• Cethin@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    15 hours ago

    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.)

    • Cypher@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      If that’s the case, then aren’t they *biologically* women?

      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.

      that you probably failed

      Sorry to disappoint you but I have never failed a subject and have completed higher education.

      ”basic biology”

      You’re the only person here who has used that term.

      • Laurentide@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Also the term is referring to their original status pre-hormonal or other gender affirming care so no.

        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.

        • Cypher@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          “Biological male” is a scientifically misleading phrase

          The phrase seems to be very clear in meaning, could you tell me what you find misleading about it?

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 hours ago

            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).

            • Cypher@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 hours ago

              If you can’t pinpoint a single specific one

              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.

              • Cethin@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 hours ago

                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.

                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.

                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.

                • Cypher@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 hours ago

                  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.

                  • Cethin@lemmy.zip
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    2 hours ago

                    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.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Biologically male or female would be more correct as gender is a social construct.

        I’m just using the term they used.

        Also the term is referring to their original status pre-hormonal or other gender affirming care so no.

        AFAB/AMAB is for the original status.

        You’re the only person here who has used that term.

        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.

        • Cypher@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          AFAB/AMAB is for the original status.

          You’re literally splitting hairs when the phrases mean the same thing.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 hours ago

            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.

            • Cypher@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 hours ago

              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

              Show me a research paper that makes this claim. It is called gender affirming care and not sex affirming care for a reason.

              • Cethin@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 hours ago

                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.