3 ms·

This is incorrect. According to NIH there is no such thing as “biological (genetic) gender”. You’re thinking of biological sex. https://orwh.od.nih.gov/sex-gen

This is incorrect. According to NIH there is no such thing as “biological (genetic) gender”. You’re thinking of biological sex. https://orwh.od.nih.gov/sex-gender https://orwh.od.nih.gov/sex-gender

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
schroeding 4y ago
In many languages, like German (which may be GPs native language), those two things share the same exact word, requiring modifier words like "biological" to differentiate between the two, making everything a bit confusing when crossing the language barrier.
- neuronic 4y ago
  You're right, apologies for the mistake.
pcthrowaway 4y ago
Even that's not really cut-and-dry. I don't normally like linking to twitter, but this thread is amazing (scientific) content: https://twitter.com/rebeccarhelm/status/1207834357639139328?lang=en https://twitter.com/rebeccarhelm/status/1207834357639139328?...
- Godel_unicode 4y ago
  Totally agree, I was responding to the twin assertions that gender is based in genetics and that there only being two is widely accepted.
- fullmoon 4y ago
  It appears that way, but skirts around the gametic model of discerning biological sex that is the golden standard for other species, while elevating the status of chromosomal defects. It’s a good example how selective presentation of scientific realities can be abused to mislead. Chromosomal defects in a binary system don’t constitute a new or between-state, and it also isn’t commonly described that way: XXY (Kleinfeltner) affecting males is the mainstream position.