4 ms·

Males are females are biological sex labels. It's how our bodies develop so we can reproduce. Even if our bodies don't develop properly or if we have developmen

Males are females are biological sex labels. It's how our bodies develop so we can reproduce. Even if our bodies don't develop properly or if we have developmental sex disorders we are all either male or female. If you lookup biological adult, it's just someone who has completeled their reproductive development. So Boy, Girl, Man and Woman are also sex labels. Also we now know more about how sex is more then just genitalia. This is why we have Sex and a Biological Variable https://www.nature.com/articles/npp2016215 https://www.nature.com/articles/npp2016215 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780323885348000547#:~:text=The%20sex%20chromosomes%20are%20not,all%20cells%20have%20a%20sex https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B97803...!

defrost 2y ago
> Even if our bodies don't develop properly or if we have developmental sex disorders we are all either male or female. That's not what the actual developmental science says though. The strong all humans are either male OR female by { unprovided definition } is simply incorrect. > If you lookup biological adult, it's just someone who has completeled their reproductive development. Sure. Some are born and develop into biological adult males. Others are born and develop into biological adult females. And others yet again are born and grow into adults who are neither one nor the other. Look it up .. start with "intersex". See your own first link, for example, it's really sloppy, and yet: Although all cells have a sex, designated by the presence and dosage of X or Y chromosomes, which in most cases will be XX (female) or XY (male), * all cells will have a sex (okay ...) * most will be XX (female) OR XY (male) (... okay) * ... crickets ... Nothing said about those cells that are neither male nor female. All that aside, you have dodged the question. What definition do you have for male, for female, and what do you designate the remainder? Are you even aware that people are born who are neither male nor female by any of the generally accepted physical and genetic attributes?
- codocod 2y ago
  The comment this subthread branched from was discussing the differences in athletic ability. From the intersection of developmental biology and sports science research we know how male physical advantage in competition arises, and which set of known "intersex" (DSD) conditions confer this. For example, 5-alpha reductase 2 deficiency does. Swyer syndrome does not. World Athletics' policy document Eligibility Regulations for the Female Classification does a good job of implementing this research into a workable policy: https://worldathletics.org/download/download?filename=2ffb8b1a-59e3-4cea-bb0c-5af8b690d089.pdf&urlslug=C3.6A%2520%25E2%2580%2593%2520Eligibility%2520Regulations%2520for%2520the%2520Female%2520Classification%2520%25E2%2580%2593%2520effective%252031%2520March%25202023 https://worldathletics.org/download/download?filename=2ffb8b... Rather than trying to label all edge cases "female" or "male", this pragmatic approach optimizes for fairness in competition instead.
  - defrost 2y ago
    The comment I replied to was this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42190601 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42190601 As you can see it made no mention of athletics. I was curious about the self referential circular definitions and enquired of a specific person what their understanding of development biology was. Thankyou for your response, it might be better directed toward the person who apparently hasn't yet realised that such a thing as intersex categories and conditions even exist.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - codocod 2y ago
      Understood, the comment I was referring to was this one a bit further up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42188151 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42188151 I responded to your comment because it was the most recent in the thread, but I agree that it would have perhaps made more sense as a reply to the other commenter. Anyhow the broader point I think is worth making is that there is often a more context-specific approach, of which eligibility criteria for competitive sporting events is one example.
- oldnetguy 2y ago
  > What definition do you have for male, for female, and what do you designate the remainder? I didn't dodge the question, you just don't like my answer Here are the English definitions. Male: of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring. Female:of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes. "a herd of female deer" Now I know what you are going to say, what if they cannot create gametes? That doesn't change anything because even if your reproductive organs don't develop properly nor function properly it doesn't make you neither male nor female. You still have many other characteristics that needed to be addressed. This is why we have Sex as a Biological Variable. > Are you even aware that people are born who are neither male nor female by any of the generally accepted physical and genetic attributes? That's not really true, people are either male or female but didn't develop properly. Doesn't mean that they are neither nor, people with DSDs are documented. I know there are groups trying to push away from the concept of DSDs but there is not a consensus. People have all sorts of development disorders, this is just one kind. Now even if there were people who were of no sex, it doesn't mean we start changing sex labels for fully developed people because we now consider it a social construct. The people who follow Gender Theory like to use people with DSDs to push the idea that fully developed people can change their sex and they can't. https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/33/2/in-humans-sex-is-binary-and-immutable https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/33/2/in-humans-sex-is... Your playing with words to try and get the idea of Biological sex thrown out is not going to work here.
  - defrost 2y ago
    > That's not really true, Yes, it is true, whether you like it or not. "if the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female" ~ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224490209552139 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0022449020955213... > people are either male or female but didn't develop properly. How do you classify that which is unclassifiable by experts in the field? > Your [sic] playing with words to try .. I'm not any of the experts in the field looking at natal development and debating the breadth of variation. Your argument is not with myself but with the documented literature on the subject.

defrost 2y ago

> Even if our bodies don't develop properly or if we have developmental sex disorders we are all either male or female. That's not what the actual developmental science says though. The strong all humans are either male OR female by { unprovided definition } is simply incorrect. > If you lookup biological adult, it's just someone who has completeled their reproductive development. Sure. Some are born and develop into biological adult males. Others are born and develop into biological adult females. And others yet again are born and grow into adults who are neither one nor the other. Look it up .. start with "intersex". See your own first link, for example, it's really sloppy, and yet: Although all cells have a sex, designated by the presence and dosage of X or Y chromosomes, which in most cases will be XX (female) or XY (male), * all cells will have a sex (okay ...) * most will be XX (female) OR XY (male) (... okay) * ... crickets ... Nothing said about those cells that are neither male nor female. All that aside, you have dodged the question. What definition do you have for male, for female, and what do you designate the remainder? Are you even aware that people are born who are neither male nor female by any of the generally accepted physical and genetic attributes?

codocod 2y ago
The comment this subthread branched from was discussing the differences in athletic ability. From the intersection of developmental biology and sports science research we know how male physical advantage in competition arises, and which set of known "intersex" (DSD) conditions confer this. For example, 5-alpha reductase 2 deficiency does. Swyer syndrome does not. World Athletics' policy document Eligibility Regulations for the Female Classification does a good job of implementing this research into a workable policy: https://worldathletics.org/download/download?filename=2ffb8b1a-59e3-4cea-bb0c-5af8b690d089.pdf&urlslug=C3.6A%2520%25E2%2580%2593%2520Eligibility%2520Regulations%2520for%2520the%2520Female%2520Classification%2520%25E2%2580%2593%2520effective%252031%2520March%25202023 https://worldathletics.org/download/download?filename=2ffb8b... Rather than trying to label all edge cases "female" or "male", this pragmatic approach optimizes for fairness in competition instead.
- defrost 2y ago
  The comment I replied to was this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42190601 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42190601 As you can see it made no mention of athletics. I was curious about the self referential circular definitions and enquired of a specific person what their understanding of development biology was. Thankyou for your response, it might be better directed toward the person who apparently hasn't yet realised that such a thing as intersex categories and conditions even exist.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - codocod 2y ago
    Understood, the comment I was referring to was this one a bit further up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42188151 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42188151 I responded to your comment because it was the most recent in the thread, but I agree that it would have perhaps made more sense as a reply to the other commenter. Anyhow the broader point I think is worth making is that there is often a more context-specific approach, of which eligibility criteria for competitive sporting events is one example.
oldnetguy 2y ago
> What definition do you have for male, for female, and what do you designate the remainder? I didn't dodge the question, you just don't like my answer Here are the English definitions. Male: of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring. Female:of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes. "a herd of female deer" Now I know what you are going to say, what if they cannot create gametes? That doesn't change anything because even if your reproductive organs don't develop properly nor function properly it doesn't make you neither male nor female. You still have many other characteristics that needed to be addressed. This is why we have Sex as a Biological Variable. > Are you even aware that people are born who are neither male nor female by any of the generally accepted physical and genetic attributes? That's not really true, people are either male or female but didn't develop properly. Doesn't mean that they are neither nor, people with DSDs are documented. I know there are groups trying to push away from the concept of DSDs but there is not a consensus. People have all sorts of development disorders, this is just one kind. Now even if there were people who were of no sex, it doesn't mean we start changing sex labels for fully developed people because we now consider it a social construct. The people who follow Gender Theory like to use people with DSDs to push the idea that fully developed people can change their sex and they can't. https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/33/2/in-humans-sex-is-binary-and-immutable https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/33/2/in-humans-sex-is... Your playing with words to try and get the idea of Biological sex thrown out is not going to work here.
- defrost 2y ago
  > That's not really true, Yes, it is true, whether you like it or not. "if the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female" ~ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224490209552139 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0022449020955213... > people are either male or female but didn't develop properly. How do you classify that which is unclassifiable by experts in the field? > Your [sic] playing with words to try .. I'm not any of the experts in the field looking at natal development and debating the breadth of variation. Your argument is not with myself but with the documented literature on the subject.