ppp
Well-Known Member
So...you check chromosomes and hormones before you address anyone with gendered titles or pronouns?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is the definition of a "Woman"?
- Thread starter Dogknox20
- Start date
VoidCat
Use any and all pronouns including neo and it/it's
Fun fact...many cis woman have microchimeraism where some of their chromosomes are XY-
From
Fetal microchimerism and maternal health during and after pregnancy.
Pregnancy is another source of microchimeric cells, implicated by studies in women identifying Y-chromosomes from a male fetus. Male and female fetal cells cross the placenta in equal numbers, but studies of microchimerism rely on the demonstration of the Y chromosome as proof of principle.
Fetal microchimerism is defined as low levels of fetal cells harbouring in maternal blood and tissues during and for years after pregnancy. It has been proposed as ‘a state of balance between host versus graft and graft versus host reactions, leading to the acceptance of the allogeneic fetus’.10 Presumably, the placental immune suppression that is needed to maintain the allogeneic pregnancy also helps establish microchimerism. This immune suppression of pregnancy may remain for several months after delivery, allowing persisting fetal cells time to establish themselves.3 All parous women thus become chimeric.
@JustGeorge for example is a ciswoman has had male kids. Its possible she could be a microchimera without knowing it. It's not something many people test for. It dont really affect health from my understanding. It's unknown how common this is but considered to be very common. If she is would that make her less of a woman?
From
Fetal microchimerism and maternal health during and after pregnancy.
Pregnancy is another source of microchimeric cells, implicated by studies in women identifying Y-chromosomes from a male fetus. Male and female fetal cells cross the placenta in equal numbers, but studies of microchimerism rely on the demonstration of the Y chromosome as proof of principle.
Fetal microchimerism is defined as low levels of fetal cells harbouring in maternal blood and tissues during and for years after pregnancy. It has been proposed as ‘a state of balance between host versus graft and graft versus host reactions, leading to the acceptance of the allogeneic fetus’.10 Presumably, the placental immune suppression that is needed to maintain the allogeneic pregnancy also helps establish microchimerism. This immune suppression of pregnancy may remain for several months after delivery, allowing persisting fetal cells time to establish themselves.3 All parous women thus become chimeric.
@JustGeorge for example is a ciswoman has had male kids. Its possible she could be a microchimera without knowing it. It's not something many people test for. It dont really affect health from my understanding. It's unknown how common this is but considered to be very common. If she is would that make her less of a woman?
Last edited:
ppp
Well-Known Member
Traditional is not equivalent to truth. Tradition is the worst positive reason to do anything.
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
Tradition has nothing to do with it.
David Young
Member
It's fairly simple to define a woman by using the biological definition and a biological cascade for when there is less than the usual data.
The ones which produce ova are female, if they have a functioning gamete-producing organ. The ones that produce sperm are male. If they don't have such an organ, the features most in common with having one would point either to being male or female. This does of course mean that there are some occasions when an adult human could externally look as if they are one sex when in reality they are the opposite one.
The ones which produce ova are female, if they have a functioning gamete-producing organ. The ones that produce sperm are male. If they don't have such an organ, the features most in common with having one would point either to being male or female. This does of course mean that there are some occasions when an adult human could externally look as if they are one sex when in reality they are the opposite one.
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
There may be threads but try saying something they do not agree with and they will shoot you down. No such thing as free speech.Apparently, RF does since there are many threads discussing the issue.
Spiderman
Veteran Member
I learned that in grade school.
That was a long time ago.
I don't think it is still taught in grade school any longer.
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
Canyou give an example of a human with male organs who was actually female. And not just someone who calls himself female but was medically diagnosed as female.
Spiderman
Veteran Member
Sounds reasonable and rational to me
You are confusing free speech with wrong and flawed statements that are exempt from correction.
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
It is not taught in school because now we let people decide what sex they want to be. It is not what is between the legs that counts but what is between the ears.
VoidCat
Use any and all pronouns including neo and it/it's
Ever heard of de la Chapelle syndrome
If you consider XX to be female and XY to be male(which ain't a good gauge) then this person would be female.
But they would have male genitals
Last edited:
Spiderman
Veteran Member
That's an interesting point. Could such a person ever be identified medically and biologically on their birth certificate, as the opposite of what the message their organs tells everyone they are.
I think the answer to the question in the OP lies there.
It is a hard question if we go by current science rather than tradition and long-standing norms, though.
The strictly biological definition you quoted doesn't account for transgendered people, since it equates sex with gender. Such a definition is both scientifically incorrect and too simplistic in the context of state law that is supposed to encompass different demographics among the population.
ppp
Well-Known Member
The hell it doesn't. It is almost all tradition.
It's not just this simplistic and narrow view, it is also about the stew of hormones in the blood and tissues that affect how the brain and other body parts function.
You're too focused on how things appear, and about how they function inside where you can't see.
Neither can modern science unless the context of the question is rigorously defined. Most gendered traits are not set in an objective or scientific foundation, and we now know that sex and gender are different things.
It's a good thing that the SCOTUS nominee didn't rush for an oversimplified answer and was both direct and informed enough to refuse to give one.
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
This whole thing is all about people wanting to be something they are not. There MAY be one in several million babies born that have some medical condition that makes their sex difficult to determine. But go to any high school in the country today and you will find a number of kids who were identified at birth as one sex but now claim to be the other sex. It is not a medical problem but a mental problem. That of course is my opinion but that does not make it any less true. Read this fast because Putin's censors will be on it soon. No free speech here.That's an interesting point. Could such a person ever be identified medically and biologically on their birth certificate, as the opposite of what the message their organs tells everyone they are.
I think the answer to the question in the OP lies there.
Right, the question was vague and could have numerous answers. It's like asking someone how much a car costs. How do you answer? Toyota or Ferrari?