102
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
102 points (91.8% liked)
politics
19072 readers
3667 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
OK, so you recognize intersex people. Good. Let's start there. So we can have people who appear like men or women who actually have the genitals of the opposite (or both), right? OK, so what caused that development? Usually it's related to chromosomes, but that isn't actually the cause. The thing that creates the differentiation is what hormones they have. The chromosomes usually are what controls their output though, so it's correlated.
OK, so we recognize that hormones are the thing that actually causes this. What happens when we artificially control what hormones are in the body? Does it matter what could have happened if we subvert that and control it manually? Which part is biologically deciding their gender? Isn't it the thing actually being expressed? If that's the case, then aren't they biologically women?
There's more to biology than you learned in your high school bio class (that you probably failed). "Basic biology" is, as the name implies, basic and not a full understanding. Anyone appealing to "basic biology" is admitting they don't actually understand any more than that.
(Just FYI so you can know where I'm coming from, I'm a cisgendered straight white man. This doesn't effect me directly, so I'm not arguing from self preservation. This shouldn't matter, but some people would probably discount the opinions of trans people as "arguing from emotion" or some bullshit just to ignore them.)
Biologically male or female would be more correct as gender is a social construct. Also the term is referring to their original status pre-hormonal or other gender affirming care so no.
Sorry to disappoint you but I have never failed a subject and have completed higher education.
You’re the only person here who has used that term.
We already have a far less problematic set of terms for that: Assigned Male at Birth (AMAB) and Assigned Female at Birth (AFAB). "Biological male" is a scientifically misleading phrase that bigots invented to slander trans people and it should not be used by anyone.
The phrase seems to be very clear in meaning, could you tell me what you find misleading about it?
This was already explained to you earlier in the thread. "Male" and "female" are, biologically speaking, not distinct and mutually exclusive categories in humans. This is the case naturally, and the terms become even less useful once you account for those who modify parts of their biology, whether by surgery or by artificially triggering natural biological processes, to bring those parts into congruence with other parts of their biology.
"Biological male" is a slur. It has no basis in science. It's a term coined by bigots to misgender trans people with sciencey-sounding words so their abuse looks reasonable at a glance, in much the same way that proponents of Scientific Racism use pseudoscience in an attempt to legitimize white supremacy.
They are and you repeating a claim without evidence does nothing.
Sexual dimorphism is real and artificial means of changing or replicating some parts of sexual dimorphism does not invalidate the underlying biology at play.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism
Male and female are so indistinguishable that it’s possible to identify them by their pelvis alone.
Unfortunate origins aside male is jot a gender and therefore not misgendering. Biological man is misgendering.
What do you think will be the outcome of arguing that sex and gender are the same? That’s literally the side of the argument you have chosen.
Either they’re separate and gender can be changed or they’re the same… and you disagree with trans rights.
Because it's a meaninglessly vague phrase that is just a mirror into what you already believe.
Which biological process do you think that term refers to? If you can't pinpoint a single specific one, and have that make sense and have every person agree with you, then it's clearly not useful.
The only thing thats useful about it is it allows someone to be a bigot and act like they're intellectually superior (while also managing to be less precise and generally incorrect).
So my answer must be simple, when discussing a complex topic, but you will circle back to claims of complexity to dismiss anything I say.
That is hardly a good faith response.
I would say it is the sum of biological processes that result in the expected sexual dimorphism observed within the majority of the population, resulting in biologically male or female traits.
It only needs to be simple if you say it should be simple. Biological male is a bad term because it implies some simple binary, which doesn't exist. If it does exist, then you should be able to tell me specifically which biological process it refers to.
Fine answer. OK, so when someone takes HRT they are modifying these biological processes to fit with their chosen gender, correct? So they are now biologically their chosen gender, according to your definition, right? They are not the gender assigned at birth anymore.
HRT is gender affirming care and is not a ‘sex change’ which is outdated and offensive.
It’s odd that you’re trying to ‘debunk’ what you see as a bigoted term and you’ve come full circle to something even worse.
You should look up the difference between sex and gender before you continue arguing down this route.
I never said HRT was "sex change" though I would argue it potentially changes your sex, based on some definition of sex.
I did in another comment refer to a sex change surgery, which may be what you're referring to. Yeah, that has other names, but the point of that comment was the language is something we're working backwards to, and not something we should work forward from, unlike what you implied with your comment that was on. Whatever it's called, that's not an argument for what effect it has. We change the names of things as we evolve our understanding. We don't understand based on what things are called.
I know the difference between sex and gender. My point has been consistently that sex is hazy. It is not a binary, and calling someone "biologically male" who does not want to be called that is a snobby way to be an asshole, particularly because "biologically male" doesn't mean much, if anything. Assigned gender at birth is clear and there are no questions, so use that. If they're undergoing HRT and/or gender reassignment surgery, their biology is no longer that of their birth, so they are not "biologically male." Do you agree with this, or are you going to continue arguing that you were totally right the whole time? If you think you were right, which part of biology is the sex identifier? You haven't answered that.
I have already very clearly articulated my answer to this. Go back up a couple of comments and read it again if you need to.
Then you are arguing against the prevailing medical and scientific opinions, gender affirming care can assist with aligning secondary sex characteristics but does not change the patients sex.
It has long been an argument of the trans community that gender and sex are different, which Im not disputing at all but you are trying to make unclear.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/feminizing-hormone-therapy/about/pac-20385096
For your convenience you can check the difference between primary and secondary sex characteristics here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_characteristics
The sum of them does not make a binary definition of sex, nor does it make an unchanging one, as I've said before. If you want an unchanging binary definition you need to define what that would refer to.
I agree, gender is not sex. However, sex is not just something you're born with, as we've clearly seen with intersex characteristics and also being able to change the body with HRT.
I know the difference between primary and secondary sex characteristics. I have said nothing that should indicate otherwise. You're just trying to be the "well actually..." person. Obviously primary sex characteristics are not the definition of sex. If they were then ~~men~~ males who have their testicals removed wouldn't be ~~men~~ males and ~~women~~ females who have their overies removed wouldn't be ~~women~~ females. You agree that's wrong, correct? (I know, asking these questions is pointless because you just ignore them, but hopefully they make you think.)
Sex is many things, which includes things effected by HRT and surgery. Saying "biological sex" to refer to sex assigned at birth is dismissive of this, right? (Not to mention it's totally wrong if we agree sex many characteristics.) If so, we should avoid the term, correct? It's not the same as gender assigned at birth, right?
Edit: men => males, women => females, because I could forsee the "technically..." coming.
Artificial changes to a body are just that, artificial.
Inserting an rfid chip under my skin doesn’t make me a credit card. Taking some hormones doesn’t make you female.
This incessant boundary shifting and virtue signalling that everyone must play along with the artificial and pretend it is reality will never see broad public acceptance.
Changing gender is real, changing sex is not and you could go ahead and provide a definition of sex that is holistic and entirely changeable with current technology if you disagree.
It's not artificial. The hormones aren't native to the person, but it's not changing their body by replacing components with mechanical things. Your body has different amounts of testosterone and estrogen as is. It's just changing those amounts artificially, but the changing the body makes following that are natural biological processes.
In your analogy though, how would giving you the function go a credit card not make you a credit card? If the effect is identical, then how are you not that thing? Sure, you'd also be other things, but that doesn't exclude being another. If you have the outcome of being able to purchase things using your credit account, you are in effect a credit card. If you have the outcome of male attributes, you are in effect a male.
Again, you're arguing for some strict binary "biological" definition of sex. The primary sex characteristics, that you seem so fond of, can be removed. If this is your requirement, what happens when these are removed? You dodged this and are implying an unchanging definition now, so primary sex characteristics are not the requirement? If not, what is and what effect does HRT play on it now?
And therefore are artificial. Take them away and what happens? Secondary sex characteristics return to their baseline…. Mostly.
I provided you with my definition of biological sex. If you are so interested in continuing this discussion the least you could do is provide your definition as I requested.
I would still be a human, because changing one part does not change the whole.
A poor argument given that FTM cannot get real testes, again being artificially mimicked at best.
But not functionally replicated by artificial means. Also I haven’t based my definition of sex, or argument against sex change being possible, on primary sex characteristics.
You do seem fond of this ‘counter argument’ though. Shame its not counter to anything I have said.
I have only stated that changing secondary sex characteristics is not sufficient to change a persons sex.
Biological sex, as determined by a number of factors during development, is unchanging. Gender however can be changed.
Im surprised I have to repeat that at this point.
I'm just using the term they used.
AFAB/AMAB is for the original status.
The logic you're coming from is what's taught in basic biology. You didn't use the term, but you used the knowledge. I bet this politician has used the term though, but I'm not going to dig to find out because I don't really care.
You're literally splitting hairs when the phrases mean the same thing.
No, it's not. What part makes someone "biologically" male or female? If their hormones are such that they are growing in the manner you'd expect for a male or female then they are biologically that sex, regardless of what they were at birth. Your chromosomes are not your biology. A(M/F)AB is unambiguous and clear. Biologically male or female could be referring to a number of biological processes in their body, many/most of which are associated with their chosen gender if they're undergoing HRT.
Show me a research paper that makes this claim. It is called gender affirming care and not sex affirming care for a reason.
And we call it sex change surgery despite not changing your chromosomes (which is what 99.9% of the "biological sex" people refer to). If your point is the language is flawed, I agree. If your point is that the flawed language is accurate, I don't. What is sex? If your answer has anything that is modified by hormones then you agree that sex is much more complicated than a single binary, and biological sex is a misleading, oversimplified, and inaccurate term.