So my answer must be simple, when discussing a complex topic, but you will circle back to claims of complexity to dismiss anything I say.
That is hardly a good faith response.
I would say it is the sum of biological processes that result in the expected sexual dimorphism observed within the majority of the population, resulting in biologically male or female traits.
It only needs to be simple if you say it should be simple. Biological male is a bad term because it implies some simple binary, which doesn’t exist. If it does exist, then you should be able to tell me specifically which biological process it refers to.
I would say it is the sum of biological processes that result in the expected sexual dimorphism observed within the majority of the population, resulting in biologically male or female traits.
Fine answer. OK, so when someone takes HRT they are modifying these biological processes to fit with their chosen gender, correct? So they are now biologically their chosen gender, according to your definition, right? They are not the gender assigned at birth anymore.
I never said HRT was “sex change” though I would argue it potentially changes your sex, based on some definition of sex.
I did in another comment refer to a sex change surgery, which may be what you’re referring to. Yeah, that has other names, but the point of that comment was the language is something we’re working backwards to, and not something we should work forward from, unlike what you implied with your comment that was on. Whatever it’s called, that’s not an argument for what effect it has. We change the names of things as we evolve our understanding. We don’t understand based on what things are called.
I know the difference between sex and gender. My point has been consistently that sex is hazy. It is not a binary, and calling someone “biologically male” who does not want to be called that is a snobby way to be an asshole, particularly because “biologically male” doesn’t mean much, if anything. Assigned gender at birth is clear and there are no questions, so use that. If they’re undergoing HRT and/or gender reassignment surgery, their biology is no longer that of their birth, so they are not “biologically male.” Do you agree with this, or are you going to continue arguing that you were totally right the whole time? If you think you were right, which part of biology is the sex identifier? You haven’t answered that.
If you think you were right, which part of biology is the sex identifier? You haven’t answered that.
I have already very clearly articulated my answer to this. Go back up a couple of comments and read it again if you need to.
though I would argue it potentially changes your sex
Then you are arguing against the prevailing medical and scientific opinions, gender affirming care can assist with aligning secondary sex characteristics but does not change the patients sex.
It has long been an argument of the trans community that gender and sex are different, which Im not disputing at all but you are trying to make unclear.
Feminizing hormone therapy is used to make physical changes in the body that are caused by female hormones during puberty. Those changes are called secondary sex characteristics.
The sum of them does not make a binary definition of sex, nor does it make an unchanging one, as I’ve said before. If you want an unchanging binary definition you need to define what that would refer to.
It has long been an argument of the trans community that gender and sex are different, which Im not disputing at all but you are trying to make unclear.
I agree, gender is not sex. However, sex is not just something you’re born with, as we’ve clearly seen with intersex characteristics and also being able to change the body with HRT.
I know the difference between primary and secondary sex characteristics. I have said nothing that should indicate otherwise. You’re just trying to be the “well actually…” person. Obviously primary sex characteristics are not the definition of sex. If they were then men males who have their testicals removed wouldn’t be men males and women females who have their overies removed wouldn’t be women females. You agree that’s wrong, correct? (I know, asking these questions is pointless because you just ignore them, but hopefully they make you think.)
Sex is many things, which includes things effected by HRT and surgery. Saying “biological sex” to refer to sex assigned at birth is dismissive of this, right? (Not to mention it’s totally wrong if we agree sex many characteristics.) If so, we should avoid the term, correct? It’s not the same as gender assigned at birth, right?
Edit: men => males, women => females, because I could forsee the “technically…” coming.
Artificial changes to a body are just that, artificial.
Inserting an rfid chip under my skin doesn’t make me a credit card. Taking some hormones doesn’t make you female.
This incessant boundary shifting and virtue signalling that everyone must play along with the artificial and pretend it is reality will never see broad public acceptance.
Changing gender is real, changing sex is not and you could go ahead and provide a definition of sex that is holistic and entirely changeable with current technology if you disagree.
It’s not artificial. The hormones aren’t native to the person, but it’s not changing their body by replacing components with mechanical things. Your body has different amounts of testosterone and estrogen as is. It’s just changing those amounts artificially, but the changing the body makes following that are natural biological processes.
In your analogy though, how would giving you the function go a credit card not make you a credit card? If the effect is identical, then how are you not that thing? Sure, you’d also be other things, but that doesn’t exclude being another. If you have the outcome of being able to purchase things using your credit account, you are in effect a credit card. If you have the outcome of male attributes, you are in effect a male.
Again, you’re arguing for some strict binary “biological” definition of sex. The primary sex characteristics, that you seem so fond of, can be removed. If this is your requirement, what happens when these are removed? You dodged this and are implying an unchanging definition now, so primary sex characteristics are not the requirement? If not, what is and what effect does HRT play on it now?
And therefore are artificial. Take them away and what happens? Secondary sex characteristics return to their baseline…. Mostly.
I provided you with my definition of biological sex. If you are so interested in continuing this discussion the least you could do is provide your definition as I requested.
how would giving you the function go a credit card not make you a credit card?
I would still be a human, because changing one part does not change the whole.
If you have the outcome of male attributes, you are in effect a male.
A poor argument given that FTM cannot get real testes, again being artificially mimicked at best.
The primary sex characteristics, that you seem so fond of, can be removed.
But not functionally replicated by artificial means. Also I haven’t based my definition of sex, or argument against sex change being possible, on primary sex characteristics.
You do seem fond of this ‘counter argument’ though. Shame its not counter to anything I have said.
I have only stated that changing secondary sex characteristics is not sufficient to change a persons sex.
Biological sex, as determined by a number of factors during development, is unchanging. Gender however can be changed.
So my answer must be simple, when discussing a complex topic, but you will circle back to claims of complexity to dismiss anything I say.
That is hardly a good faith response.
I would say it is the sum of biological processes that result in the expected sexual dimorphism observed within the majority of the population, resulting in biologically male or female traits.
It only needs to be simple if you say it should be simple. Biological male is a bad term because it implies some simple binary, which doesn’t exist. If it does exist, then you should be able to tell me specifically which biological process it refers to.
Fine answer. OK, so when someone takes HRT they are modifying these biological processes to fit with their chosen gender, correct? So they are now biologically their chosen gender, according to your definition, right? They are not the gender assigned at birth anymore.
HRT is gender affirming care and is not a ‘sex change’ which is outdated and offensive.
It’s odd that you’re trying to ‘debunk’ what you see as a bigoted term and you’ve come full circle to something even worse.
You should look up the difference between sex and gender before you continue arguing down this route.
I never said HRT was “sex change” though I would argue it potentially changes your sex, based on some definition of sex.
I did in another comment refer to a sex change surgery, which may be what you’re referring to. Yeah, that has other names, but the point of that comment was the language is something we’re working backwards to, and not something we should work forward from, unlike what you implied with your comment that was on. Whatever it’s called, that’s not an argument for what effect it has. We change the names of things as we evolve our understanding. We don’t understand based on what things are called.
I know the difference between sex and gender. My point has been consistently that sex is hazy. It is not a binary, and calling someone “biologically male” who does not want to be called that is a snobby way to be an asshole, particularly because “biologically male” doesn’t mean much, if anything. Assigned gender at birth is clear and there are no questions, so use that. If they’re undergoing HRT and/or gender reassignment surgery, their biology is no longer that of their birth, so they are not “biologically male.” Do you agree with this, or are you going to continue arguing that you were totally right the whole time? If you think you were right, which part of biology is the sex identifier? You haven’t answered that.
I have already very clearly articulated my answer to this. Go back up a couple of comments and read it again if you need to.
Then you are arguing against the prevailing medical and scientific opinions, gender affirming care can assist with aligning secondary sex characteristics but does not change the patients sex.
It has long been an argument of the trans community that gender and sex are different, which Im not disputing at all but you are trying to make unclear.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/feminizing-hormone-therapy/about/pac-20385096
For your convenience you can check the difference between primary and secondary sex characteristics here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_characteristics
The sum of them does not make a binary definition of sex, nor does it make an unchanging one, as I’ve said before. If you want an unchanging binary definition you need to define what that would refer to.
I agree, gender is not sex. However, sex is not just something you’re born with, as we’ve clearly seen with intersex characteristics and also being able to change the body with HRT.
I know the difference between primary and secondary sex characteristics. I have said nothing that should indicate otherwise. You’re just trying to be the “well actually…” person. Obviously primary sex characteristics are not the definition of sex. If they were then
menmales who have their testicals removed wouldn’t bemenmales andwomenfemales who have their overies removed wouldn’t bewomenfemales. You agree that’s wrong, correct? (I know, asking these questions is pointless because you just ignore them, but hopefully they make you think.)Sex is many things, which includes things effected by HRT and surgery. Saying “biological sex” to refer to sex assigned at birth is dismissive of this, right? (Not to mention it’s totally wrong if we agree sex many characteristics.) If so, we should avoid the term, correct? It’s not the same as gender assigned at birth, right?
Edit: men => males, women => females, because I could forsee the “technically…” coming.
Artificial changes to a body are just that, artificial.
Inserting an rfid chip under my skin doesn’t make me a credit card. Taking some hormones doesn’t make you female.
This incessant boundary shifting and virtue signalling that everyone must play along with the artificial and pretend it is reality will never see broad public acceptance.
Changing gender is real, changing sex is not and you could go ahead and provide a definition of sex that is holistic and entirely changeable with current technology if you disagree.
It’s not artificial. The hormones aren’t native to the person, but it’s not changing their body by replacing components with mechanical things. Your body has different amounts of testosterone and estrogen as is. It’s just changing those amounts artificially, but the changing the body makes following that are natural biological processes.
In your analogy though, how would giving you the function go a credit card not make you a credit card? If the effect is identical, then how are you not that thing? Sure, you’d also be other things, but that doesn’t exclude being another. If you have the outcome of being able to purchase things using your credit account, you are in effect a credit card. If you have the outcome of male attributes, you are in effect a male.
Again, you’re arguing for some strict binary “biological” definition of sex. The primary sex characteristics, that you seem so fond of, can be removed. If this is your requirement, what happens when these are removed? You dodged this and are implying an unchanging definition now, so primary sex characteristics are not the requirement? If not, what is and what effect does HRT play on it now?
And therefore are artificial. Take them away and what happens? Secondary sex characteristics return to their baseline…. Mostly.
I provided you with my definition of biological sex. If you are so interested in continuing this discussion the least you could do is provide your definition as I requested.
I would still be a human, because changing one part does not change the whole.
A poor argument given that FTM cannot get real testes, again being artificially mimicked at best.
But not functionally replicated by artificial means. Also I haven’t based my definition of sex, or argument against sex change being possible, on primary sex characteristics.
You do seem fond of this ‘counter argument’ though. Shame its not counter to anything I have said.
I have only stated that changing secondary sex characteristics is not sufficient to change a persons sex.
Biological sex, as determined by a number of factors during development, is unchanging. Gender however can be changed.
Im surprised I have to repeat that at this point.