Earlier quoted context omitted.
Race is a substantially less real concept than sex is.
What does "real" mean here?
It's the delta between the common use of the term in public discourse versus the scientific biological basis for it.
More women than expected are genetically men (2016)
111–120 of 231 posts
Re: More women than expected are genetically men (2016)
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
The important thing to recognize is that fairness is a pretty fuzzy concept and a lot of the boundary between fair and unfair is defined by particular societal norms (socially constructed, if you will). All elite athletes have biological advantages not afforded to ordinary humans like us. People like Michael Phelps and Alex Honnold are specific examples of course, but even after years of training most people cannot p…
Societal gender norms have existed for probably as long as humans have, but we've only known about chromosomes for On the scale of human evolution, this is a very recent situation for society to figure out how to "decide".
It's really not new or recent. For as long as there's been gender norms there's been groups of people outside those norms.
You can, for example, find examples of trans individuals in Utah in the 1800s. [1] Eunuchs are a pretty well-known concept since about the start of recorded history.
Here's an example of a roman cult which practiced self-castration. [2]
Re: More women than expected are genetically men (2016)
#113> “It is very upsetting for people who have grown up and lived for years believing that they are of a particular sex to suddenly discover that they are actually of the opposite sex. This can be a relief but can also be a loss. For most people it comes as a shock that upends their whole identity. Coping with this can take years,” I find this statement odd. Haven't we already established that chromosomes do not determi…
>Haven't we already established that chromosomes do not determine gender?
This is not universally accepted.
Re: More women than expected are genetically men (2016)
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm merely responding with the bad faith reading you're presenting here, as woman is a squishy and cultural word to describe an additionally squishy biological set of states. At no point does the article declare them not to be women, only that they are women with genetic conditions from having a Y chromosome (or even just a section of the Y chromosome), a shorthand of which they call "genetically men".
I forget the details, but someone asserting clear lines on Twitter some years ago was asked to define woman, and people kept hitting them with examples that matched the proposed definition like chairs and horses.
It's not squishy, and it's not hard. Woman means adult female human, and female means someone that produces the larger of two gamete sizes. That's the real, literal biological definition.
Since I'm rate limited, to be slightly more specific, it's the gamete size one would or should produce. I elided that part but biologists are well aware of disorders of development.
Another edit: This has nothing to do with religion or any sort of intelligent design woo. Read "should" as "would if it were mature and healthy".
Re: More women than expected are genetically men (2016)
#115Very interesting. Relates to conversations I've had recently regarding trans people in sports. Turns out that conversation isn't simple, because gender is way more complex than the binary M/F options society has tried to act like it is. Between reasons like in this article, or being born intersex, etc, there are definitely people with female chromosomes who have competed in men's sports, or people with female sex org…
It is simple. Organisms that produce the larger of two gamete sizes are female, and organisms that produce the smaller of two gamete sizes are male. "Intersex" is a misleading term that's been phased out in favor of DSD ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders_of_sex_development ). Every person is still male or female. Women have a right to sex-specific sports, and anyone that doesn't qualify is free to compete in t…
It's been really funny watching this definition become the main right wing talking point, as every other definition they've attempted has been shot down conclusively.
By this logic, individuals like those mentioned in the article above don't have any sex at all because their bodies are unable to produce gametes of any kind.
Re: More women than expected are genetically men (2016)
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean having an X or Y are pretty damn binary. DNA strand has binary pairs (A-T, C-G). The resulting codons have anitcodon pairs. Then within biological functions you have the parasympathetic system vs the parasympathetic system which do opposite things across the whole body, pro vs anti inflmmatory agents, activators vs inhibitors nearly on every level of biology. Its actually rather astounding how much binary pair…
Having and X or Y (or even multiple of each, as some people do, XXY and XYY are real, even single X or Y too) is binary, what's not binary is how it doesn't perfectly correlate with the sex (not even getting into gender here) that the person in question belongs to.
XXY and XYY and whatnot are all variations within a sex. Sex is defined by gamete size, females produce the larger gametes and males produce the smaller gametes. In humans, this is binary and immutable.
Re: More women than expected are genetically men (2016)
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
I forget the details, but someone asserting clear lines on Twitter some years ago was asked to define woman, and people kept hitting them with examples that matched the proposed definition like chairs and horses.
It's not squishy, and it's not hard. Woman means adult female human, and female means someone that produces the larger of two gamete sizes. That's the real, literal biological definition. Since I'm rate limited, to be slightly more specific, it's the gamete size one would or should produce. I elided that part but biologists are well aware of disorders of development. Another edit: This has nothing to do with religion…
Good luck with that.
Re: More women than expected are genetically men (2016)
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
It means two people of different races can have a baby together, but two people of the same sex cannot.
Sure, but does that make it any less "real"?
First because there is absolutely no objective way to define races in their coloquial meaning. So they don't exist.
The only race we can truly define is homo sapiens sapiens.
Re: More women than expected are genetically men (2016)
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Now, which biological advantages are fair and which are not is determined by society. We have somehow decided that chromosomal advantages are unfair, even though people have exactly as much control over them as they do over the amount of lactic acid they produce or how their amygdala behaves. What's the implication here, that because the distinction is totally arbitrary, that we should do away with it? What does tha…
> What does that mean for women's sports? I don't know, I'm not an athlete, coach, tournament organizer, part of a rule-making body, or one of a number of other roles that would give me insight or authority to be involved in that decision. Why does everyone feel comfortable stepping into this conversation with authority?
You're right, discussion's open to the clergy only. Any laymen who continue to discuss this infohazard will be banned.
the clergy, such at least as can be fully confided in, may admissibly and
meritoriously make themselves acquainted with the arguments of opponents, in
order to answer them, and may, therefore, read heretical books; the laity,
not unless by special permission, hard to be obtained. This discipline
recognises a knowledge of the enemy's case as beneficial to the teachers,
but finds means, consistent with this, of denying it to the rest of the
world: thus giving to the élite more mental culture, though not more mental
freedom, than it allows to the mass [0].
Re: More women than expected are genetically men (2016)
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
I forget the details, but someone asserting clear lines on Twitter some years ago was asked to define woman, and people kept hitting them with examples that matched the proposed definition like chairs and horses.
It's not squishy, and it's not hard. Woman means adult female human, and female means someone that produces the larger of two gamete sizes. That's the real, literal biological definition. Since I'm rate limited, to be slightly more specific, it's the gamete size one would or should produce. I elided that part but biologists are well aware of disorders of development. Another edit: This has nothing to do with religion…
> and female means someone that produces the larger of two gamete sizes.
So what if someone produces no gametes? Are those sterile from birth neither men nor women?