Genetic human males who live naturally as women

[maquiscat]

You failed to answer my questions. I felt that they were rather direct. I would ask that you please go back and answer them. But let's still give the below a shot anyway.

ETA: I just realized that this post didn't address the post quoted either.

OK, so let's use your definition of individuals with a DSD... Which of these individuals do you think it would be difficult to categorize as any one sex within the below assessment structure? Given the below assessment, would you say most Klinefelter syndrome individuals are male or female? I've pasted a comparison to biological males below and one to biological females in the post after it (ran out of room)

Klinefelter syndrome (XXY)

Biological Male Domains and Assessment:

1. Genetic:

A. Presence of x and y chromosomes (met) - score: 1

B. Presence of only one X chromosome. (Not met) - score: 0

C. Sex typical androgen receptor gene functionality on the X chromosome (met) - score: 1

Score: 2 out of 3 or 67%

Whoa there, Hos! you are already changing the goal post and the criteria. Before you said:

Biological Male:
Genetic: Typically has one X chromosome and one Y chromosome (XY).

Biological Female:
Genetic: Typically has two X chromosomes (XX).

So a person who has Klinefelter syndrome (XXY), they would meet the criteria of having 1 X and 1 Y (only 1 and 1 was not specified, and typically allows for variation, hence the questions about that) meaning they are male, but they also meet the criteria of having 2 X, thus meeting the criteria of being female, both at the same time. Further, you did not include androgen receptor gene as part of the criteria.

3. Genital/Gonadal Anatomy:

A. penis and (met) - score: 1

1. scrotum. (Met): score: 1
2. Develops testes, (met) - score: 1
3. Produces sperm. (Partially met) - score: 0.5

What do you mean by "Partially met" here?

4. Non Genital Anatomy (non genital body characteristics and secondary sex characteristics):

5. Brain structure:

Where did all this come from? This is not part of your initial set of criteria.

 

[maquiscat]

Here's the same assessment except comparing Klinefelter syndrome to biological females:

None of this addresses the post quoted.

 

[maquiscat]

Now, if we take the two scores (66% for male and 20% for female) and add them, we get 86%. To make 100% we have to add 14% to that, so if we add 66% of 14%, we add 9.2% to the male score and 2.8% to the female score and we are left with 2%. Proportionally assigning that, we get 1.3% and 0.4% to be added. We now have 76.5% and 23.2%. Now if we round, we have 77% male and 23% female. Given this, would you say those with Klinefelter syndrome are usually basically men or women?

Now this comes a little closer, but in the end I think you are saying what I also said. That some of the intersex conditions aren't really all that nebulous, for lack of a better word. But we still have many other conditions, which are. Ultimately, I think for your comparisons, AIS, specifically CAIS, is a better condition to fall within that nebulous category. But, really, before we go into that, please answer the questions I set out on your initial criteria, and address the issues i raised in the other post. Because I was trying to work with you on being on the same page and suddenly you are adding whole new chapters.

 

[PoliticalDJ101]

You failed to answer my questions. I felt that they were rather direct. I would ask that you please go back and answer them. But let's still give the below a shot anyway.

ETA: I just realized that this post didn't address the post quoted either.



Whoa there, Hos! you are already changing the goal post and the criteria. Before you said:

Sorry about that. I just quickly posted commonly used criteria before and provided a more complete version after. I forgot to add the testosterone levels in even the most recent assessment, but it's pretty darn good overall.

So a person who has Klinefelter syndrome (XXY), they would meet the criteria of having 1 X and 1 Y (only 1 and 1 was not specified, and typically allows for variation, hence the questions about that) meaning they are male, but they also meet the criteria of having 2 X, thus meeting the criteria of being female, both at the same time. Further, you did not include androgen receptor gene as part of the criteria.

Right, the more thorough assessment includes important criteria such as only one X chromosome and androgen receptor gene

What do you mean by "Partially met" here?

They typically don't produce as much sperm, often requiring medical assistance for reproduction

Where did all this come from? This is not part of your initial set of criteria.

It's a more thorough assessment. But is still missing sex typical testosterone and estrogen ranges, so is almost complete

 

[PoliticalDJ101]

Before we go onto anything else, let's examine that criteria.

Let's start with the fact that you have 4 criteria points. Do all 4 have to match in order to qualify as one or the other? Does it have to be 3 out of the 4? Half? Is only one the definitive deciding criteria?

See my more thorough criteria and conclusions for answers to this

You also have for gonadal, that the appropriate one actually produces the associated gamete. Does that mean that failure to produce the gamete from the start (as opposed to losing the gonad in question after production has started) constitutes a failure to meet that criteria? IOW, if a person is born with ovaries, but has no eggs in them, do they match or not match the gonadal criteria for biological female?

It depends... See my more thorough criteria and conclusions.

My point here is that there are biological men and women. And a very very rare set of outliers. Even the DSD individuals we've discussed likely are mostly basically men or women as well, making the usual 0.018% to 1.7% statistics on this even lower in actuality.

This, it's not that these very rare exceptions don't exist or aren't important, but that we can relatively confidentiality state that humans are comprised of two sexes: men and women.

Our society's current woke liberal push toward creating a society of androgynous beings is not only biologically against nature, but likely not very healthy for society (and that's another argument entirely).

 

[PoliticalDJ101]

Now this comes a little closer, but in the end I think you are saying what I also said.

Yes, probably

That some of the intersex conditions aren't really all that nebulous, for lack of a better word.

True

But we still have many other conditions, which are. Ultimately, I think for your comparisons, AIS, specifically CAIS, is a better condition to fall within that nebulous category.

Interesting... What does CAIS stand for?

But, really, before we go into that, please answer the questions I set out on your initial criteria, and address the issues i raised in the other post. Because I was trying to work with you on being on the same page and suddenly you are adding whole new chapters.

OK, I did answer them I believe (see my other recent replies)

 

[maquiscat]

Sorry about that. I just quickly posted commonly used criteria before and provided a more complete version after. I forgot to add the testosterone levels in even the most recent assessment, but it's pretty darn good overall.

Alright, given that, I think we need to do a reset. Provide for me the criteria that we are to use. And I'd say let's settle on that before we go off onto applying said criteria to any given case.

Right, the more thorough assessment includes important criteria such as only one X chromosome and androgen receptor gene

Make sure that you include tipping lines and all that. For example, they have the X chromosome, but lack the androgen receptor gene. Does that push them more one way or the others. As rare as these thing can be, even at .01%, we're still talking hundreds of thousands of people.

They typically don't produce as much sperm, often requiring medical assistance for reproduction

Which then brings the question up of how much does the production of gametes play in the determination of which sex one is. Personally I would say that actual production of one or the other gamete is not a factor or criteria.

It's a more thorough assessment. But is still missing sex typical testosterone and estrogen ranges, so is almost complete

Well, as above, let's start with all the criteria that we are going to be using. And I would say, that anyone else is welcomed to add in an opinion. I'm beginning to wonder is this is worthy of its own thread.

See my more thorough criteria and conclusions for answers to this

Acknowledging that, we still have to determine or define which criteria takes precedence over other or how final determination is made. I'll give you credit. You are at least not doing what many before you have done, and said, you can tell by the chromosomes or can tell by the genitals. You are acknowledging it is more complicated than that.

My point here is that there are biological men and women.

I don't think that point is in contention.

And a very very rare set of outliers.

This is where there is contention. If they are outliers, then they are not one of the two. But that is in the context of the sexes as a whole. On the other hand, we can have outliers within male and within female respectively, but in the end they are still one or the other. But if they are outside the range of male or female, then they have to be something else.

Even the DSD individuals we've discussed likely are mostly basically men or women as well, making the usual 0.018% to 1.7% statistics on this even lower in actuality.

We seem to be in agreement here as well, as noted in your third post. As to actual count vs discovered count, that is a whole other tangent.

This, it's not that these very rare exceptions don't exist or aren't important, but that we can relatively confidentiality state that humans are comprised of two sexes: men and women.

We can assert with surety that the two sexes exist. What is up in the air, ATM, is whether others, however rare, also exist.

Our society's current woke liberal push toward creating a society of androgynous beings is not only biologically against nature, but likely not very healthy for society (and that's another argument entirely).

I'll agree that such is a whole other line of inquiry. I will disagree that the push is towards such a society. I would say that it's a push to include these others without harassment or bullying

Interesting... What does CAIS stand for?

Complete Androgen Insensitivity DIsorder.

 

[Aristaeus]

People with Klinefelter syndrome are male.

There are some people who mistakenly think intersex is an actual third sex. It's actually a broad term that covers a range of sex development disorders/differences.

 

[PoliticalDJ101]

Complete Androgen Insensitivity DIsorder.

Here's an assessment of whether these individuals are males or females:

Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS)

Biological Male Domains and Assessment:

1. Genetic:
- Presence of x and y chromosomes: Met - Score 1
- Presence of only one X chromosome: Met - Score 1
- Sex typical androgen receptor gene functionality on the X chromosome: Not Met - Score 0
- **Score: 66.7%**

2. Hormonal:
- Produces androgens responsible for male secondary sexual characteristics: Not Met - Score 0
- **Score: 0.0%**

3. Genital/Gonadal Anatomy:
- Penis: Not Met - Score 0
- Scrotum: Not Met - Score 0
- Develops testes: Partially Met - Score 0.5
- Produces sperm: Not Met - Score 0
- **Score: 12.5%**

4. Non Genital Anatomy:
- V shaped figure:
- Broad shoulders: Not Met - Sub Score 0
- Narrower hips: Not Met - Sub Score 0
- **Score: 0**
- Muscular build: Not Met - Score 0
- Typically taller than females: Met - Score 1
- Larger bone structure and greater bone density: Not Met - Score 0
- Deeper voice: Not Met - Score 0
- Adam's apple: Not Met - Score 0
- Minimal to no breast tissue: Not Met - Score 0
- Develop facial and chest hair: Not Met - Score 0
- **Score: 12.5%**

5. Brain Structure:
- Larger brains: Partially Met - Score 0.5
- Sex typical differences in brain areas: Partially Met - Score 0.5
- Gray matter volume differences: Not Met - Score 0
- Larger white matter volume: Partially Met - Score 0.5
- Less extensive white matter connections: Not Met - Score 0
- Higher ratio of gray matter to white matter: Met - Score 0.5
- **Score: 33.3%**

Total biological male score: 25.00%

Biological Female Domains and Assessment:

1. Genetic:
- Typically has only x chromosomes: Not Met - Score 0
- Only has two chromosomes: Met - Score 1
- Androgen receptor gene functionality on the X chromosome: Met - Score 1
- **Score: 66.7%**

2. Hormonal:
- Produces estrogen: Met - Score 1
- Produces progesterone: Not Met - Score 0
- **Score: 50.0%**

3. Genital/Gonadal Anatomy:
- A clitoris: Met - Score 1
- Labia: Met - Score 1
- Vagina: Met - Score 1
- Ovaries: Not Met - Score 0
- Fallopian tubes: Not Met - Score 0
- Uterus: Not Met - Score 0
- Produces eggs: Not Met - Score 0
- **Score: 50.0%**

4. Non Genital Anatomy:
- A more hourglass-shaped figure:
- Narrower shoulders: Met - Sub Score 1
- Wider hips: Met - Sub Score 1
- **Score: 1**
- Generally smaller in stature: Not Met - Score 0
- Smaller bone structure: Met - Score 1
- Development of breast tissue: Partially Met - Score 0.5
- Higher-pitched voice: Met - Score 1
- Generally less and weaker muscles: Met - Score 1
- Little to no facial and chest hair: Met - Score 1
- Adam’s apple less prominent: Met - Score 1
- **Score: 81.3%**

5. Brain Structure:
- Generally smaller brain volume: Partially Met - Score 0.5
- Sex typical brain area differences: Partially Met - Score 0.5
- Gray matter volume differences: Met - Score 1
- Smaller white matter volume: Partially Met - Score 0.5
- More extensive white matter connections: Met - Score 1
- Higher ratio of white matter to gray matter: Partially Met - Score 0.5
- **Score: 66.7%**

Total biological female score: 62.9%

Combined female and male scores: 87.9%

Remainder: 12.1%

Male proportion of remainder: 3.0%


Female proportion of remainder: 7.6%

Final total male score: 28%

Final total female score: 71%

So according to this assessment, AIS individuals are women. They're not hidden men at all. It's basically another way of creating a female, but one with sometimes atypical features and always dysfunctional reproductive organs. It's a mutation and rare condition.

 

[maquiscat]

People with Klinefelter syndrome are male.

There are some people who mistakenly think intersex is an actual third sex. It's actually a broad term that covers a range of sex development disorders/differences.

I think that is why they are trying to change the label to DSD, because of that confusion.

 

[maquiscat]

Here's an assessment of whether these individuals are males or females:

You're putting the cart before the horse, dude. We still have to go back and set that full criteria out before we apply it to cases. I'm not bothering until we establish that baseline. This includes how something get the score that it does, including what a .5 score means, or any other number, and how you determine what is a .5 or otherwise.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

This OP appears to conflate sex and gender identity.

The article is talking about Morris and Swyer syndrome, so they have the chromosomes of males, but there is a "disorder,." Morris syndrome is now called 46,XY DSD: androgen insensitivity syndrome. These people have an extremely high level of testosterone and other male sex hormones, but the testosterone does not affect the foetal cells that usually develop into male sexual organs because of a mutation in the androgen receptor gene. These people therefore have male chromosomes but are women socially and in external appearance. They do not have internal female sexual organs, and they form testicles that remain concealed in the abdominal cavity.” So, these are males with a genetic disorder, so they appear physically female.

According to the trans ideology on this, that person is not necessarily a "woman" in terms of gender identity, as the person with Morris Syndrome is biologically male with a disorder. However, since sex and gender are two different things, never to be conflated, we cannot know if that person is a man or woman unless and until we ask them and they truthfully tell us. The person could still be a man, even if physically appearing with female physical characteristics.

So, if we are to follow trans ideology, then we should say that the male with Morris syndrome is biologically male, but with Morris syndrome. Whether the person is gender woman or man, or nonbinary, or something else, that's something that is completely separate.

 

[maquiscat]

This OP appears to conflate sex and gender identity.

I'll look over the rest of the post and maybe respond later. But I don't think that the OP is making the conflation. They are talking about people who are identifies as the female sex at birth, with no one realizing that genetically they are male. The article is focusing in on the sex and is not looking at any potential gender identity. It's like if we look at that actor Elliot from Umbrella Academy, and while she (now he) has been thinking that they were genetically female but with the gender of man, they then learn that they have been genetically male this whole time, say maybe from ACIS. I'm not saying he is, just using him as an example.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

I'll look over the rest of the post and maybe respond later. But I don't think that the OP is making the conflation. They are talking about people who are identifies as the female sex at birth, with no one realizing that genetically they are male.

Yes, that's a function of biological sex. They are genetically male.

The article is focusing in on the sex and is not looking at any potential gender identity.

They are mixing terms like male, man and woman, female. According to the gender ideology, a person's biological sex does not determine if they are a man or a woman. So for the OP to suggest that this is a "man" is completely unknown unless and until the person says what their gender is. Otherwise, we can only refer to the person's sex, which is either male or female, and whichever that is, it has nothing to do, according to trans ideology, with whether the person is a man or a woman, or something else.

It's like if we look at that actor Elliot from Umbrella Academy, and while she (now he) has been thinking that they were genetically female but with the gender of man, they then learn that they have been genetically male this whole time, say maybe from ACIS. I'm not saying he is, just using him as an example.

Sure, but the person is either male or female, regardless of whether others knew at any given time. Whether "they" are a man or woman is, according to trans ideology, completely different than that - it's whatever the person identifies as.

 

[PoliticalDJ101]

You're putting the cart before the horse, dude. We still have to go back and set that full criteria out before we apply it to cases. I'm not bothering until we establish that baseline.

How do you mean?

This includes how something get the score that it does, including what a .5 score means, or any other number, and how you determine what is a .5 or otherwise.

It gets a 0.5 it it doesn't fully meet the criteria. For example AIS individuals develop testes, but they are internal not external. Theoretically we could score this either by giving it a 0.5 or by adding a subcategory by splitting this into 1. Develops testes, and 2. Testes are external. Doing it this way would give AIS individuals a 20% on the male genitalia/anatomy domain, as opposed to the current 12.5%. This, in essence means that you would be giving the mere existence of testicles more weight in determining maleness as opposed to the external appearance of maleness.

 

[CLAX1911]

Yes, that's a function of biological sex. They are genetically male.

They are mixing terms like male, man and woman, female. According to the gender ideology, a person's biological sex does not determine if they are a man or a woman. So for the OP to suggest that this is a "man" is completely unknown unless and until the person says what their gender is. Otherwise, we can only refer to the person's sex, which is either male or female, and whichever that is, it has nothing to do, according to trans ideology, with whether the person is a man or a woman, or something else.

Sure, but the person is either male or female, regardless of whether others knew at any given time. Whether "they" are a man or woman is, according to trans ideology, completely different than that - it's whatever the person identifies as.

Sex and gender are the same thing it's confusing on purpose. It's called gaslighting.

Notice how it always focused on sexual characteristics. Cross sex hormones, sex reassignment surgery.

Gender is a role in society one that has found it self to a large degree falling into obscurity. Now people want to revive this nonsense after we spent decades putting it quietly to bed.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Sex and gender are the same thing it's confusing on purpose. It's called gaslighting.

Notice how it always focused on sexual characteristics. Cross sex hormones, sex reassignment surgery.

Gender is a role in society one that has found it self to a large degree falling into obscurity. Now people want to revive this nonsense after we spent decades putting it quietly to bed.

When I was a kid, gender was a polite word for biological sex. That's it. The the "genders" were known then as some iteration or level of femininity and masculinity. What the gender ideologues do is expand that and confuse it. They say on the one hand that there is a spectrum of man to woman and in between -man to woman, which is like masculinity and femininity, but then they say that whether a person is masculine or feminine also has nothing to do with being a man or a woman. It's all what one feels or identifies, so even a very very masculine man (or woman) man not be a man - they can be anything, and they can change, and they can be fluid, moving around on these feelings daily or more. It's a complete destruction of objective reality, and replacing it with a completely subjective, feelings based definition which renders all the words meaningless, or more accurately completely subjective and variable on an individual basis.

 

[StillBallin75]

Anyone who still thinks that chromosomes define biological sex needs to read up on mice.

 

[StillBallin75]

When I was a kid, gender was a polite word for biological sex. That's it. The the "genders" were known then as some iteration or level of femininity and masculinity. What the gender ideologues do is expand that and confuse it. They say on the one hand that there is a spectrum of man to woman and in between -man to woman, which is like masculinity and femininity, but then they say that whether a person is masculine or feminine also has nothing to do with being a man or a woman. It's all what one feels or identifies, so even a very very masculine man (or woman) man not be a man - they can be anything, and they can change, and they can be fluid, moving around on these feelings daily or more. It's a complete destruction of objective reality, and replacing it with a completely subjective, feelings based definition which renders all the words meaningless, or more accurately completely subjective and variable on an individual basis.

Science textbooks NOW make it clear that that is very much not the case. Actually the more scientists actually engage in scientific inquiry the more they find out "biological sex" isn't even a concept that's a hard binary.

You keep screeching about feelings yet get offended by things and facts that contradict your worldview and literally do not affect you.

Let the scientists study and work and keep your outdated feelings to yourself, and leave the trans kids alone.

 

[Visbek]

This is a wonderful article, now about eight years old, for those who would like to persuade people that having XY sex chromosome is not alone definitive of maleness.

Yep, biology is much messier with its categories than physics or chemistry. There are all sorts of unexpected conditions like males born with XX chromosomes, people born with XXY, people with hormonal imbalances, and so on.

That said, we should note that human psychology is even messier with its categories than biology. What we currently call "transgender" likely has a wide variety of causes. In some cases, there's probably a biological component, and it's entirely plausible there are different biological pathways involved. There are likely situations where social pressures or individual psychological conditions are involved. It's likely that not everyone who is transgender experiences gender dysphoria, and we know there are at least some people who do suffer from gender dysphoria who do not necessarily want to transition, and so on.

I.e. all of this really requires nuance and compassion, rather than demanding sharp bright lines or conformity to restrictive gender norms. One can only hope that a better understanding of the complexity of the relevant biology would help with that....

 

[Visbek]

Total biological male score: 66%

Yeah, here's the problem: Biology is not broken down by neat percentages.

It almost certainly makes sense to say "if the Biological Male Score is 1% they are female, if it's 99% they are male." It doesn't make sense to say "if the score is 49% then they are female, if it's 51% they are male." I.e. arbitrary quantification doesn't represent genuine accuracy, it creates the illusion of accuracy.

(Trained professionals likely understand that there will be a fuzzy zone where there's no clear answer. But even then, where's the line? What does "66%" mean in this context?)

Plus, a lot of the categorization in nowhere near as precise as the list or numbers suggest. Consider "brain structure." One issue is that you're conflating averages with absolutes. The fact that male humans tend to have a larger brain volume does not mean that "every adult male who is 5' 10" and weighs 175 lbs has a larger brain volume than every female who is 5' 10" and 175 lbs." We're dealing with distribution curves, meaning there are some perfectly normal biological females who are 5' 10" and weigh 175 lbs who have greater brain volumes than males of the same height and weight. And some conditions like XXY Syndrome are likely to throw off brain development anyway.

The same goes for composition of gray and white matter in specific regions. Those aren't absolutes, they're distribution curves -- and we know that these factors can be altered by environment and education. E.g. London taxi drivers who learn "The Knowledge," aka how to expertly navigate every street in London without a GPS, increase gray matter density in the hippocampus as they study it.

Something like the DSD may be useful in some contexts for actual experts working with actual patients. (Though it's also plausible that in some contexts, it may get in the way of a useful diagnosis or treatment, or push a doctor to make recommendations for irrevocable surgeries, especially in infants.) For the rest of us, we're not actually utilizing strict quantifiable biological determinations -- which is why it's so difficult to make a decisive call in some individuals. We're almost always falling back on visible aspects like genitalia or facial features, and those aren't always a viable guide to the underlying biological features, let alone an individual's lived experience. E.g. XXY is easy to miss, and isn't usually determinable just by looking at the individual.

So, I suggest you ditch the quantification, or at least leave it to the experts... and even then, keep a pinch of salt handy.

 

[Visbek]

When I was a kid, gender was a polite word for biological sex.

No. It wasn't.

Before the 1970s, "gender" was not used to refer to anything about human sexuality at all. It was only used to refer to grammatical categories. Feminist theorists only started to use it to refer to social norms in the 1970s, and mainstream society ignored their work for decades. It wasn't until the 1990s that "gender" started to be used more frequently and in the modern sense.



Nor does referring to a vague past time period prove that it was "correct" then (and only then), and wrong today. What a shocker, eh?

The the "genders" were known then as some iteration or level of femininity and masculinity. What the gender ideologues do is expand that and confuse it.

...no, they acknowledge that our ideas about what is "masculine" and "feminine" are largely social constructs, most of which is not based on biological factors, which in turn influences our perceptions of the biology.

I could be here all day listing variations in gender norms not just across societies, but from one decade to the next within Western society.

They say on the one hand that there is a spectrum of man to woman and in between -man to woman, which is like masculinity and femininity, but then they say that whether a person is masculine or feminine also has nothing to do with being a man or a woman.

Spare us the *cough* straw man arguments.

No one is denying the biology; if anything, many transgender individuals are acutely aware of biological factors, because their biological features do not match their sense of self, and this can cause psychological distress.

The point is that societies construct ideas about what it means to be "male" and what it means to be "female," and that gets conflated with the biology. There's no reason why women can't be doctors, or programmers, or play professional sports, or be politicians, all things strongly discouraged for most of US history, and only seen as acceptable or normal in the past ~20 years. And even today, there are some idiots who falsely cite biology as a reason why women "can't" or "shouldn't" be in STEM fields or politics, and/or should be subservient to men.

We should also note that a lot of these ideas about what is "masculine" and "feminine" have nothing whatsoever to do with biology, because they were developed centuries before we had much of a clue about the actual biology. E.g. people in the year 1300, all across the world, had definitive ideas about what was "male" and "female," but obviously had no knowledge whatsoever of hormones, chromosomes, or other biological features. Yet those earlier ideas clearly dominate many people's contemporary ideas about gender.

It's all what one feels or identifies, so even a very very masculine man (or woman) man not be a man - they can be anything, and they can change, and they can be fluid, moving around on these feelings daily or more.

Or.... The concept of "maleness" is a fiction, imposed on society, which ultimately doesn't accurately reflect the reality of lived experiences.

Your own phrase here, unsurprisingly, begs the question by assuming that a "very very masculine man" is some sort of biological absolute (let alone a valid concept), but... it isn't. Almost everything that you classify as being "masculine?" That's just a social construct. Other than generating sperm, growing full beards, and pissing standing up, women can do almost anything that you insist must be "masculine..." without feeling less "feminine."

There's no reason why a woman can do the following, without feeling like she's "not female:"
• be aggressive
• be competitive
• be violent
• be sexually aggressive (note: women were considered to be more sexually aggressive than men in Medieval Europe... who knew?!?)
• wear slacks or jeans and a t-shirt, instead of a dress
• be deeply fascinated by "things" rather than "relationships"
• not want children
• not wear makeup
• want to be an engineer

I could go on, but it should be screamingly obvious that almost all of these sexist tropes that people piously proclaim are "essentially male" or "essentially female" are merely constructions foisted upon individuals by the society they're in.

It's a complete destruction of objective reality....

Sigh. No, it isn't. It's a recognition that biological categories are merely approximations, not algorithmic formulas; and a recognition that gender norms are heavily influenced by social concepts, not the underlying biology.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

No. It wasn't.

Before the 1970s, "gender" was not used to refer to anything about human sexuality at all. It was only used to refer to grammatical categories.

I know that. When I was a kid, it was used as a polite reference to biological sex. I even had a teacher who corrected students - I still remember this - a teacher who said gender is for language, not human sexuality.

What do you mean "no it wasn't?" You don't even know when I was a kid, but I will tell you this, growing up in the 70s and 80s, it WAS used in place of sex, although it was still controversial, because you are correct that traditionally, prior to the 1970s, it was a grammatical term.

Feminist theorists only started to use it to refer to social norms in the 1970s, and mainstream society ignored their work for decades. It wasn't until the 1990s that "gender" started to be used more frequently and in the modern sense.

View attachment 67508723

Nor does referring to a vague past time period prove that it was "correct" then (and only then), and wrong today. What a shocker, eh?

Who said anything about "correct?"

...no, they acknowledge that our ideas about what is "masculine" and "feminine" are largely social constructs, most of which is not based on biological factors, which in turn influences our perceptions of the biology.

Well, males and females do have traits. What is "masculine" and "feminine" are largely matters of opinion. I mean, is aggression masculine? Is submissiveness feminine? Is being a good cook feminine? Some of the best cooks are males, and they don't seem less masculine.

Anyone can think anything is masculine or feminine. Trans people seem to think that stereotypes are applicable, like when some male walks into a store and berates a store clerk for saying "yes, sir" and suggests "what about me looks like a man" (referring, apparently to hair and makeup and clothing). Yet, we're also supposed to not consider those features as indicative masculinity or femininity.

I could be here all day listing variations in gender norms not just across societies, but from one decade to the next within Western society.

Not so much, really. We don't have any trouble, generally speaking, looking at other societies and other time periods and telling, with great precision, who is a male and who is a female, and who is a man and who is a woman (gender-wise). This "Variation" you refer to plainly does not have us looking elsewhere and going "hey is that a man or a woman?" Feel free to point to just a couple of these other societies. No need to spend all day. Just name your top 3. The real doozies.

Spare us the *cough* straw man arguments.

That wasn't a straw man. That's what I've been told on these threads over and over by pro-trans folks, and what I've read in pro-trans literature. Whether someone expresses in a masculine fashion is a completely separate thing from whether one identifies as a man. @Lisa has screeds on it.

No one is denying the biology;

Oh, yes they are. You can't say "no one is denying biology." They sure as shit are, when there are academics literally saying and publishing that biological sex is a myth.

if anything, many transgender individuals are acutely aware of biological factors, because their biological features do not match their sense of self, and this can cause psychological distress.

I'm sure that's true. Yet we're told it's violence to refer to a transwoman as being "male" (in terms of biological sex). If nobody is denying biology, then why be upset that you are male? I mean, you can also be gender transwoman, and we can all call you "she" and such, but that doesn't mean your not male, and there is nothing "wrong" with that. A person is both male and a transwoman. Good.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

@Visbek The point is that societies construct ideas about what it means to be "male" and what it means to be "female," and that gets conflated with the biology.

Well what it "means" to be male and female has a million different opinions. Some people think it doesn't "mean" anything. What it "means" is a value judgment, and whatever it "means" a person is still male or female. That doesn't change from society to society. You can look in a medieval graveyard and in a Pharoah's tomb and determine the dead person's sex as male or female. What it "meant" to be that in the past is a different analysis entirely.

There's no reason why women can't be doctors, or programmers, or play professional sports, or be politicians, all things strongly discouraged for most of US history, and only seen as acceptable or normal in the past ~20 years. And even today, there are some idiots who falsely cite biology as a reason why women "can't" or "shouldn't" be in STEM fields or politics, and/or should be subservient to men.

Nobody except trans-activists are taking external or cultural characteristics and using them to base a determination on whether a person "is" a woman.

I don't think anyone says women "can't" do STEM fields or politics. I think that people say women "don't" do STEM fields, not that they "can't" do them. Like, how in the Scandinavian countries ,where women have almost unfettered free choice to do whatever they "want" to do, the women do not in any way go into STEM fields in greater numbers.

We should also note that a lot of these ideas about what is "masculine" and "feminine" have nothing whatsoever to do with biology,

I never said they did. Whether a person is a male doesn't have anything to do with what they do, say or dress like, or how they feel. A male is a man. Where a person "feels" or thinks they feel like a woman when they are a man, well, that's a complex psychological issue. They have no way of knowing how a woman feels or ought to feel, so it's unclear how anyone can say they feel like anyone but themselves. Whether they "feel" more comfortable doing or wearing masculine or feminine things, that doesn't change their sex, so, adopting a social construct, doesn't change sex. They're a male who is a transwoman. Fair enough. But will not agree that the person "is" female When we are asked "is that person a real woman" or "is a transwoman a real woman," the answer is simple, but people are afraid to say it -- the answer is "the person is male, in terms of biological sex, and whether that person is a transwoman via gender identity is only known, if at all, to the individual. So, the person is male, and a transwoman." There you go. And, if transwoman and woman were not two different things, we wouldn't have two different words.

because they were developed centuries before we had much of a clue about the actual biology. E.g. people in the year 1300, all across the world, had definitive ideas about what was "male" and "female," but obviously had no knowledge whatsoever of hormones, chromosomes, or other biological features. Yet those earlier ideas clearly dominate many people's contemporary ideas about gender.

They had ideas how men and women behave, but that doesn't define what a person's sex is. A male in 1300 wearing a dress and jewelry was not a woman. That was a man, in a dress with jewelry.

Or.... The concept of "maleness" is a fiction, imposed on society, which ultimately doesn't accurately reflect the reality of lived experiences.

Define "maleness."

Being male is known and understood, biologically. It's not societal. If all of society calls me female, science says I'm male. My lived experience is irrelevant. Now it may be relevant to my mental state, where I may say I identify as a woman, and therefore I am a woman, but under trans-ideology, that also does not have anything to do with societal externalities, because I can "Be" gender-woman even if I walk around all day indistinguishable from every other tom, dick and harry..

 

[Visbek]

I will tell you this, growing up in the 70s and 80s, it WAS used in place of sex...

No. It wasn't. You're not the only one who grew up around that time, and no one other than feminist theorists used the term at all then. (And yes, people can certainly fabricate memories, meaning I don't buy your convenient story.)

Well, males and females do have traits. What is "masculine" and "feminine" are largely matters of opinion.

lol... Yes, that's the whole point of discussing gender as something different than biological sex. I had no idea you would capitulate so easily.

Anyone can think anything is masculine or feminine. Trans people seem to think that stereotypes are applicable...

Transgender and non-binary people don't seem to have one single uniform idea about gender norms. Many are only interested in "stereotypes" as a way of signaling their gender identity and/or fitting in. Others openly criticize gender binaries.

Not so much, really. We don't have any trouble, generally speaking, looking at other societies and other time periods and telling, with great precision, who is a male and who is a female....

Actually, it takes a bit of work to determine the biological sex of a skeleton; and from there, it takes more work to figure out what was associated with men and women in that society.

This "Variation" you refer to plainly does not have us looking elsewhere and going "hey is that a man or a woman?" Feel free to point to just a couple of these other societies.

What is this fresh nonsense? Androgyny wasn't invented in 2019, even though its history was frequently buried.

That wasn't a straw man. That's what I've been told on these threads over and over by pro-trans folks, and what I've read in pro-trans literature.

lol... Yes, it was. It's pretty clear you are misinterpreting people, and I seriously doubt you've read any "pro-trans literature" with an open mind.

E.g. quotes from Lisa:
Sex and gender both exist, so referring to a person only by their assigned birth sex is for simpletons because that is a denial that gender identity exists and the importance of it.

She is not [m]ale and never was male, despite her chromosomes and genitalia. She is female and that biology and the genitalia not being female is the root cause of the gender dysphoria, so the solution is to change the body as much as medical technology will allow to match her gender identity.

I could go on, but no, Lisa isn't denying that biological sexes exist. Her point is that "gender" is not the same thing as "biological sex." What a concept.

You can't say "no one is denying biology."

I can, because they aren't. What they are denying is that biology is the ONLY factor that exists, and that clearly is not the case.

I'm sure that's true. Yet we're told it's violence to refer to a transwoman as being "male" (in terms of biological sex).

...no, they're referring to the individual's gender presentation, not the biology.

The only thing remotely along the lines of what you're discussing is when there is a biological cause for gender dysphoria. Do you recognize that possibility, or nah?

If nobody is denying biology, then why be upset that you are male?

That's exactly the point. For a small percentage of people, their sense of self conflicts with their biological features. And in some (but probably not all) cases, that is almost certainly a result of biological causes.

I mean, you can also be gender transwoman, and we can all call you "she" and such, but that doesn't mean your not male....

Yes, it does -- because the term "male" in that context is NOT referring necessarily or exclusively to the biological elements. It's referring primarily to the gender presentation. And since gender is not the same thing as biological sex, there are times when the two will not match. Accepting that is not a denial of biology, it's a recognition that gender is the "social construct" side of the equation.