else. If even genetic anomalies are still either male or female, then that brings us back to the original question of whether it is the genitals or the chromosomes that make the determination.

 

Just because you might be in the .1% doesn't mean you are a different sex. It just means you are a genetic freak.

 

That's not what was said. You said that 99.9% are one or other. That means that the .1% is some else all together. Otherwise then the claim needs to be that 100% are male or female. Which again, brings us back to the question of what is the determining factor for those who are not of the standard matchup factors.

 

You classify them as defects.

Errors in the genetic code.

Rare abnormalities from what is normal.

Obviously.

 

“Classify as defects” wow! How………. Compassionate

Are they not also people?

 

Not according to cons.