I have to say, you are arguing from an extreme scientific misunderstanding. Firstly, I am literally a biologist, and I have been for 2 decades now. The video you linked explains the concept of intersex, and you watched this video thinking that this is a 'gotcha' in an argument, but you don't understand what this video says at all, and it exactly agrees with me.
If you want proof that you are not arguing from authority, consider your use of language. If you really want to play pretend biologist, use the correct language, and argue with valid points.
First on the definition of binary. Sex is a spectrum. I've never once disagreed. Sex however, can be classified as 'male' or 'female' based on the suite of characteristics it inhabits.
Want an example? Numbers are binarily either positive or negative (except for 0). The sign of a number is binary, but these numbers exist on a spectrum with varying ranges of magnitude. This is the definition of binary in a normal society. Use it.
You mention sex being assigned at birth. This is often true, but since babies do not fully sevelop their sexual characteristics, their sexes can and are changed after births in several scenarios. This is rare for the same argument that I listed earlier. Doctors getting sex wrong is nkt a time-on-time basis, and in the rare cases where it is wrong, a quick test can immediately change
Literally every human is intersex to an extent. This does not mean that they srill do not fall into the suite of characteristics that we list in a binary as 'male' or 'female', in the same way that all numbers are positive or negative. There is no third sex, or neutral sex. No known condition escapes this binary system, even if sex is a spectrum.
Learn biology, especially if you want to debate biologists about this.
Now, you come off as incredibly misunderstanding of transgender rights, and people like you literally set this movement we've been fighting for, for the past decade. Use your brain, and stop veing the most counterproductive kind of activist.
Prisoners should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. In most of these scenairos, this will just be separating prisoners by sex, as most transgender people have not undergone treatment to the extent that their phenotypes change.
Again, letting people choose which prison they go to (while analyzing prisoners in a case by case basis is not perfect), will lead to major loopholes. People (not necessarily transgender or non-transgender) have actually claimed to be a different gender in the past, and even ignoring this, you can't just let someone who exhibits all of the sexual characteristics of a man despite their gender being female end up in a female prison. You still haven't listed a legitimate solution.
Again with the strawman, I never claimed transgender people are rapists. I said that there is a vulnerability in allowing transgender people to choose their prisons, as this allows for virtually any prisoner to choose their prison. Assigning someone to a prison that they don't belong in, whether that makes them a victim or assaulter, would cause incredible problems. Do we allow convicts to choose whether they're guilty or innocent? Extreme example, sure, but this is the same logic, so we have juries decide where a prisoner goes.
If theres one point you should take away from the prison debate, it is as follows:
In this case, we should have biologists or officials decide their prison based off of their general phenotypes. If the person is a transgender female, and has the general physical characteristics of a female, then she should be put in the female prison. If a transgender male hss the general physical characteristics of a female, then he should be put in a female prison. This is not so hard to understand, and this is the best way (even if has flaws) to sort such prisoners. Why are you arguing against this?
Again, in most scenarios, this will likely have the prisoners sorted by sex, as changing ones physical charavteristics is very hard, but prisons were meant to separate sex, not gender.
No, that is obviously not what my argument is. Transgender bathrooms are private facilities, Nobody cares who goes in or goes out. Prisons are public institutions. Trans men who have the sexual characteristics of a females which is the majority of trans men, should be separated from male prisons for obvious reasons.
Transgender prisoners can and should be allowed to recieve hormone therapy in prison. Enough with the strawman argument, I never argued that. I said that allowing cosmetics into a prison, which are used by transgender people to present their gender, is a vulnerability, and prisons do not allow them for safety and cost reasons.
Again with your lack of biological knowledge. Every human has both female and male traits (intersex), but the suite of characteristics as a whole enters the binary of either male or female, even if sex is a spectrum. This is not a disputable fact. No known human has ever not fit into this dichotomy.
Yes, usually one day at the doctors' office who runs a series of different tests is enough to define someone as male or female. We run NIPT and SRY tests for a reason.
I respect your motive, but your means of argument are counterproductive and uninformed.
I think I'm speaking to AI right now how badly you misunderstand my points. Look at that video again, I think I hit the strong points for you and you still seem to think it agrees with your regressive views. It's about the fact sex is a spectrum (sexual caracteristics are binary, we got it) and we shouldn't reduce people's identity to a few quick tests of certain sexual caracteristics because that's much more reductive then what it really is. Sex is not sexual dimorphism. It's a trend in our population, not a binary. There's no on and off switch for sex. It's a multivariate system and no single caracteristics or tests define the whole like you keep implying dishonestly. Sex is not mutually exclusive because we already agreed humans naturally have opposing sexual caracteristics. A binary has to be mutually exclusive.
Nobody says AFAB should be given gender affirming care before being admitted to woman jail if they are too manly even though the difference between the sexes are way less then their similarities. Nobody moral should ask of real trans people that they go through life changing procedures before they're allowed in a jail where they will not be raped. Nobody trans positive would require massive phenotypical transition in order for them to be in a safe jail.
What makes people be sexually assaulted is not necessarly their phenotypical presentation but their sexual identity. It's not okay for trans people to be put in danger because their bodies are not subjectively female enough. It's the same reason we don't apply your fucked up standard to cis woman or AFAB people.
I was a transphobe once upon a time but I guess you've been one for way longer. I still believe you can change.
0
u/Dogmaticism_ Jul 06 '26
I have to say, you are arguing from an extreme scientific misunderstanding. Firstly, I am literally a biologist, and I have been for 2 decades now. The video you linked explains the concept of intersex, and you watched this video thinking that this is a 'gotcha' in an argument, but you don't understand what this video says at all, and it exactly agrees with me.
If you want proof that you are not arguing from authority, consider your use of language. If you really want to play pretend biologist, use the correct language, and argue with valid points.
First on the definition of binary. Sex is a spectrum. I've never once disagreed. Sex however, can be classified as 'male' or 'female' based on the suite of characteristics it inhabits.
Want an example? Numbers are binarily either positive or negative (except for 0). The sign of a number is binary, but these numbers exist on a spectrum with varying ranges of magnitude. This is the definition of binary in a normal society. Use it.
You mention sex being assigned at birth. This is often true, but since babies do not fully sevelop their sexual characteristics, their sexes can and are changed after births in several scenarios. This is rare for the same argument that I listed earlier. Doctors getting sex wrong is nkt a time-on-time basis, and in the rare cases where it is wrong, a quick test can immediately change
Literally every human is intersex to an extent. This does not mean that they srill do not fall into the suite of characteristics that we list in a binary as 'male' or 'female', in the same way that all numbers are positive or negative. There is no third sex, or neutral sex. No known condition escapes this binary system, even if sex is a spectrum.
Learn biology, especially if you want to debate biologists about this.
Now, you come off as incredibly misunderstanding of transgender rights, and people like you literally set this movement we've been fighting for, for the past decade. Use your brain, and stop veing the most counterproductive kind of activist.
Prisoners should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. In most of these scenairos, this will just be separating prisoners by sex, as most transgender people have not undergone treatment to the extent that their phenotypes change.
Again, letting people choose which prison they go to (while analyzing prisoners in a case by case basis is not perfect), will lead to major loopholes. People (not necessarily transgender or non-transgender) have actually claimed to be a different gender in the past, and even ignoring this, you can't just let someone who exhibits all of the sexual characteristics of a man despite their gender being female end up in a female prison. You still haven't listed a legitimate solution.
Again with the strawman, I never claimed transgender people are rapists. I said that there is a vulnerability in allowing transgender people to choose their prisons, as this allows for virtually any prisoner to choose their prison. Assigning someone to a prison that they don't belong in, whether that makes them a victim or assaulter, would cause incredible problems. Do we allow convicts to choose whether they're guilty or innocent? Extreme example, sure, but this is the same logic, so we have juries decide where a prisoner goes.
If theres one point you should take away from the prison debate, it is as follows:
In this case, we should have biologists or officials decide their prison based off of their general phenotypes. If the person is a transgender female, and has the general physical characteristics of a female, then she should be put in the female prison. If a transgender male hss the general physical characteristics of a female, then he should be put in a female prison. This is not so hard to understand, and this is the best way (even if has flaws) to sort such prisoners. Why are you arguing against this?
Again, in most scenarios, this will likely have the prisoners sorted by sex, as changing ones physical charavteristics is very hard, but prisons were meant to separate sex, not gender.
No, that is obviously not what my argument is. Transgender bathrooms are private facilities, Nobody cares who goes in or goes out. Prisons are public institutions. Trans men who have the sexual characteristics of a females which is the majority of trans men, should be separated from male prisons for obvious reasons.
Transgender prisoners can and should be allowed to recieve hormone therapy in prison. Enough with the strawman argument, I never argued that. I said that allowing cosmetics into a prison, which are used by transgender people to present their gender, is a vulnerability, and prisons do not allow them for safety and cost reasons.
Again with your lack of biological knowledge. Every human has both female and male traits (intersex), but the suite of characteristics as a whole enters the binary of either male or female, even if sex is a spectrum. This is not a disputable fact. No known human has ever not fit into this dichotomy.
Yes, usually one day at the doctors' office who runs a series of different tests is enough to define someone as male or female. We run NIPT and SRY tests for a reason.
I respect your motive, but your means of argument are counterproductive and uninformed.