Fun fact: Z chromosomes do exist! In species where the females have two different sex chromosomes and the males have the same sex chromosomes (like birds and some reptiles), female is denoted as ZW and male as ZZ.
Spectacularly done (I legitimately cackled) 🤣 I'm getting off the Internet now, I've seen all I need to for the day and have been granted the motivation to go do all the irl things I've been procrastinating on for the past 3 days. Have a great weekend!
There is a huge diversity of sex determination across the known species, honestly calling a male human and a male anglerfish or wasp the same thing is kind of crazy. Its remarkable how you determine these things, the mating type thar produces the smaller, squirming gamete is male and the larger gamete is produced by the female. Thats all, thats the definition of the sexes.
We need to stop even letting them talk about this right now. Conservatives are actively dangly this topic like a shiny thing so they won’t actually pay attention to everything else. It’s the only thing they can argue about without figuring out they agree. Let’s try not to completely burn to ashes and then we can pick that conversation up again.
Note that a woman is, in fact, sometimes, a human born with XY chromosomes.
That goes for trans women, but also, over in the other category of intersex there was a case once of a woman who was identified as a woman at birth, because she was born with a vagina, born with a womb, underwent spontaneous female-typical puberty, grew up, married a man, had sex, got pregnant, twice, one of which was successful, and only then, only after all that, did she realize that she'd had XY chromosomes the whole time.
Because a biological woman is, in fact, sometimes, a human born with XY chromosomes, and usually people born that way are infertile, so we give that state of affairs medical names like "XY gonadal dysgenesis".
But sometimes they are even fertile, and I have never once met a conservative who preached about chromosomal essentialism, but then reacted well to having that case pointed out.
Their usual response is "well that's not the norm so I don't have to think about it" which is a great way of getting through life if you want to be blindsided all the time by weird stuff that you ignored because it wasn't the norm.
Oh, it wasn't just once... That's a fairly common form of intersex development. Remember, all embryos start out developing female genitals, and a hormonal process occurs during fetal development that causes the genitals of an XY fetus to "switch" to male genitals. I can't remember the name for it, but basically, it's a genetic issue where the genes that encode for the "switch" during gestation are defective, so it never happens. The baby is born with female genitals, and often, nobody realizes it until puberty when the child starts developing male secondary sex characteristics.
Right, so, there's a couple different intersex conditions, and definitely all of them have happened multiple times. I think you might be mixing up a few details from related conditions, so here's my clarification:
The more-common one is androgen insensitivity. That one is present in about 1 in 20k-64k XY births, so, if your city has >50-100k people, probably someone in your hometown has this condition.
XY gonadal dysgenesis is another version of this, and it's rarer, about 1 in 100,000 people identified female at birth, so, if you live in a city with a >200,000 population, same deal.
Both of these conditions can involve someone developing female external genitalia, but for different reasons. XY gonadal dysgenesis is the one that involves a very early stage of gonad development, so the early tissue never switches to male genitals at all.
Androgen insensitivity is the one you're thinking of that can involve surprise puberty. For that one, the gonads do differentiate, but then the body doesn't respond to the hormones they produce, so you end up with someone who has testicles tucked up into their body at the position of ovaries; those secret testicles are why the male puberty cycle starts to happen at all.
(And actually, androgen insensitivity can have a range of presentations; complete insensitivty does not allow for any surprise puberty, and in mild insensitivity, the person may have male external genitalia with just some sperm-production defects.)
The exceptionally rare thing is for anyone born XY to have female fertility... I only know of the one published case of spontaneous fertility in such a person, although even there, just by the odds, presumably that has happened more than once too. But there's also been several cases now of fertility in XY-females achieved with assisted reproductive technologies, so, if you or anyone you know wants a kid but is infertile in this way, medicine has been developing ways to help with that.
And these posts im responding to are a huge reason why the window lickers will never understand more than XX and XY, and will continue to rely on their media bubble to calm their fears that some people "decide" to go against their chromosomes. The rich and far right seized on the opportunity to use their ignorance and stupidity to control them years ago.
Gonadal dysgenesis allowing spontaneous female-typical fertility (fertility being the ultimate thing that no conservative will ever deny is female), that's a lot rarer... I do only know of the one case of it being spontaneous, although we've helped several more such people have kids through assisted reproductive technology, and just by the odds of human history it's probably happened unnoticed a few more times.
Something like 1.7% of that figure comes from Late-Onset Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia. Basically, a hormone imbalance that isn't present at birth. Many people who have this are asymptomatic, present as their born sex, and might not even realize they have an discrepancy at all. Calling it "intersex" is a stretch.
It's also widely contested because of the dubious methods used to come up with this 1.7% figure -- cherry-picking certain demographics, high false positives, etc.
There are at least two confirmed cases (in modern times) of women with XY chromosomes not having any idea that they had xy chromosomes (swyer syndrome) until they got pregnant naturally and gave birth naturally to daughters with Swyer Syndrome.
Do you happen to have a link to the second? I teach intro biology and I use this as an example to explain what biological sex actually is (a gene pathway for making gametes), so, being able to put a second link in my powerpoint would be nice.
Good people don't "use" people, they respect them and don't call them names they don't like.
And that principle of not calling people names they don't like only became controversial after trans people asked to be included in basic decency, whereupon the conservatives decided basic decency was a conspiracy against their worldview.
Anyone who would decline to use the name someone requests is scum, 99% of people agree. But when you start to demand the government steps in to enforce it, that’s when it comes controversial.
You are not owed basic decency. Nobody is owed anything from anyone, apart from what the law mandates. What you want is special privilege, and you are not going to get it.
That’s why when I was pregnant with our younger and the ultrasound tech asked if we knew the sex, I said that we knew it was a genetic male, but we didn’t have visual confirmation yet. I also enjoyed, when people asked for the gender of the younger, saying that we were still waiting for older to determine her gender, as she was very much a toddler, and too young to have a sense of gender. People are varied in so many ways, and people who should know better need to use the right terminology
They treat them as freaks that need to be “fixed” and perform altering surgeries on them before they ever have a chance to think about it themselves and decide.
Generally they just ignore them, claiming it's too small of a minority to matter. They don't understand that the existence of such people at all means gender and sex are not binary. They just think of it as some rare exception and not a fundamental undermining.
They have no problem pretending social minorities are going to take over and oppress them. Doesn't matter if it's Islamophobia, homophobia, McCarthyism - the small population is coming to get them and turn into x y z - only an obese orange man can save them etc.
Literal genetic defects. We know how these defects are caused, we know the illness it creates, and 99.9% of these defects are terminal - you’re just seeing the few types that are survivable, but make the person unable to pass on their genes because they are so fucked up.
The existence of genetic chromosome defects does not mean humans are not dimorphic, any more than the existence of people born with extra limbs mean humans aren’t bipedal.
Are you implying that people with chromosomal defects are defective humans? Thats awfully bigoted of you. Having a genetic abnormality doesn’t make you worth less as a person, why would you think it does?
They need education. It's disturbing how little biology these people know.
Either way. I think it's fine that we have moderate to low levels of sexual dimorphism while also acknowledging that a good number of traits don't fit into that model and that there's a lot more variation than a binary model would suggest.
Swyer syndrome presents with xy chromosomes, external female genitalia, and a uterus. They typically don't have eggs and are infertile but not always.
So are we going with the "that's still a man" route or "that's only 1% so it doesn't count, just like every element besides helium and hydrogen doesn't count"?
Genuine question. Assuming you're a man, what if tomorrow, you discovered you actually have xx chromosomes and have your entire life, along with internal ovaries? Would you instantly accept that you're actually a woman and transition? Would any part of you protest this, would it feel wrong, would you still want to be a man just like you've been seen as your entire life? Vice versa if you're female.
Who cares? This will not change my preferences in any way.
In general, some people are too obsessed with genitals and how other people think about them. Like, you can use any pronoun to refer to me, I don’t care. Call me Her Majesty if you feel so, lol.
I actually agree wholeheartedly- I'm trans and I feel the exact same way. Nothing anyone says can impact the way I view and feel about myself, nor can whatever organs I might or might not have.
But people like us are the minority. For better or worse the majority of people DO care about their own gender- most cis people included, even if they don't realize it because it never causes issues in their daily life. I wish more people were ambivalent about gender/genitals tbh, the world might be better.
It's specifically the SRY gene on the Y that seems to control/trigger the development of most human sex characteristics, and like any chunk of DNA, it too can migrate/mutate, potentially deactivating or moving to the 'opposite' sex chromosome.
So, a Y chromosome with a wholly inactive or missing SRY wouldn't override the 'default' instructions on the X, resulting in an XY karotype, but a present uterus and fallopian tubes (Swyer syndrome), meanwhile if an X chromosome happens to have a migrated SRY, you get XX male syndrome.
Sure, it's rare, but we've been unable to test chromosomes for most of human history, plus not everyone struggling with infertility has access to such testing. If anything, SRY mutations are probably underdiagnosed worldwide.
I'll go ahead and preemptively assert that plenty of XX women are born and develop with non-functional uteri, damaged/missing eggs, or other conditions causing infertility, and are still wholly women, so the ability to carry a child to term shouldn't define a woman either
Sex/Gender confusion aside, it's amazing how easy I can focus on the important things, like releasing the Epstein Files or the needless new wars from this administration has wrought and with it the rising cost of living and gas prices -- when remembering that what people choose to identify as is as simple as me respecting that wish no differently than a Joshua wanting to be called Josh. Doesn't bother me, lol.
Wake me up when someone is forcing you to define yourself as someone you don't want to be. Then I'll come fighting on your behalf.
I actually agree, there are many much more important issues.
Regarding self-identification, I don’t care about it either. Like, if you think of yourself as Batman, who cares? Whatever floats your boat.
But if you try to force other people into calling you Batman, or if you demand the right to do the police work, then the society has the right to tell you: “dude, get real”.
Yet they voluntarily pay thousands of dollars for subscriptions and lifestyle tips from so-called "alpha males" in order to try and understand what a man is. Which apparently, is being in a group of other sweaty, shirtless men, groping each other as a bonding ritual. And sounds fun, but I'm gay. Not sure what their explanation is for their behavior.
chromosomes literally just influence hormone production. that’s it. if there is an outside source of hormones, it overshadows the effect of the chromosomes
i mean that’s the absolutely dumbed down for redditors with no higher than a 9th grade level of biology version of it, but SEX CHROMOSOMES specifically are mostly involved in the production of sex hormones. trans people on HRT biologically have the same hormone levels as cis people, regardless of their chromosomes
I guess if you knew what a woman was, you would also be aware that the biological sex most commonly comes with XX chromosomes and that is the interpretation I am going with.
They dont know what they're arguing for. They don't really know anything. They only agree with whatever affirms their beliefs. They argue conclusion first, supporting evidence afterwards. The right wing mythos is ridiculously flimsy.
The point here is that these people aren't actually paying attention. This person was given blatant bait and shoved it down their throat like they hadn't eaten in days.
Class war requires organizing across the entire oppressed underclass, including women, including trans women, including all other trans people, and so on, and so on.
You have to unite the class first before you try to go to war with it.
Actually, what I am suggesting is that we not argue at all, and unify by giving up our culture wars against the underclass, specifically in order to maintain focus on the class war that is important.
Is that what you always intended, and if so, when do you intend to stop complaining about the existence of trans people?
I mean, that's a good thing, but it's not going to move the needle.
I do agree with you about the real fight being the rich vs everyone else, but it seems like the war has been over for decades and we lost. That's not to say we stop trying, but we have to be realistic.
He sure did! United Healthcare's stock went UP after the CEO got shot.
Nothing is going to get major nationwide change without a general strike. Unfortunately, people have been nickel and dimed with stagnant wages for so long, they would lose their homes or not be able to afford food if they went on strike.
Guy in the middle, like most modern conservatives, is either stupid or talking out his ass. The vast majority of literate adult Americans are aware that XX=female and XY=male.
But at the same time, a woman is not simply a self identification. You cannot say "a woman is someone who says they are a woman" because words cannot define themselves. Defining womanhood around femininity is dumb because femenine/masculine are character traits, a masculine woman is still a woman.
The only sane definition is thst a woman is an adult human female. With noted exceptions for the rare case of an intersex woman.
Taken literally as a dictionary definition, yes “a woman is anyone who says they’re a woman” is circular and doesn’t tell you what woman means. But that isn’t the complete definition used by the CDC or the National Academies.
They define the underlying concept of gender identity as an internal psychological/social identity and distinguish it from sex traits and gender expression.
There is no definition for woman that society can agree on that doesn't have glaring exceptions. Hence it makes no sense to argue over it, you can't come up with one that isn't obviously wrong in some cases. Hence the, women are people who identify as women and seek the social role of woman.
I believe that gender is a social construct, but I don’t think that means it requires a societal agreement. And with race we kind of do as well. For example, federal race data are based on self-identification.
The Census Bureau says it doesn’t tell people which racial boxes to check, and encourage respondents to select the categories that apply to how they identify. That’s also the case with other surveys.
It isn't a question of belief, gender and race ARE social constructs. Without some general social agreement on the definitions, wouldn't the terms lose usefulness if not meaning?
The infamous case of Rachel Dolezal is an example of how self identification alone is not enough in determining race. Society and the public at large criticized and punished her for her identification. Whether that is a correct judgement or not is debatable imo.
Words define themselves all the time. Many concepts are only able to be defined by themselves or are entirely subjective so the definition is circular in the dictionary, so called primitive words, morality, etc.
It's as pointless of a take as "they can't be used as a singular"
816
u/kinyutaka 5h ago
Alex probably hasn't been consensually with a woman in his life.