4 ms·

> How would you address an intersex person? Their physical characteristics might have been decided by a doctor shortly after birth without any input from themse

> How would you address an intersex person? Their physical characteristics might have been decided by a doctor shortly after birth without any input from themselves. Their chromosomes might be ambiguous or just don’t match their physical characteristics. Like Hanne Gaby Odiele having an XY chromosome, looking (to me) physically female and preferring the they/them pronoun. My default is to use appearance in the absence of other factors; I understand there are cases in which this is challenging at best. Even so, I'm still not quite sure how this addresses my question about how using biological pronouns instead of preferred pronouns somehow "ignores the existence of the intersex" as you earlier asserted. (Indeed, it seems as though the question of pronouns actually rather highlights the existence of the person, if in an uncomfortable and potentially discriminatory way.)

realityking 5y ago
> I'm still not quite sure how this addresses my question about how using biological pronouns instead of preferred pronouns somehow "ignores the existence of the intersex" as you earlier asserted. My point, perhaps poorly delivered, was that not every person has a “biological pronoun”. How do you even define it? There are people with XY chromosomes and female genitalia (and usually female identity): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis There are also people with male characteristics and two X chromosomes: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome Addressing these folks by their “biological sex” (of you mean chromosomes) would be hugely insulting, besides the fact it’s not like we got our chromosomes written on our forehead. Lastly, there are people with ambiguous physical characteristics. Often gender assignment surgeries are performed shortly after birth. Those folks usually get addressed by the gender a doctor chose for them when they were infants - and sometimes this turns out to be the wrong choice and doesn’t actually match their identity. They also don’t have a “biological sex” that neatly fits into the male/female schema.
- memling 5y ago
  > My point, perhaps poorly delivered, was that not every person has a “biological pronoun”. How do you even define it? My understanding is that historically the presence of the Y chromosome was considered determinative. One was male (therefore "he") if the karotype was 46,XY or 47,XXY or 48,XXXY, etc. Indeed, in discussions of the more common abnormal karotypes (e.g., Klinefelter), most of the literature I've seen uses the word "male." > Addressing these folks by their “biological sex” (of you mean chromosomes) would be hugely insulting, besides the fact it’s not like we got our chromosomes written on our forehead. With respect to chromosomes and forehead, that's not exactly true. There's sufficient divergence between male and female skulls that some gender expression surgeries target them.[1] I do understand what you mean, and I'm not trying to be snarky. Sexual differentiation is more than just genitalia, and we're well adapted to noticing those differences. It seems like you're making two points: 1. Those with abnormal karotypes can have an experience similar to the normally karotyped: their self-perception and their anatomy might not line up, and they may prefer to be called by a pronoun that doesn't correspond with karotype or anatomy. 2. The experience of those with abnormal karotypes can and should be generalized to those with normal karotypes. (I'm a bit fuzzy on (2) but I think I'm representing you correctly on (1). By all means correct me if I'm wrong.) I could pretty easily see someone relatively conservative on the issue of pronouns (for, e.g., medical or religious reasons) agreeing that those with abnormal karotypes should be allowed pronoun preference but disagreeing with the second because chromosomal abnormalities are the exception that proves the rule. I'm not sure how it helps resolve the initial question because it requires generalizing from a small set to a substantially larger one. It also offers a more clear reason why one's subjective experience doesn't quite line up with one's body (i.e., a clear abnormality on the chromosomes). [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7994012/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7994012/
  - realityking 5y ago
    We‘ve taken this conversation pretty far over the past 12-days (thanks for sticking with it!). I think it‘s fair to circle back to your original question that I responded to: > Why is the subjective experience of gender privileged over the objective biology of sex? My point was that biology is not all that objective and if we were to use pronouns in accordance with your thesis, we‘d eliminate the identity of many intersex people. Whether gender-identity can be out of sync with your body in the absence of conditions described as intersex (which, for the record, I do believe in) and whether it should be respected is somewhat orthogonal to that. I believe the examples I’ve given of conditions where biology is either ambiguous or actively out of sync are sufficient to illustrate that using “ objective biology” would eliminate the identity of many intersex people. It’s my opinion, that that alone is reason enough to privilege gender over sex.

realityking 5y ago

> I'm still not quite sure how this addresses my question about how using biological pronouns instead of preferred pronouns somehow "ignores the existence of the intersex" as you earlier asserted. My point, perhaps poorly delivered, was that not every person has a “biological pronoun”. How do you even define it? There are people with XY chromosomes and female genitalia (and usually female identity): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis There are also people with male characteristics and two X chromosomes: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome Addressing these folks by their “biological sex” (of you mean chromosomes) would be hugely insulting, besides the fact it’s not like we got our chromosomes written on our forehead. Lastly, there are people with ambiguous physical characteristics. Often gender assignment surgeries are performed shortly after birth. Those folks usually get addressed by the gender a doctor chose for them when they were infants - and sometimes this turns out to be the wrong choice and doesn’t actually match their identity. They also don’t have a “biological sex” that neatly fits into the male/female schema.

memling 5y ago
> My point, perhaps poorly delivered, was that not every person has a “biological pronoun”. How do you even define it? My understanding is that historically the presence of the Y chromosome was considered determinative. One was male (therefore "he") if the karotype was 46,XY or 47,XXY or 48,XXXY, etc. Indeed, in discussions of the more common abnormal karotypes (e.g., Klinefelter), most of the literature I've seen uses the word "male." > Addressing these folks by their “biological sex” (of you mean chromosomes) would be hugely insulting, besides the fact it’s not like we got our chromosomes written on our forehead. With respect to chromosomes and forehead, that's not exactly true. There's sufficient divergence between male and female skulls that some gender expression surgeries target them.[1] I do understand what you mean, and I'm not trying to be snarky. Sexual differentiation is more than just genitalia, and we're well adapted to noticing those differences. It seems like you're making two points: 1. Those with abnormal karotypes can have an experience similar to the normally karotyped: their self-perception and their anatomy might not line up, and they may prefer to be called by a pronoun that doesn't correspond with karotype or anatomy. 2. The experience of those with abnormal karotypes can and should be generalized to those with normal karotypes. (I'm a bit fuzzy on (2) but I think I'm representing you correctly on (1). By all means correct me if I'm wrong.) I could pretty easily see someone relatively conservative on the issue of pronouns (for, e.g., medical or religious reasons) agreeing that those with abnormal karotypes should be allowed pronoun preference but disagreeing with the second because chromosomal abnormalities are the exception that proves the rule. I'm not sure how it helps resolve the initial question because it requires generalizing from a small set to a substantially larger one. It also offers a more clear reason why one's subjective experience doesn't quite line up with one's body (i.e., a clear abnormality on the chromosomes). [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7994012/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7994012/
- realityking 5y ago
  We‘ve taken this conversation pretty far over the past 12-days (thanks for sticking with it!). I think it‘s fair to circle back to your original question that I responded to: > Why is the subjective experience of gender privileged over the objective biology of sex? My point was that biology is not all that objective and if we were to use pronouns in accordance with your thesis, we‘d eliminate the identity of many intersex people. Whether gender-identity can be out of sync with your body in the absence of conditions described as intersex (which, for the record, I do believe in) and whether it should be respected is somewhat orthogonal to that. I believe the examples I’ve given of conditions where biology is either ambiguous or actively out of sync are sufficient to illustrate that using “ objective biology” would eliminate the identity of many intersex people. It’s my opinion, that that alone is reason enough to privilege gender over sex.