Response to a post (About myself being Gender Fluid)

[ImmortalFlame]

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

That's not what you have been saying. You previously gave the definition without exceptions. And since there ARE exceptions, clearly the XX chromosome is not a particularly good yardstick. That's the point. For every thing you have listed as being a defining trait for being a biological woman, there are exceptions. So why not just accept that this isn't as simple as "if you have x, y and z you are a woman"?

 

[SomeRandom]

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.

I dunno. I remember back in my high school biology class there was an distinct effort made to make us understand that chromosomes aren’t actually used as a definitive characteristic of sex outcomes (for lack of a better phrase.)
It’s a characteristic sure, one that can certainly inform the outcome.
But the textbook/curriculum seemed to make it out to be just one small facet that isn’t really that “integral.”
And my time speaking to folks who are big biology nerds in one way or another only strengthens this message for me.
Now I’ll freely admit that I'm a layman. So please take my words as words of a dummy lol
But I will say that had I been using chromosomes as a definitive characteristic for the human sex outcomes actually would have gotten me an F on my biology exams back in the day. For what that’s worth

 

[Kfox]

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?

I don't know what causes PMS, but whatever it is, it appears to be an affliction that needs a cure.

 

[Kfox]

That's not what you have been saying. You previously gave the definition without exceptions. And since there ARE exceptions, clearly the XX chromosome is not a particularly good yardstick. That's the point. For every thing you have listed as being a defining trait for being a biological woman, there are exceptions.

Initially I was unaware of Swyer syndrome. Once it was brought to my attention that there is an exception even to sex chromosomes, I changed my position on the issue to include this exception.

So why not just accept that this isn't as simple as "if you have x, y and z you are a woman"?

Because then you are left without a definition of what it means to be a woman. I believe the ability to distinguish men from women is still necessary in today's society.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Initially I was unaware of Swyer syndrome. Once it was brought to my attention that there is an exception even to sex chromosomes, I changed my position on the issue to include this exception.

Because then you are left without a definition of what it means to be a woman.

No, you aren't. You're just left with a definition that is more nuanced and broad, like literally all designations we use. There are no simple, clear-cut definitions for practically anything we can define, especially not when it comes to something as complicated and multifaceted as biological sex.

I believe the ability to distinguish men from women is still necessary in today's society.

You can still do that whilst having a definition that is broad and inclusive. It's not that difficult. There is no definition of "door" that exclusively applies to only things we would ever refer to as doors and excludes anything we would not refer to as a door, but that doesn't stop us from being able to distinguish a door from anything else.

 

[crossfire]

I don't know what causes PMS, but whatever it is, it appears to be an affliction that needs a cure.

I just told you what it was associated with. Normal female reproductive cycle is an affliction that needs a cure. Understood.

 

[crossfire]

Initially I was unaware of Swyer syndrome. Once it was brought to my attention that there is an exception even to sex chromosomes, I changed my position on the issue to include this exception.

Because then you are left without a definition of what it means to be a woman. I believe the ability to distinguish men from women is still necessary in today's society.

And since there is no single defining trait of what it means to be a woman, the definition will differ from person to person. Who gets to define who is a woman and who is a man in today's society?

 

[Kfox]

No, you aren't. You're just left with a definition that is more nuanced and broad, like literally all designations we use. There are no simple, clear-cut definitions for practically anything we can define,

I didn't say it was a "clear cut" definition, I said a person born without a "Y" sex chromosome is a woman unless they got the "Y" as a result of some type of disorder/syndrome.

You can still do that whilst having a definition that is broad and inclusive. It's not that difficult. There is no definition of "door" that exclusively applies to only things we would ever refer to as doors and excludes anything we would not refer to as a door, but that doesn't stop us from being able to distinguish a door from anything else.

So how would you define a woman?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

Ok. For teens and young adults acne is a normal thing. As we age the bones starting to creak and pop is normal. Good or bad, normal is a statistical term. It's stating an average. A normal spring storm. A normal Monday.
Normal have to mean it's good or bad.

 

[Kfox]

I just told you what it was associated with. Normal female reproductive cycle is an affliction that needs a cure. Understood.

I didn't speak of what it was associated with, I said I don't know what caused it. Do you know?

And since there is no single defining trait of what it means to be a woman, the definition will differ from person to person. Who gets to define who is a woman and who is a man in today's society?

Society should define it by the normal differences between male vs female. Just because there are exceptions to the rule doesn’t mean we shouldn’t recognize there are differences. To recognize the one in a million chances of a woman having a “Y” sex chromosome as the result of a disorder does not mean we should ignore it as an exception giving the impression that it is the rule.

 

[Kfox]

Ok. For teens and young adults acne is a normal thing. As we age the bones starting to creak and pop is normal. Good or bad, normal is a statistical term. It's stating an average. A normal spring storm. A normal Monday.
Normal have to mean it's good or bad.

Good point! Perhaps that's why acne and bones creaking and popping as we age is not considered a syndrome or disorder.

 

[Kfox]

I dunno. I remember back in my high school biology class there was an distinct effort made to make us understand that chromosomes aren’t actually used as a definitive characteristic of sex outcomes (for lack of a better phrase.)
It’s a characteristic sure, one that can certainly inform the outcome.
But the textbook/curriculum seemed to make it out to be just one small facet that isn’t really that “integral.”
And my time speaking to folks who are big biology nerds in one way or another only strengthens this message for me.
Now I’ll freely admit that I'm a layman. So please take my words as words of a dummy lol
But I will say that had I been using chromosomes as a definitive characteristic for the human sex outcomes actually would have gotten me an F on my biology exams back in the day. For what that’s worth

So why are they called Sex Chromosomes?

Sex Chromosome

A sex chromosome is a type of chromosome that participates in sex determination.

www.genome.gov

 

[crossfire]

I didn't speak of what it was associated with, I said I don't know what caused it. Do you know?

see these posts

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.

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?

Here is a visual graph of the hormonal roller coaster of the normal female reproductive cycle. PMS occurs during the Luteal phase, when progesterone levels are high:

Looking at the hormonal graph above, it is easy to see why cis women have more leeway when it comes to gender fluidity, as expressed in the opening post.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I didn't say it was a "clear cut" definition, I said a person born without a "Y" sex chromosome is a woman unless they got the "Y" as a result of some type of disorder/syndrome.

It's what you have been arguing all this time. That we should refer to each other by biological sex, rather than gender, because you see biological sex as a simpler, more clear-cut metric. But it isn't. For every example of something you previously defined as being a necessary trait to be able to define someone as a biological woman, you have now acknowledged that there are exceptions that don't exempt people from that category.

So, you're just ending up back where you started. Why not just people people be what they are and stop getting hung up about either gender or biological sex?

So how would you define a woman?

Someone who identifies as a woman.

 

[SomeRandom]

So why are they called Sex Chromosomes?

Sex Chromosome

A sex chromosome is a type of chromosome that participates in sex determination.

www.genome.gov

You may have to ask an actual biologist that if I’m being honest lol

My layman guess?
Iirc my biology textbook correctly.

Chromosomes impact the outcome of one’s sex characteristics (inside and out.)
Never said otherwise.
However, the chromosome is not the only factor and indeed it is not the be all and end all determining factor. People can and are born with sex characteristics that are “opposite” of their chromosomes. This outcome is freely acknowledged by biology and indeed has its very own biological category (intersex or sometimes referred to as pseudohermaphroditism)
Fun fact, statistically speaking intersex conditions are about as frequent as redheads in the human species. It may even be underreported. So it’s actually not that infrequent. Certain intersex conditions may be. But the category as a whole actually isn’t that infrequent.

Socially speaking though, such individuals are usually expected to fit into the gender categories of their respective society.
This typically involves what is commonly referred to in modern times as “gender affirming care” (so hormones and puberty blockers and whatnot) which has been observed for literally decades at this point.
And indeed surgery often takes place at birth, if there is more than one outside sex characteristic. Which can absolutely happen.
Though there seems to be growing pushback as it’s argued that such surgery is not always medically necessary.
(I’m a layman so I couldn’t tell you with certainty if that’s true or not. I’m merely reporting on what I’m seeing. Full disclaimer lol)

In other words, a chromosome is merely one factor, it is not actually a deciding factor necessarily. If that makes sense?

 

[Kfox]

It's what you have been arguing all this time. That we should refer to each other by biological sex, rather than gender, because you see biological sex as a simpler, more clear-cut metric. But it isn't. For every example of something you previously defined as being a necessary trait to be able to define someone as a biological woman, you have now acknowledged that there are exceptions that don't exempt people from that category.

Are you kidding me??? How many genders are there? 100? 200? How many biological sexes are there? 2 (some say 3 because they include intersex). There is no comparison. Biology is real, gender is make-believe; the result of whatever might be going on inside of somebody’s head. With biology, if I mistake a he for a she based on appearance, that is an easy correction. But when it comes to gender…. What does an Xi look like and how is that look different than a Ze?
Gender used to be tied to biology, but now for some people it no longer is. For those people it is much easier to address them according to their biology than the craziness and confusion associated with gender.

So, you're just ending up back where you started. Why not just people people be what they are and stop getting hung up about either gender or biological sex?

I have no problem letting people be what they want to be; the problem is when they insist I be what they want me to be.

Someone who identifies as a woman.

So if you identify as a woman, that makes you a woman? See how crazy that sounds? (actually you probably think it makes perfect sense) Shall we take this line of thinking to it’s logical conclusion? How about if I am white but identify as black? Does that make me black? (Rachael Dolezal found out the hard way that it does not) How about if I identify as a 6 year old even though I’ve lived for 30 years? How about if I am a biological human but identify as a horse? Why does transgender make sense, but transracial, or transage does not? This is why I find it better to address according to biology; because the way gender is being used has become absurd IMO.

 

[Kfox]

a chromosome is merely one factor, it is not actually a deciding factor necessarily. If that makes sense?

Are there cases when nothing has gone wrong (no disease, no affliction, no disorder) and it is not a deciding factor?

 

[Orbit]

So why are they called Sex Chromosomes?

Sex Chromosome

A sex chromosome is a type of chromosome that participates in sex determination.

www.genome.gov

It says "participates in" NOT "determines".

 

[SomeRandom]

Are there cases when nothing has gone wrong (no disease, no affliction, no disorder) and it is not a deciding factor?

Honestly?
I don’t know

Though I have noticed a rather marked difference in the usages of language between science types and layman.

See what I’ve gathered by hanging out with science nerds for years is this. In general, science actually tends to use words a lot more “benignly” than what is generally interpreted by layman. Which is kind of interesting

So for example, to a doctor a word like “disorder” might actually be taken as a rather benign word, depending on the circumstance. The word “disorder” specifically isn’t necessarily seen as something inherently abhorrent or even negative. Again, depending on the circumstance.
But typically it’s merely a descriptive word used to describe something that just doesn’t happen frequently. It just sort of exists and that’s it.
But the term is taken far more negatively by laymen in general. It’s a “bogey word” really. Even though that’s not how it’s used in an academic sense.

Like left handedness was for a while designated as an “abnormality” in science. This term wasn’t supposed to have any real negative connotations to it at all, but society at large deemed it as such. Due to the word (and culture, obviously lol.)
As a result, scientists had to stop using the term not because the field had any negative views of the term “abnormality.”
But really because laymen in general merely assumed that the term meant that it was an inherently bad phenomenon. But that wasn’t how scientists viewed the phenomenon or even the term itself

Does that make sense? I’m trying my hardest to explain the phenomenon but I am an idiot layman at the end of the day lol

 

[Kfox]

Honestly?
I don’t know

Though I have noticed a rather marked difference in the usages of language between science types and layman.

See what I’ve gathered by hanging out with science nerds for years is this. In general, science actually tends to use words a lot more “benignly” than what is generally interpreted by layman. Which is kind of interesting

So for example, to a doctor a word like “disorder” might actually be taken as a rather benign word, depending on the circumstance. The word “disorder” specifically isn’t necessarily seen as something inherently abhorrent or even negative. Again, depending on the circumstance.
But typically it’s merely a descriptive word used to describe something that just doesn’t happen frequently. It just sort of exists and that’s it.
But the term is taken far more negatively by laymen in general. It’s a “bogey word” really. Even though that’s not how it’s used in an academic sense.

Like left handedness was for a while designated as an “abnormality” in science. This term wasn’t supposed to have any real negative connotations to it at all, but society at large deemed it as such. Due to the word (and culture, obviously lol.)
As a result, scientists had to stop using the term not because the field had any negative views of the term “abnormality.”
But really because laymen in general merely assumed that the term meant that it was an inherently bad phenomenon. But that wasn’t how scientists viewed the phenomenon or even the term itself

Does that make sense? I’m trying my hardest to explain the phenomenon but I am an idiot layman at the end of the day lol

Yes! What you're saying does make sense. I think the problem is that some people seem to think that because there are exceptions to the rule, that means there are no rules. let’s say the rule says mammals procreate by the male supplying the sperm and the female giving birth. However if a male has the inability to provide sperm due to a medical reason, or a female mammal is unable to give birth due to medical reasons, this does not negate the rule that mammals procreate by the male supplying the sperm and the female giving birth. You made an excellent point about left handed people, but I don't think that is the result of a medical condition. Does that make sense?