4 ms·

> XXY (Klinefelter syndrome), X (Turner syndrome), XXX (Triple X syndrome), XYY (Jacob’s syndrome), While this is true, it's completely irrelevant to the discu

> XXY (Klinefelter syndrome), X (Turner syndrome), XXX (Triple X syndrome), XYY (Jacob’s syndrome), While this is true, it's completely irrelevant to the discussion. These conditions are extremely rare - certainly much rarer than gender dysmorphia - and most transgender people are either XX or XY.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
brookst 2y ago
I think the point is the bad-faith effort to erase trans people by asserting that chromosomes are all that matter falls down because obviously there are people running around with unusual chromosomes, so if it was an actual good faith effort they would be defining new (rare) genders to map to these chromosome patterns. But it’s not good faith, and nobody really believes that chromosomes are the most important definition of gender. It’s just a convenient way to erase trans people.
- naasking 2y ago
  Nobody serious is claiming that chromosomes are "all that matter", but while you complain about bad-faith efforts to dismiss trans people, you seemingly ignore all of their bad faith efforts to dismiss the importance and reality of sex. > nobody really believes that chromosomes are the most important definition of gender I don't understand how you reach this conclusion given the fact that for >99% of the world's people, their gender matches their sex. Who is this "nobody" you speak of?
  - brookst 2y ago
    > Who is this “nobody” you speak of? That seemed clear? Meaning: there is a population of people who believe gender is abstracted from chromosomes by factors including psychology, and there isn’t a population who claim the believe that gender is 1:1 with chromosomes, but who handwave away the inconvenient < 1% who have a chromosome pattern not mapped to a gender. Thus, nobody actually believes this. It’s just rhetoric to support an ideological position. There are 8B people on earth; no serious scientific or political position can be built on “if you ignore millions of people who don’t fit”
    - naasking 2y ago
      > Meaning: there is a population of people who believe gender is abstracted from chromosomes by factors including psychology, and there isn’t a population who claim the believe that gender is 1:1 with chromosomes, but who handwave away the inconvenient < 1% who have a chromosome pattern not mapped to a gender. Thus, nobody actually believes this. I don't think this is true at all. I actually think the population that really believes there is some abstract distinction between gender and sex is relatively a tiny minority, mostly in Western nations. Edit: >There are 8B people on earth; no serious scientific or political position can be built on “if you ignore millions of people who don’t fit” To clarify, nobody ignores people who "don't fit". Prior to the spread of transgender awareness, feminism spent a lot of time and effort breaking down stereotypes of what it means to be one sex or the other, in order to allow anyone to express any kind of behaviour or presentation. Taking the position that you have a definite sex regardless of your behaviour or presentation is not "ignoring people who don't fit", it's just recognizing the reality of sex and letting people do what they want, while avoiding a commitment to some completely undefined, fluid notion of "gender".
      - plagiarist 2y ago
        > I don't think this is true at all. I actually think the population that really believes there is some abstract distinction between gender and sex is relatively a tiny minority, mostly in Western nations. My understanding is that it is not entirely Western nations and not even all that modern of an idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history
        naasking 2y ago
        The opening paragraph literally says, "The modern terms and meanings of transgender, gender, gender identity, and gender role only emerged in the 1950s and 1960s. As a result, opinions vary on how to categorize historical accounts of gender-variant people and identities." Applying these labels to historical peoples is projection at best. The whole problem with "gender" is that it is either undefined or it has no universal definition, therefore it's meaningless to apply it historically. To say someone was "gender-varying" at the time is to say they didn't conform to the typical roles associated with their sex in that culture, because there was no notion of gender as we know it, nor is there even a universal definition of gender that we can apply retroactively.
  - lukeschlather 2y ago
    > I don't understand how you reach this conclusion given the fact that for >99% of the world's people, their gender matches their sex. What is the significance of this in this context? 100% of the world's people are not lions, does that mean lions don't exist? Some people don't fit neatly into one of the two gender/sex categories. This is scientifically very clear. Why is it important to have hard categories, and why should we legislate that only two categories exist?
    - naasking 2y ago
      > 100% of the world's people are not lions, does that mean lions don't exist No, 100% of the world's people are not lions, therefore people are not lions. > people don't fit neatly into one of the two gender/sex categories Don't conflate gender and sex. All people fit into sex categories because all people have a definite sex, and sex allows for a range of development, even malformed ones. As for "gender", if it's defined separately from sex, then I don't know what it means because it hasn't been defined. My response was that the vast majority of people don't distinguish between gender/sex, because not only have they never encountered a person where these are distinct, they don't even have any inclination that this is even a thing. That's why I'm confused by the original claim that "nobody" thinks gender comes down to sex. It's just a bizarre claim. If you go to remote tribes in the Amazon, even they think gender and sex are the same.
      - yencabulator 2y ago
        If you go to remote tribes in the Amazon, you'll find a lot of things modern day society tries to distance itself from, like kidnapping women and beating them until they're docile. You have literally no idea what those people were to think of themselves, given the freedom to do so. Ancient is not the same as good. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanomami_women https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanomami_women Here's some other "ancient" stuff, that can be used to say the opposite of your point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-spirit#Traditional_Indigenous_terms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-spirit#Traditional_Indigen...
        2y ago
  - KennyBlanken 2y ago
    The people passing laws and executive orders trying to define "male" and "female" by chromosomes, and thus deny people human rights and/including medical care, are pretty serious. > the importance and reality of sex. The what and what? Just because it's "important" to a bunch of extremist religious fundamentalist bigots doesn't mean what's in someone's pants or genes is important to anyone but said someone. "Reality"? FFS. Stay in your lane and stop fixating on how other people lead their lives or their self identity. The only degree it affects you is that you're bothering yourself about it.
JPLeRouzic 2y ago
Klinefelter syndrome: one to two per 1,000 live birth Turner syndrome: 1 in 2,000 to 5,000 female births Triple X syndrome: approximately 1 in 1,000 (female) Jacob’s syndrome: 1 in 1,000 males Mosaicism affecting sex determination: 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 50,000 Swyer syndrome: ~1 in 80,000–100,000 births SRY translocation to X or autosome: ~1 in 25,000–30,000 Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome: 1 in 10,000–50,000 So there are ~0.3% of people who have an unusual sex determination because of genetics. As another poster said that means there are 900,000 people with these conditions in the USA. That's half of the transgender population in the USA. Yet I agree that does not prove that a significant portion of the transgender population has some genetic variation affecting their sex determination, but definitely it proves that the situation is more complex than many think.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
wahnfrieden 2y ago
Those account for a number half the size of trans populations. Are you saying trans is also exceedingly rare and irrelevant, yet they are under attack?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

brookst 2y ago

I think the point is the bad-faith effort to erase trans people by asserting that chromosomes are all that matter falls down because obviously there are people running around with unusual chromosomes, so if it was an actual good faith effort they would be defining new (rare) genders to map to these chromosome patterns. But it’s not good faith, and nobody really believes that chromosomes are the most important definition of gender. It’s just a convenient way to erase trans people.

naasking 2y ago
Nobody serious is claiming that chromosomes are "all that matter", but while you complain about bad-faith efforts to dismiss trans people, you seemingly ignore all of their bad faith efforts to dismiss the importance and reality of sex. > nobody really believes that chromosomes are the most important definition of gender I don't understand how you reach this conclusion given the fact that for >99% of the world's people, their gender matches their sex. Who is this "nobody" you speak of?
- brookst 2y ago
  > Who is this “nobody” you speak of? That seemed clear? Meaning: there is a population of people who believe gender is abstracted from chromosomes by factors including psychology, and there isn’t a population who claim the believe that gender is 1:1 with chromosomes, but who handwave away the inconvenient < 1% who have a chromosome pattern not mapped to a gender. Thus, nobody actually believes this. It’s just rhetoric to support an ideological position. There are 8B people on earth; no serious scientific or political position can be built on “if you ignore millions of people who don’t fit”
  - naasking 2y ago
    > Meaning: there is a population of people who believe gender is abstracted from chromosomes by factors including psychology, and there isn’t a population who claim the believe that gender is 1:1 with chromosomes, but who handwave away the inconvenient < 1% who have a chromosome pattern not mapped to a gender. Thus, nobody actually believes this. I don't think this is true at all. I actually think the population that really believes there is some abstract distinction between gender and sex is relatively a tiny minority, mostly in Western nations. Edit: >There are 8B people on earth; no serious scientific or political position can be built on “if you ignore millions of people who don’t fit” To clarify, nobody ignores people who "don't fit". Prior to the spread of transgender awareness, feminism spent a lot of time and effort breaking down stereotypes of what it means to be one sex or the other, in order to allow anyone to express any kind of behaviour or presentation. Taking the position that you have a definite sex regardless of your behaviour or presentation is not "ignoring people who don't fit", it's just recognizing the reality of sex and letting people do what they want, while avoiding a commitment to some completely undefined, fluid notion of "gender".
    - plagiarist 2y ago
      > I don't think this is true at all. I actually think the population that really believes there is some abstract distinction between gender and sex is relatively a tiny minority, mostly in Western nations. My understanding is that it is not entirely Western nations and not even all that modern of an idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history
      - naasking 2y ago
        The opening paragraph literally says, "The modern terms and meanings of transgender, gender, gender identity, and gender role only emerged in the 1950s and 1960s. As a result, opinions vary on how to categorize historical accounts of gender-variant people and identities." Applying these labels to historical peoples is projection at best. The whole problem with "gender" is that it is either undefined or it has no universal definition, therefore it's meaningless to apply it historically. To say someone was "gender-varying" at the time is to say they didn't conform to the typical roles associated with their sex in that culture, because there was no notion of gender as we know it, nor is there even a universal definition of gender that we can apply retroactively.
- lukeschlather 2y ago
  > I don't understand how you reach this conclusion given the fact that for >99% of the world's people, their gender matches their sex. What is the significance of this in this context? 100% of the world's people are not lions, does that mean lions don't exist? Some people don't fit neatly into one of the two gender/sex categories. This is scientifically very clear. Why is it important to have hard categories, and why should we legislate that only two categories exist?
  - naasking 2y ago
    > 100% of the world's people are not lions, does that mean lions don't exist No, 100% of the world's people are not lions, therefore people are not lions. > people don't fit neatly into one of the two gender/sex categories Don't conflate gender and sex. All people fit into sex categories because all people have a definite sex, and sex allows for a range of development, even malformed ones. As for "gender", if it's defined separately from sex, then I don't know what it means because it hasn't been defined. My response was that the vast majority of people don't distinguish between gender/sex, because not only have they never encountered a person where these are distinct, they don't even have any inclination that this is even a thing. That's why I'm confused by the original claim that "nobody" thinks gender comes down to sex. It's just a bizarre claim. If you go to remote tribes in the Amazon, even they think gender and sex are the same.
    - yencabulator 2y ago
      If you go to remote tribes in the Amazon, you'll find a lot of things modern day society tries to distance itself from, like kidnapping women and beating them until they're docile. You have literally no idea what those people were to think of themselves, given the freedom to do so. Ancient is not the same as good. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanomami_women https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanomami_women Here's some other "ancient" stuff, that can be used to say the opposite of your point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-spirit#Traditional_Indigenous_terms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-spirit#Traditional_Indigen...
      - 2y ago
- KennyBlanken 2y ago
  The people passing laws and executive orders trying to define "male" and "female" by chromosomes, and thus deny people human rights and/including medical care, are pretty serious. > the importance and reality of sex. The what and what? Just because it's "important" to a bunch of extremist religious fundamentalist bigots doesn't mean what's in someone's pants or genes is important to anyone but said someone. "Reality"? FFS. Stay in your lane and stop fixating on how other people lead their lives or their self identity. The only degree it affects you is that you're bothering yourself about it.

JPLeRouzic 2y ago

Klinefelter syndrome: one to two per 1,000 live birth Turner syndrome: 1 in 2,000 to 5,000 female births Triple X syndrome: approximately 1 in 1,000 (female) Jacob’s syndrome: 1 in 1,000 males Mosaicism affecting sex determination: 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 50,000 Swyer syndrome: ~1 in 80,000–100,000 births SRY translocation to X or autosome: ~1 in 25,000–30,000 Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome: 1 in 10,000–50,000 So there are ~0.3% of people who have an unusual sex determination because of genetics. As another poster said that means there are 900,000 people with these conditions in the USA. That's half of the transgender population in the USA. Yet I agree that does not prove that a significant portion of the transgender population has some genetic variation affecting their sex determination, but definitely it proves that the situation is more complex than many think.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

wahnfrieden 2y ago

Those account for a number half the size of trans populations. Are you saying trans is also exceedingly rare and irrelevant, yet they are under attack?