Biology is not as simple as one might think trust me i am a biologist….

The developmental stages of embryos that include development of nipples before differentiation stage, does not mean that sex is not set at conception. And that a male who declares they feel like a woman is doing so from any biologically proven condition.

I believe that this has been very well researched and there is no theory that remains to support a biological reason why a male feels they are female. If there was, it would be widely used as a diagnostic tool.

Did you ever ask him to explain why men have nipples? 😂

I used to work with a bloke about 40 years ago who bored on about freemartins in an attempt to convince us that feminism was unnatural and women shouldn't get uppity. Takes me right back.

If I dress my dog in a spider hallowe'en costume I might be happy to see him as a giant hairy spider even while knowing he was canine. It wouldn't give him the right to spin a web from the roof beams.
I now have an image of a great dane spinning a massive web 😱

I think it’s perfectly possible that some humans that present as men have “a sense of self” as female. I’m happy to accept that they are females, who have suffered a genetic/hormonal accident in their early development. And accept them with sympathy as women.
@FlemishHorse I still have no idea what a sense of self as a female is. Perhaps you can use your scientific degree to explain what that is please. I'm one of the thick people so please be kind.

I don’t know, nor did I claim to. My degree was Agricultural Science,

It was a botanist that tried to explain polyploidy to me. "Quite significant in the domestication of crops" was the TL;DR I took away.

So you don't know, but you then point us to what seems to be a known DSD in cattle? One requiring a twin that is male to directly impact the development of the female calf.

And you think that because of the existence of this known DSD, that it applies to humans? Can you explain how please.

I dont think I have been vitriolic anywhere. Any angst I may have is just irritation that there’s a six page thread based on the premise that I, personally, am a liar.

Freemartins are chimeric female cows which have acquired some XY cells from their male twin in utero. This interferes with normal female development.

Interesting, but not relevant.

@Helleofabore presumably this is an exposure to testosterone because

“I’m happy to accept that they are females, who have suffered a genetic/hormonal accident in their early development. And accept them with sympathy as women.'
So this must mean XY 'females' with male bodies otherwise we wouldn't have to accept them as women because females are women.

I don’t know, nor did I claim to. My degree was Agricultural Science, so I’m not unfamiliar with mammal reproduction. Look up “freemartin” if you’re interested.

I had an 18 year old cat that I often referred to as my best boy. I didn't apply for him to be added to the electoral register.

What does happy to see transwomen as women while knowing they are male MEAN?

If I dress my dog in a spider hallowe'en costume I might be happy to see him as a giant hairy spider even while knowing he was canine. It wouldn't give him the right to spin a web from the roof beams.

I meant your angst, and the vitriol with which you criticised people's apparent lack of understanding of science which you knew better about.

Your analogy is poor imo. I don't care if people see their pets as furbabies. I would begin to object if they claimed that everyone sees dogs as furbabies and that dogs should be treated as babies in all respects, legally, on pain of criminal charges and/or social ostracising.

Since you are here and suggested we read your post, can you please explain this bit.

“I’m happy to accept that they are females, who have suffered a genetic/hormonal accident in their early development. And accept them with sympathy as women.”

What ‘accident’ are you talking about? A DSD condition? Or do you believe that somehow some male people are impacted by the estrogen in the womb and this has made them think they are ‘women’? And if that is the case, does the same apply to female people. That it was ‘testosterone’ exposure in the womb? Or was is something else?

I don’t understand the angst either.

Some people “see” dogs as furbabies. I see dogs. Go figure.

I don't understand what all the angst was about regarding the science, if it actually boils down to your personal belief that you as an individual can "see" transwomen as women despite knowing their sex is male.

Just because I’m curious, which Biological science?

Darn it, I was too slow typing my question

A biological science. Tenner it's Botany, I expect if it was relevant to the argument from authority, like Anatomy Physiology Pharmacology Neuroscience Zoology Anthropology, you would have mentioned it.

Ahh yet again someone with the answers to the unanswerable questions but they aren't going to tell because I didn't ask nicely enough. Funny how no-one ever answered when I asked nicely either.

I might have bothered giving you a sensible response if you hadn’t gone all sarky at the end.

If anyone cares to read what I actually wrote, it is helpfully quoted on the first page of this thread. There seem to have been a great many unwarranted assumptions about my beliefs and opinions.

The most controversial thing I stated was an entirely personal opinion, that I am happy to see trans women as women, rather than as men wearing women’s clothes and make up. That is not the same as saying that they are women.

We know that there are DSDs and chromosomal abnormalities.
We know that it's not absolutely cut and dried that their is never any deviation from biological norms but what we don't know is what the mythic third sex/third gamete is (for sex to be non binary their must be at least three of them).
We know there are males who wish they were female and females who wish they were male but who we don't know is how one changes from one sex to the other given that it's impossible to change the gametes a body produces. Or the mechanism by which some men can be judged to be women really. We don't know how we tell the 'genuine trans' from the dodgy opportunists. So please explain the ways in which we can tell the XY people that are really female from the XY people that are really male. It might be complex but some of us are really rather jolly smart so if you explain it at least some of us are bound to get it.

Surely the entire and only point of sex in animals and plants is sexual reproduction. What else could sex possibly be besides an organism's potential reproductive role?

No, I'm not a biologist but it must be the case that sex and sexual reproduction go hand in hand.

No one disagrees that it is more complex than the simpler summary of XX/XY that most people use to describe the two biological sexes in mammals.

But, more complicated does not mean untrue. There are two sexes in humans as with all mammals. If you disagree, perhaps you could explain why?

I didn't see the other thread.

I would hope any teacher would not be satisfied with a student making the argument that "Someone on the internet said they were a biologist and said biology has varying levels of complexity, therefore there is a third sex/ therefore women aren't female."