Genitalia vs Chromosomes: what makes you male of female?

If you had actually kept up with the science advancements of the last fifty years then you would not be so surprised and waaaay better informed. You say it is genetics then how do we classify XXY or XYY or XO syndromes? You say it is about how the hormones trigger sexual development - then how do we classify those men whose very cells do not recognise testosterone?

If eye colour can only be blue or brown then how do we classify Hazel?

 

Can do - look up Complete Androgen Sensitivity Syndrome

 

I couldn't find an example of a transgendered asking the question, I do remember a conversation by a non binary accusing Jordan Peterson of bigotry, when all he said was he didn't buy into the pronoun argument.

On the pronoun point, I have nothing against people 'having their fun', it is only when they demand it of someone that I find it problematic.

 

I asked if he believed that? Stick to your cover please

 

Your entire question starts with a false premise. There is no seeking to change their gender. They are seeking to alleviate the symptoms of GD that come from the conflict of the sex and gender. The gender remains the same. The sex remains the same. The look and feel of the body is what changes to alleviate the symptoms. At this time in history, a more, or even equally, effective method of achieving that goal that does not also cause more damage than it fixes, does not exist. Will such a procedure exist in the future? I hope so and believe so. People should have a choice in their treatment, but only of choices that does not cause more damage than it fixes.

 

So if 99.9 % of us are born one sex or the other, that means, logically and mathematically, there is .1% that comprises at least a third sex if not more than three.

 

Actually, the thought that the world was flat always has been a minority opinion, just as it is today. Columbus wasn't innovative in thinking the world was round, but in thinking that it was shorter to go west to get around. To be sure, the idea exist around the world in many civilizations and there are even long standing myths that hold the concept. It just wasn't as near universal as the geocentric model of the universe/soalr system.

That runs both ways. Galileo was right about the heliocentric nature of the solar system, but everyone who had thought it to be geocentric for centuries were saying he was wrong. That would be the same situation as today with proponents showing that what was believed to be right for centuries was wrong, and opponents sticking to the old way.

 

To be clear. If your chromosomes are XY, but you are born with a vagina you are a girl? Is that correct? And if so, what about these individuals?
https://www.livescience.com/52247-guevedoces-girls-boys.html
SInce they were born with a vagina and not a penis, do they remain girls/women the rest of their lives? After all it's the genitals they are born with according to you.

 

Then why do we prevent things like polygamy?

 

Setting aside the fact that there are people who are born not in any of those ways (born without a uterus for example), the argument is not that the biological sex isn't what one is born as, but that the gender (the concept whether you agree with the label or not) is not the one that statistically forms with that given biological sex. A trans man is still a female.

 

This applies to you as well. What the majority of the populations believes doesn't affect reality at all. Galileo's discovery showed that.

 

Yes. And, in this case, my belief aligns with reality. The post I was responding to does not.

 

That's a false assumption that something can be cured. With your logic, for a person with diabetes the solution would be to get them making their own insulin again. But reality is that we do not have that ability. All we can do is treat the symptoms. The same applies here. There is no method to sync the sex and the gender, in either direction, if it was not already synced up at birth. Our only working method for treating the condition is transition, which ranges from presenting (no surgery or drugs needed) to the full GCS, and has a wide range of treatment in between.

 

Yeah, all the people who told Galileo he was wrong said that too.

 

This applies to you too. That you don't like the reality of sex and gender being separate and that there are those who do not have the two align as you would wish them to, does nothing to alter the reality that such people exist and need medical intervention because of that mismatch. That you don't like what is the only current effective method of treating that mismatch does not alter the reality of it being the only current effective method of treatment. Your opinions and perceptions are the one not in line with reality any more than the people who told Galileo he was wrong had their opinions and perceptions in line with reality.

 

This is highly misleading. To get to the 1-2% number, you have to include abnormalities that aren't generally associated with intersex individuals whose phenotype is neither male nor female. It includes things like Klinefelter and Turner's syndromes, in which the chromosomes you are born with still determine your sex. For example, women born with Turner's syndrome are still female. And those sex identifiers can still be determined by their chromosomes. The real number of intersex individuals is less than .02%.

 

Now you are changing the goal posts. You were the one that stated that the genitals mattered not the chromosomes. If the person was XX with a penis, if the chromosomes were the key factor then they are female whether or not the penis is intact or chopped off. But you started your arguments with them being male since they were born with the penis. Make up your mind. Which is it? The genitals or the chromosomes? That was the original question after all.

 

My point is that there can be variations that alter sexual development

 

I'll agree with you that not all the intersex conditions should be in that category. There really isn't anything intersexed about the ureathal opening being part way up the shaft instead of in the head, which is currently listed as intersex. That being said, according to many here, the chromosomes don't matter. It's what genitals you are born with.

 

Having a syndrome doesn't change your sex. Your first example of XXY is called Klinefelter's syndrome and people with Klinefelter's are still males, not intersex.

 

I could actually see a foot stamp with that last bit.

 

Wrong! Every text I have read on this puts the number at between 1.5 - 2%

https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001669.htm

 

Now hang on a bit. You're actually making a strawman of his argument. His initial argument is that if you are born with a penis, you are male. It wasn't if you have a penis, you are male. A eunuch was indeed born with a penis. No longer having one doesn't change the fact that he was born with one. In this case, Fatback's argument is sound, at least as far as that specific example goes.

 

I'm pretty sure that CornPop's argument is that many of the conditions that are listed under intersex currently, he is saying shouldn't be because there is no ambiguity about the sex. The condition I mentioned earlier about where the urethral opening on a penis is, is a good example. Why would that be considered intersexed?

 

You changed your argument. You stated before that it was your genitals only. You specifically were noting what genitals one is born with. So by this new logic, a person who is XY but born with a vagina, is a third sex altogether, since their combination is not that of a male or female.