4 ms·

Genetically speaking it seems that it is binary world, either you're XX or you're XY. Or at least that is what I understood from the article. Is there another c

Genetically speaking it seems that it is binary world, either you're XX or you're XY. Or at least that is what I understood from the article. Is there another combination I'm not aware of?

speedplane 7y ago
It's not just genetics.
garmaine 7y ago
Yes, many. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK115545/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK115545/
- Veen 7y ago
  But genetically non-binary individuals make up a tiny proportion of the population. To a first approximation, there are two genetic sexes and saying so is a reasonable generalization, even though there are edge cases like Semenya that should be dealt with sensitively.
  - garmaine 7y ago
    In aggregate, they make up about ~1% of the population. That’s rare, but common enough that you probably know a few. It is far more common than was once thought because of the prevalence now of genetic testing. Before XXX or XXY would have gone undiagnosed, for example.
    - lordlimecat 7y ago
      From one of the article's sources on "1.7%": > Specifically, Fausto-Sterling computes the incidence of intersexual births to be 1.7 per 100 live births, or 1.7%. To arrive at that figure, she defines as intersex any “individual who deviates from the Platonic ideal of physical dimorphism at the chromosomal, genital, gonadal, or hormonal levels” So someone with elevated estrogen but normally functioning male genitalia and XY chromosomes would be part of this 1.7%, as might an effeminate looking man or a boyish female. I rather suspect that is not what most people would assume when reading that number.
      - garmaine 7y ago
        Well that's not how I arrived at the 1% number. Look at the underlying frequencies of the genetic abnormalities.
        lordlimecat 7y ago
        The article's author did, and came up with a number about 2 orders of magnitude lower.
- mundacho 7y ago
  thanks for the link, it's very interesting. My next question (in general, not to you) would be to know how these people with the other combinations are classified by the sports organizations. It seems like a really complex issue, and to form an opinion one needs to really get into the nuances. I think the press pushing the narrative that women are discriminated against without at least a mention of the nuances involved is a bit irresponsible. The discussion here might help some folks to form a more informed opinion.
  - garmaine 7y ago
    AFAICT this ruling basically only applies to XY women with high testosterone levels. XXY men (who would have low T levels) still compete against other men, and XXX women (with less than typical T levels even for women) compete with other women. There are many other variations though, but I do’t know any other than XY(f.) which would endanger gender separation in sports. Note that trans women (m->f) get to compete with other women. That’s part of the unfairness here. A male athlete can surgically make their body female and be allowed to compete, but Caster Semenya who was born essentially the same way is blocked from competing.
    - votepaunchy 7y ago
      > Note that trans women (m->f) get to compete with other women. That’s part of the unfairness here. A male athlete can surgically make their body female and be allowed to compete, but Caster Semenya who was born essentially the same way is blocked from competing. It’s not just surgically. Athletes are required to reduce their testosterone levels, which is the issue here.
adminu 7y ago
There actually are more combinations involving three chromosomes. They make binary classification quite... impossible
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  Or people who have a Y chromosome yet lack the SRY gene, or lack a Y chromosome but have the SRY gene on another chromosome. It's incredibly complicated and it's frankly amazing that sexual dimorphism and reproduction works even as well as it does.
- marton78 7y ago
  There's also the possibility of being monosomal: X0
Drakim 7y ago
There actually are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_chromosome_anomalies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_chromosome_anomalies
DanBC 7y ago
> Is there another combination I'm not aware of? Yes, lots. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders_of_sex_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders_of_sex_development
atq2119 7y ago
Biology is messy, so in reality there are many more combinations. What's one of those touchy subjects is that those other combinations are clearly outliers, and while we should obviously accept everybody as humans, it's much less clear why society as a whole should complicate the notions of sex/gender so much for the benefit of a few, especially when this complication is arguably in many cases not really necessary. (There are obvious and indisputable things that society should do to accomodate people with outlier sex, like distinguishing bathrooms by stalls vs. urinals instead of by gender/sex, and getting rid of gender/sex questions on pretty much all forms/questionnaires ever. What distinguishes those changes from some others is that they're about making gender less significant rather than more significant, i.e. they're attempts to solve the problem by simplifying gender/sex instead of making it more complicated.)
- DecayingOrganic 7y ago
  Although many combinations may take place, it's important to note that there are only 2 biological sexes for Homo sapiens (I am not talking about gender). 1. Biological sex is defined in relation to the roles played in sexual reproduction. 2. Sexual reproduction involves only two, namely, male and female. 3. Thus, biological sex is only two, namely, male or female. Consider the case of plants that reproduce sexually. When we discover a plant missing parts of its sexual organs, we do not thereby conclude that we have discovered a third sex. Rather biologists rightly concur that what you have found is a defective plant. Likewise, in human beings, when one has an extra chromosome, or defective genitalia, you have just that: a sexual defect at the physical level. Such people often are wonderful, loving, and morally upright persons, but physically something has gone wrong. Hermaphrodites are individuals with both pairs of sex organs. While in very rare cases some human beings have both pairs of genitalia, in no case whatsoever has it ever been observed that both pairs are fully functioning. True human hermaphrodites with both male and female sexual organs that fully function don’t exist. Such is why no cases of self-fertilization have ever been recorded in human beings. Even if we did discover an individual human being with both pairs of fully functioning sex organs, such a case would not disprove the binary distinction. What you would have is someone who is both male and female; one who is able to act either as male or female depending upon the other sex with which that individual desired to reproduce. Hermaphroditism, rather than disproving the traditional binary distinction, actually reinforces it. We would not even know hermaphrodites existed, let alone be able to speak of them, unless we knew of the male-female binary.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
pjc50 7y ago
https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/8538/46-xy-disorders-of-sexual-development https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/8538/46-xy-disord... : it's possible to be XY without external male genitals, resulting in being assigned female at birth. It's also possible to be "47 XXY" https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/11920/47-xxy https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/11920/47-xxy , or even chimerical (different parts of the body having different genetics)
tigershark 7y ago
Klinefelter and Turner from vague memories of 25 years ago at school... So XXY and XYY or something like that

Genetically speaking it seems that it is binary world, either you're XX or you're XY. Or at least that is what I understood from the article. Is there another combination I'm not aware of?

speedplane 7y ago

It's not just genetics.

garmaine 7y ago

Yes, many. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK115545/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK115545/

Veen 7y ago
But genetically non-binary individuals make up a tiny proportion of the population. To a first approximation, there are two genetic sexes and saying so is a reasonable generalization, even though there are edge cases like Semenya that should be dealt with sensitively.
- garmaine 7y ago
  In aggregate, they make up about ~1% of the population. That’s rare, but common enough that you probably know a few. It is far more common than was once thought because of the prevalence now of genetic testing. Before XXX or XXY would have gone undiagnosed, for example.
  - lordlimecat 7y ago
    From one of the article's sources on "1.7%": > Specifically, Fausto-Sterling computes the incidence of intersexual births to be 1.7 per 100 live births, or 1.7%. To arrive at that figure, she defines as intersex any “individual who deviates from the Platonic ideal of physical dimorphism at the chromosomal, genital, gonadal, or hormonal levels” So someone with elevated estrogen but normally functioning male genitalia and XY chromosomes would be part of this 1.7%, as might an effeminate looking man or a boyish female. I rather suspect that is not what most people would assume when reading that number.
    - garmaine 7y ago
      Well that's not how I arrived at the 1% number. Look at the underlying frequencies of the genetic abnormalities.
      - lordlimecat 7y ago
        The article's author did, and came up with a number about 2 orders of magnitude lower.
mundacho 7y ago
thanks for the link, it's very interesting. My next question (in general, not to you) would be to know how these people with the other combinations are classified by the sports organizations. It seems like a really complex issue, and to form an opinion one needs to really get into the nuances. I think the press pushing the narrative that women are discriminated against without at least a mention of the nuances involved is a bit irresponsible. The discussion here might help some folks to form a more informed opinion.
- garmaine 7y ago
  AFAICT this ruling basically only applies to XY women with high testosterone levels. XXY men (who would have low T levels) still compete against other men, and XXX women (with less than typical T levels even for women) compete with other women. There are many other variations though, but I do’t know any other than XY(f.) which would endanger gender separation in sports. Note that trans women (m->f) get to compete with other women. That’s part of the unfairness here. A male athlete can surgically make their body female and be allowed to compete, but Caster Semenya who was born essentially the same way is blocked from competing.
  - votepaunchy 7y ago
    > Note that trans women (m->f) get to compete with other women. That’s part of the unfairness here. A male athlete can surgically make their body female and be allowed to compete, but Caster Semenya who was born essentially the same way is blocked from competing. It’s not just surgically. Athletes are required to reduce their testosterone levels, which is the issue here.

adminu 7y ago

There actually are more combinations involving three chromosomes. They make binary classification quite... impossible

CydeWeys 7y ago
Or people who have a Y chromosome yet lack the SRY gene, or lack a Y chromosome but have the SRY gene on another chromosome. It's incredibly complicated and it's frankly amazing that sexual dimorphism and reproduction works even as well as it does.
marton78 7y ago
There's also the possibility of being monosomal: X0

Drakim 7y ago

There actually are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_chromosome_anomalies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_chromosome_anomalies

DanBC 7y ago

> Is there another combination I'm not aware of? Yes, lots. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders_of_sex_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders_of_sex_development

atq2119 7y ago

Biology is messy, so in reality there are many more combinations. What's one of those touchy subjects is that those other combinations are clearly outliers, and while we should obviously accept everybody as humans, it's much less clear why society as a whole should complicate the notions of sex/gender so much for the benefit of a few, especially when this complication is arguably in many cases not really necessary. (There are obvious and indisputable things that society should do to accomodate people with outlier sex, like distinguishing bathrooms by stalls vs. urinals instead of by gender/sex, and getting rid of gender/sex questions on pretty much all forms/questionnaires ever. What distinguishes those changes from some others is that they're about making gender less significant rather than more significant, i.e. they're attempts to solve the problem by simplifying gender/sex instead of making it more complicated.)

DecayingOrganic 7y ago
Although many combinations may take place, it's important to note that there are only 2 biological sexes for Homo sapiens (I am not talking about gender). 1. Biological sex is defined in relation to the roles played in sexual reproduction. 2. Sexual reproduction involves only two, namely, male and female. 3. Thus, biological sex is only two, namely, male or female. Consider the case of plants that reproduce sexually. When we discover a plant missing parts of its sexual organs, we do not thereby conclude that we have discovered a third sex. Rather biologists rightly concur that what you have found is a defective plant. Likewise, in human beings, when one has an extra chromosome, or defective genitalia, you have just that: a sexual defect at the physical level. Such people often are wonderful, loving, and morally upright persons, but physically something has gone wrong. Hermaphrodites are individuals with both pairs of sex organs. While in very rare cases some human beings have both pairs of genitalia, in no case whatsoever has it ever been observed that both pairs are fully functioning. True human hermaphrodites with both male and female sexual organs that fully function don’t exist. Such is why no cases of self-fertilization have ever been recorded in human beings. Even if we did discover an individual human being with both pairs of fully functioning sex organs, such a case would not disprove the binary distinction. What you would have is someone who is both male and female; one who is able to act either as male or female depending upon the other sex with which that individual desired to reproduce. Hermaphroditism, rather than disproving the traditional binary distinction, actually reinforces it. We would not even know hermaphrodites existed, let alone be able to speak of them, unless we knew of the male-female binary.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

pjc50 7y ago

https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/8538/46-xy-disorders-of-sexual-development https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/8538/46-xy-disord... : it's possible to be XY without external male genitals, resulting in being assigned female at birth. It's also possible to be "47 XXY" https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/11920/47-xxy https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/11920/47-xxy , or even chimerical (different parts of the body having different genetics)

tigershark 7y ago

Klinefelter and Turner from vague memories of 25 years ago at school... So XXY and XYY or something like that