• treefrog@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 days ago

    Is an intersex person biologically male and female then?

    Is a person with xy chromosomes and a vagina but no penis female?

    That’s the issue. Male and female sex assignments are a binary based in language, social relations, and the opinion of the Dr making the assignment based on the information they have. And a binary doesn’t allow for all of the variations we’re aware of, let alone the ones we’re not.

    Hence, assigned sex. Not biological sex.

    • Rekorse
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      You are claiming that biological male and female has no use because of the edge cases where its not so clear, but its still useful most the time.

      Besides, assigned at birth is pretty clear too. Doesnt say assigned at birth and can never change or assigned at birth and we are super sure.

      You can’t just say people can’t use a bunch of words because transphobes have used it as an insult. The words are still meaningful, and hateful people will say literally anything. Why give them any power in the first place?

      If someone says some awful transphobic shit, then fuck their opinion and fuck them and move on with your day. They aren’t suddenly some messiah giving you gospel. Dont let them live rent free in your head.

      • treefrog@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        I feel like I didn’t explain the position very well earlier and I think that the initial poster whi called out the word wasn’t as gentle about it as they could have been, which set the tone for the conversation.

        It is used in common speech a lot, and because of that I think people should get a lot of grace around it. I mean shit it’s on the planned Parenthood website.

        However it’s really not a very precise word. And due to that lack of precision, it is being weaponized by fascism to enact discriminatory legislation.

        I pulled this quote off of Reddit and they do a much better job of breaking it down than I did.

        Everyone has the biological and genetic capability for both androgenic and estrogenic secondary sex characteristics.

        If I’m “biologically male” why am I able to grow tits just like any other woman? I may have once been some sense of biologically male, but my genotype is capable of producing female phenotypes just like anyone else with the necessary exposure to corresponding sex steroids.

        DNA has no sex. We all have the genes to be either. The only real difference is whether a single little gene called SRY is on or off. And even then, that can be fuzzy too.

        It’s just a bad descriptor of a very complex thing. Sex isn’t immutable, gender is whatever, and the only reason to bring someone’s “biology” into it is if you either misunderstand it or are being intentionally harmful.

      • bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        Yeah the use of the word is in relation to the edge cases, where it is not useful.

        These discussions are around the edge cases. Use the accepted terms that experts use to refer to these people.

        • Rekorse
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          I usually just use the terms each person tells me to refer to them by, but I guess I could ask the experts instead.

      • treefrog@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        3 days ago

        It’s not about it being an insult. It’s about being skeptical of the existence of trans people and using language to affect our very real material conditions, like access to healthcare or using bathrooms we feel safe in.

        Assigned sex at birth is both more accurate, and more inclusive.

        • nomous@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          Hey look the firing squad is starting to bend in towards itself.

          We gotta make sure we use the right words before we can even begin to have a productive conversation, if those words change every 6 months that’s just too bad, use the current one or you’re a bigot.

          • treefrog@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            I didn’t call anyone a bigot. In fact I took that comment as a good faith question and answered in good faith.

            Who’s turning the firing squad around? The trans people trying to educate? Or the ‘allies’ who would prefer not to listen?

            • nomous@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              Who’s turning the firing squad around? The trans people trying to educate? Or the ‘allies’ who would prefer not to listen?

              “Leftists” as usual, clearly.

        • Rekorse
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          Why would you assume I’m skeptical that trans people exist?

          I’m skeptical of proposed solutions, but I am with anything. Put another way, I know the problem is real, but I wouldnt say the causes or solutions are well understood.

          Additionally I’m concerned with the social pressure that is put on people to shut up and accept whatever a trans person tells you. That makes me skeptical that people are arguing unbiased.

          Lastly, I dont like that we seem to be pushing ahead without proper scientific review (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/03/health/aap-gender-affirming-care-evidence-review.html).

          I really hope we have all guessed right already, and I understand some might feel they have run out of time, but to me theres a lot of unanswered or unsatisfyingly answered questions.

          • treefrog@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            I was trying to explain how it’s being weaponized. As I went into in my follow up post, it’s a very commonly used term, and I don’t assume ill intent when it is used. People were asking what is wrong with it, and I was trying to explain.

            But I don’t think the original person who called the word out is right that it’s hate speech. It has become a right wing dog whistle for exclusion. But it’s a common usage, even on websites like planned parenthood it shows up. Calling it hate speech is an unfair stretch. Intention matters here.

            Personally, I don’t feel it’s a very helpful concept. I don’t fit neatly into any of the boxes aside from maybe intersex. I have sexual characteristics of both so my biological sex would be both.

            But the debate about my rights are framed as male or female. Sarah McBride is being attacked for her bathroom choice based on ‘biological sex’. And her sex isn’t anyone’s business but her Drs and people she shares it with to begin with. Plus what they mean is cis women’s only bathrooms, because I’m sure they don’t want trans masc people there either, and it’s obvious segregation.

    • GrammarPolice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      You didn’t even debate my point. I was only referring to amab and afabs. I don’t care about the edge cases because they’re not part of the point I’m making. It’s been well known that individuals with XY chromosomes and a penis are biologically male a.k.a amab, so what’s the difference?

      • treefrog@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        I’m asking my own questions to critique your position. I didn’t ignore it. This is a debate technique that goes back at least to Socrates.

        Is an xy person born with a vagina biologically male? Biologically female? Biologically neither? Or biologically both?

        Edit: Oh I see, the mistake I made was thinking that your initial question was in good faith and now that I see that it’s not I will just put you on block.