3 ms·

>> "This notion of an internal representation of gender identity is backed by science" My claim, backed by science, is that this child was a biological male: h

• KirinDave 9y ago
  > My claim, backed by science, is that this child was a biological male: This is actually a nice way to reinforce my prior statement, so thanks. You're claiming someone was "biologically male" but hey that person didn't even express a penis until age 7-12. They're not even really intersex people, it's just the traditional definition of "biologically male" is comically incapable of dealing with this. What's more, before that change most (there is other documentation of this) of the people you would have lectured about being biologically female felt a very strong affinity to the male identity. By happy coincidence, their hormonal cycle gifted them with anatomy they felt more comfortable with. > he had male hormones and male chromosomes Well, he specifically lacked some hormones, but... Look, trans advocates for the most part don't disagree that a trans man and a person born to the traditional definition of men are exactly the same. They're obviously not precisely the same. What trans people want is an opportunity to be trans people without violence, discrimination, and fearmongering. Trans activists tend to object to the biological essentialism argument not because it is founded on an observation of scientific facts about DNA (which, btw, a lot of people get wrong). They object to it because it's often used to justify acts of violence or discrimination by appealing to defending a biological norm that needs no guardians.