Response to a post (About myself being Gender Fluid)

[Kfox]

Right. So, obviously, whether or not someone is considered a biological female is not solely determined by chromosomes. A person CAN have XY chromosomes and STILL be considered biologically female.

If it's the result of a disorder or disease, I believe that is correct. There are gonna be exceptions to just about every rule.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If it's the result of a disorder or disease, I believe that is correct.

But that disorder doesn't prevent a person from being classified as a biological woman, so to say that a biological woman is defined as a person with XX chromosomes is incorrect.

 

[Kfox]

But that disorder doesn't prevent a person from being classified as a biological woman, so to say that a biological woman is defined as a person with XX chromosomes is incorrect.

I disagree. To go by that standard it would be impossible to describe anything because there are always gonna be exceptions to the rule. Just as it would be accurate to say humans have eyes that allow them to see colors, we recognize there are those born colorblind; but that is an exception to the rule. We don’t define humans by the rare exceptions. Generally speaking, humans have eyes that allow us to see colors, and females have XX Chromosomes. Are there exceptions? Yes; but those exceptions are deformities some humans suffer and a doctor can figure out what went wrong with the person to cause this deformity.

 

[crossfire]

I disagree. To go by that standard it would be impossible to describe anything because there are always gonna be exceptions to the rule. Just as it would be accurate to say humans have eyes that allow them to see colors, we recognize there are those born colorblind; but that is an exception to the rule. We don’t define humans by the rare exceptions. Generally speaking, humans have eyes that allow us to see colors, and females have XX Chromosomes. Are there exceptions? Yes; but those exceptions are deformities some humans suffer and a doctor can figure out what went wrong with the person to cause this deformity.

So an XY fetus that develops into a perfectly formed female phenotype is considered a deformity?

 

[crossfire]

It is my understanding if a woman has the Y Chromosome as a result of Swyer syndrome, biologists will still consider her a biological female.

That she developed into a woman instead of a man is called Swyer syndrome. She didn't obtain the Y chromosome because of Swyer syndrome. She started out with a Y chromosome, but developed into a female biological phenotype because one or more possible incidents silenced the signal to develop into a male phenotype and instead developed into the default female phenotype. (This outcome is known as Swyer syndrome.)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Just as it would be accurate to say humans have eyes that allow them to see colors

That's a lot of animals, with many of them being able to see colors that are the part of the electromagnetic spectrum that humans call visible light.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I disagree.

You've already acknowledged that a person with XY chromosomes can still be classified as a biological woman, so you obviously DON'T disagree.

To go by that standard it would be impossible to describe anything because there are always gonna be exceptions to the rule.

No, it just means that the descriptor you are using doesn't rely on singular specific traits, but is instead more nuanced and complicated. Like practically all descriptors.

Just as it would be accurate to say humans have eyes that allow them to see colors, we recognize there are those born colorblind;

Right. But would it therefore be accurate to DEFINE a human as having the ability to see in colour in such a way as colourblind (or generally blind) people would not belong in that category? No. The only way around this, therefore, is to accept that while humans often can see colour it is not necessarily a defining trait of being a human.

but that is an exception to the rule.

Then why not do away with the rule and just accept that these descriptors only describe variable and non-exclusive traits?

We don’t define humans by the rare exceptions.

We don't define humans by any rigid definition that can exclude a huge number of humans.

Generally speaking, humans have eyes that allow us to see colors, and females have XX Chromosomes. Are there exceptions? Yes;

Therefore, it is accurate to say that it is true generally speaking, but it is NOT accurate to say that those traits not existing in any individual or group DISQUALIFIES those people from being either human or female. So say that.

but those exceptions are deformities some humans suffer and a doctor can figure out what went wrong with the person to cause this deformity.

It doesn't matter. A human with deformities is still a human. A woman with deformities is still a woman. The point is not that there are exceptions, it's that those exceptions don't DISQUALIFY THEM FROM THE CATEGORY, so the category MUST mean something more than "humans can see colour" or "biological females have XX chromosomes". You have already acknowledged this, so you must therefore admit that the definitional approach to women as "having XX chromosomes" is simply untrue, even if you only admit that the exceptions are rare or "deformities". It still means that the CATEGORY is broader than the definition you are giving.

Rather than jumping through hoops to try and justify using a definition that is clearly and admittedly inaccurate, why not just adopt a more accurate definition?

 

[Kfox]

So an XY fetus that develops into a perfectly formed female phenotype is considered a deformity?

If the Y chromosome is the result of a deformity; yes.

 

[Kfox]

That she developed into a woman instead of a man is called Swyer syndrome. She didn't obtain the Y chromosome because of Swyer syndrome. She started out with a Y chromosome, but developed into a female biological phenotype because one or more possible incidents silenced the signal to develop into a male phenotype and instead developed into the default female phenotype. (This outcome is known as Swyer syndrome.)

If this is perfectly normal, why do they call it a syndrome?

 

[Kfox]

That's a lot of animals, with many of them being able to see colors that are the part of the electromagnetic spectrum that humans call visible light.

What does this have to do with anything?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What does this have to do with anything?

By your definition dogs, cats, eagles, elephants and many more are human because they can see colors. So it's rather useless to define humans in such a way as it's so common throughout the animal kingdom.

 

[crossfire]

If this is perfectly normal, why do they call it a syndrome?

In medical terms, a disease is a medical condition that has a clearly defined reason behind it, whereas a syndrome refers to a group of correlating symptoms that run together that may have differing causal factors between individuals experiencing this group of correlating symptoms. One well-known example is Pre-Menstrual Syndrome, aka PMS, which is a very real but perfectly normal group of correlating symptoms that run together and are experienced after ovulation but before menstruation.

 

[Kfox]

Therefore, it is accurate to say that it is true generally speaking, but it is NOT accurate to say that those traits not existing in any individual or group DISQUALIFIES those people from being either human or female. So say that.

Why? Why is it not accurate to say a person with “Y” chromosome with the exception of someone with Swyer syndrome; is not female?

 

[Kfox]

By your definition dogs, cats, eagles, elephants and many more are human because they can see colors.

If I said only humans can see colors, what you said would make sense. But I did not say that.

 

[Kfox]

In medical terms, a disease is a medical condition that has a clearly defined reason behind it, whereas a syndrome refers to a group of correlating symptoms that run together that may have differing causal factors between individuals experiencing this group of correlating symptoms. One well-known example is Pre-Menstrual Syndrome, aka PMS, which is a very real but perfectly normal group of correlating symptoms that run together and are experienced after ovulation but before menstruation.

Is PMS common? Or normal. Common being that it happens frequently; normal meaning there is no reason to find a cure because it is a normal human function.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If I said only humans can see colors, what you said would make sense. But I did not say that.

Regardless thats still not the strongest or best definition available for defining a human.

Is PMS common? Or normal. Common being that it happens frequently; normal meaning there is no reason to find a cure because it is a normal human function.

Just because it's normal for many women why would there not be a reason to relieve symptoms?

 

[crossfire]

Is PMS common?

yes

Or normal.

yes

Common being that it happens frequently;

In some women it happens like clockwork

normal meaning there is no reason to find a cure because it is a normal human function.

You can regulate your hormones with birth control pills to help alleviate PMS, but the long-term side effects from the birth control pills can be more serious than PMS. Pick your poison.

 

[Kfox]

Regardless thats still not the strongest or best definition available for defining a human.

I never said it was the best, I just mentioned one of a million different aspects that apply to humans.

Just because it's normal for many women why would there not be a reason to relieve symptoms?

It is not normal for a perfectly healthy woman to walk around in a constant state of pain/misery. IOW PMS is not normal thus the attempts to cure it.

 

[Kfox]

yes


yes


In some women it happens like clockwork


You can regulate your hormones with birth control pills to help alleviate PMS, but the long-term side effects from the birth control pills can be more serious than PMS. Pick your poison.

The fact that it is an afliction that needs to be fixed means it is not normal. Diabetes happens a lot! Does that make it normal? No. Just because something happens often, does not make it a normal function of the human body.

 

[crossfire]

The fact that it is an afliction that needs to be fixed means it is not normal. Diabetes happens a lot! Does that make it normal? No. Just because something happens often, does not make it a normal function of the human body.

Diabetes is a disease with a traceable cause, as per the definition in post #152.

Premenstrual syndrome is a normal function. It's tied to the normal hormonal cycle of menstruating women. The use of hormonal birth control pills messes with this normal hormonal cycle, resulting in vastly decreased fertility (hence the name birth control pills) along fewer PMS symptoms. (as well as a lot of other not-so-desirable side effects.)

Are you making the claim that the hormonal roller coaster ride tied to the female reproductive cycle is not normal? Is it a defect of some sort?