2 ms·
This debate butts up against the limitations of language and it is necessary to take care to define terms. This definition will be more or less useful depending
by jl6 5y ago
This debate butts up against the limitations of language and it is necessary to take care to define terms. This definition will be more or less useful depending on what you are trying to communicate.
“Sex” could be interpreted to mean a statement about chromosomes, in which case there are more than two variants.
Or it could be interpreted to be a statement about reproductive potential, in which case the “two sexes” model is a better fit, because there’s no intermediate gamete between sperm and egg. Do intersex conditions break this model? Almost always not: the variations of sex development are variations on the male pattern and the female pattern. Are there exceptionally rare individuals that defy categorisation? Surely there are, but the existence of extreme, rare outliers doesn’t invalidate the model.
Which definition is most useful? In the context of women’s rights, it’s clearly the latter. Women suffer discrimination based on their reproductive biology, not based on their chromosomes. It’s also the model that the vast majority of people use as their everyday working definition of sex.
So I think anyone who wants to claim there are more than two sexes must accept the responsibility to qualify their terminology.
- yerwhat01010 5y ago> “Sex” could be interpreted to mean a statement about chromosomes. Yes, it could - by people who don't know what the word "sex" means. Sex isn't about chromosomes, it's about gametes, and sex chromosome variants aren't separate sexes. For example, people with Klinefelter Syndrome (XXY) are male. This isn't hard. https://colinwright.substack.com/p/sex-chromosome-variants-are-not-their https://colinwright.substack.com/p/sex-chromosome-variants-a...
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- makeworld 5y agoWho is this author? His blog appears to be a crusade against trans people. > What’s important to note is that the presence of a Y chromosome, or two, or three, etc., all result in the development of testes and therefore these individuals are biologically male. Likewise, individuals with additional or fewer X chromosomes, in the absence of a Y, all develop ovaries and are therefore biologically female. Looking at things like testes and ovaries is only one part of things, and not some universal definition scientists accept. The author even admits in the comment some people may have both. We also know that some people make have one of these but appear oppositely on the inside/outside. > This isn't hard. From my experience, it is deeply complex. > Effectively regulating sports divisions based on sex using science is impossible. There are no singular or combinations of objective criteria that can define each sex. Prior attempts to govern sports eligibility based on sex using existing testing methods have failed to provide a workable solution based on chromosome composition, physical exam, etc. In other words: we have no way to consistently differentiate male from female and we have never possessed the ability to do so. Gender and sex are not the same thing. Sex is typically assigned at birth based the appearance on appearance of external genitalia and or chromosomal makeup, whereas gender is socially constructed and may vary from culture to culture and/or change over time. However, sex is difficult to dichotomize into two binary divisions because there are a number of different chromosome compositions consistent with either male or female phenotypes. The phrase “biological sex” is meaningless and is ill-advised. From https://www.barbellmedicine.com/blog/shades-of-gray-sex-gender-and-fairness-in-sport/ https://www.barbellmedicine.com/blog/shades-of-gray-sex-gend...