Why do people use human abnormalities to prove sex isn’t binary?

Any attempt at making DSD occurrence equivalent to “demonstration that transpeople exist in nature” is beyond stupid on the very logic employed by the trans proponents of “sex is not determined biologically “.

In fact the existence of DSD indicates that sex or genetics actually does make you something (of a certain sex) not, as they would have it, that genetics/biology has no role in determining sex.

its the fact that anomalies can occur that demonstrates that sex is determined biologically.

Any insistence that the existence of chromosomal variance disproves that genetics (biology) has no role to play in determining sex or “gender” is so flawed by their own reasoning it’s laughable.

assertions that the way to understand being trans is not via “false” reliance on biology but yet relying on biological anomaly as indicating “something” that supports the contention that being trans is inherently natural (just not biological) removes the justification for claims to having a requirement for “lived experience” to understand being trans.

Obviously it is in fact one of the other - if biology were to be primary (as we know it is) then on their logic genetic variability on sex chromosomes would mean everyone with a genetic sex chromosome anomaly would be trans and they are not.

The trans argument nodding to DSD (but people are not always born xy/xx!) is based on something they think is clever - switching nomenclature into primary position over physical determination (an equivalent in philosophy is the argument of “solipsism “). Usually we think x exists and we call it y but when we add p, t and Q we add x with p “description”. They are saying x doesn’t exist (biological woman) BECAUSE p, t and q has been observed. But p, t and Q don’t exist separately to x - they are characteristics that sometimes occur and in nature. None of p, t and Q are observable other than occurring in nature and they don’t pre-exist X or cause into being some further entity “B” - which has only every been described but not observed in nature.

And, of course, if someone has no language or understanding of language then their argument fails on another hurdle because evidently something- something physical- pre-exists naming or there wouldn’t be something to name.

One cannot call a tree a tree were there to be no physical entity to refer to. Suggesting that “female” or “male” is not linked to biological reality acts as if naming were utterly devoid of a relationship to anything other than words attaching to words - as opposed to sexed actual objects being ascribed names by consensus.

There is nothing remotely logical about the arguments they use against biology (or language for that matter).

What I’m talking about is that there is some evidence that exposure to additional levels of male sex hormones due to conditions such as CAH during genetically female (XX) foetal development does affect how all sorts of things develop, including the brain. If untreated later on then it will impact muscle development too as well as lots of other things, hence the challenge around high level sport. It’s just not always straightforwardly about sex chromosomes-this condition is caused by genetic deficiencies in the pathway by which hormones are synthesised in the body, so that levels of androgens (eg testosterone) are much higher than those usually found in a female during antenatal development. The hormone disruption can cause lots of other problems as well, not just issues around sex and gender.

Sex is determined by gametes. Biologically, that’s the only primary sex characteristic. All others are secondary sex characteristics.

Also, primates know what sex they are and young primates copy the behaviour of adults of their own sex. So there must be something internal which means they instinctively know their sex. From this I guess it’s possible to hypothesize that for ( human) individuals with gender incongruence from a young age, that they have a variance that causes them to believe they are the opposite sex, or, alternatively, causes them to model the behaviour of the opposite sex which perhaps leads them to conclude they are the opposite sex.

This could perhaps lead to the body image issues found in the research referred to above.

Sex is determined by chromosomes. Nothing more

Dysfunctional or malformed exterior genitalia is no indicator of sex, any more than someone being born with dysfunctional or malformed arms or legs is an indicator of someone not a human.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Genetic testing and medical investigation will determine the sex.

You’d have to break down the different types of trans people first. Even in just TIMs there are transvestites without a sexual fetish, those with a sexual fetish, AGPs, and transexuals. And probably sub types of transexuals. ( those who have had gender incongruence from a young age and those who have not).

And because trans is now a social movement, you have all the kids with a whole host of social and mental health issues who claim a trans identity.

It’s parental choice. Intersex people are male or female. I know a intersex boy and his parents decided for him to have surgery to make his genitalia look and function like a boys and to remove internal ( non functional) female organs - which were extremely likely to turn cancerous - whilst he was a young child so that he underwent surgery whilst he was too young to remember it.

Oh I read that too! I don’t have a link either. Wish I’d made a note of it.

Related to the condition I mentioned earlier, and some other similar conditions, my understanding is that good practice now is to raise children with conditions that cause ambiguous genitalia as ‘intersex’ until they are able to make the decision for themselves- if they want to. There was a bit of a move towards many feeling able to live as intersex long term. Unfortunately I do feel that the risk now is due to the societal noise around the issue some will feel forced to select to choose a gender, which feels wrong if it’s not purely by choice and is a return to the bad old days when it was unacceptable not to be pigeonholed. As a previous poster has said this type of ‘intersex’ condition should be a separate issue from the broader trans debate theme.

Why? To persuade that transwomen are literally women and to let them into women's spaces. It works, look at the Sandie Tribunal answers.

This. It makes no sense. Their argument is that sex and gender identity are separate things. So DSDs are irrelevant to their case. But then, as sex and gender identity are different, they shouldn’t have a problem with maintaining singje sex provision either. But they are. Because nothing they say makes any sense.

They have just taken a ‘throw enough mud at a wall’ approach, machine gunning out as much shite as they can.

Luckily for them, most people in positions of power only needed to be presented with a ‘poor sad trans teen’ and ‘isn’t this a bit like how we treated homosexuals’ and just stopped thinking at that point and nodded along with it all.

"I think it's incredibly rude to call intersex people abnormal" was the response I got (and have seen used elsewhere) when I stated that DSDs were genetic abnormalities. FFS....i didn't say anyone was abnormal, but medically speaking, they have abnormal genetics. Talk about twisting words!

No one has proved (nor ever will) that sex isn't binary. Smoke and mirrors! 🤷‍♂️

I don’t have a link to the research to hand, but there has been at least one study that showed that people with (diagnosed, not self-diagnosed) gender dysphoria had brain scans that most closely resembled people with eating disorders. The hypothesised explanation was that both groups had a mental health problem revolving around a disordered self-image.

Desperate straw clutching by people who hahe gone all in on an ideology that looks increasingly shaky, sunken cost fallacy a la Helen Joyce.

They try and muddy the trans water with DSDs and claim false equivalence to try and shore upnan ideology that doesn't stand up to logical, rational, scientific analysis.

But most simply its: I know you are but what am I?

Good analogy.

Because most people dont know what a DSD is and that in and of itself it 'proves' as if it needed proving, that people are one sex or the other sex, not both, not indeterminate. So the lack of knowledge in the population has been pounced on by these people to gaslight that there is such a thing as intersex (never was).

Such articulate and thoughtful replies. I have nothing to add 😊

Well those with DSDs have repeatedly asked for their conditions not to be dragged into these debates by TRAs to confuse and muddy the waters. That desire has not been respected, unfortunately.

i don’t have an opinion to share about transgender issues, however I did used to work in a department that sent away tests for congenital adrenal hyperplasia, which results in newborns with ambiguous genitalia. In the milder forms it is more common than cystic fibrosis and phenylketonuria, so as this is just one condition that causes disruption to development of sexual organs it is probably not correct to say the situation is vanishingly rare. It was also often treated appallingly badly in the past, with doctors making a gender decision on babies and arranging surgery based on what was easier to do for physical effect and not on what the individual’s brain development might be and what hormones they had been exposed to. It caused serious trauma to people and it would be hoped that there could be more compassion around these issues which can be incredibly traumatic when gender issues are so divisive.

I have a corollary question - if it's not considered a threadjacking -

Even if you were to think that sex isn't binary, how do you get from there to "it's a matter of everyone's free choice"?

They jump on anything to try and justify their cause. Most people with DSD are also not trans. They still have a biological sex but their genitals may not match that biological sex.

They like to throw out XXY syndrome a lot also. People with XXY syndrome are male. They generally identify as male and have male genitalia but may have poor or no fertility. The presence of a Y chromosome makes someone male, regardless of their other chromosomes.

Being able of reliably scan 'brain sex' would be useful in diagnosing people with gender dysphoria, if thats what gender dysphoria is.

It wouldn't determine sex, though because thats about reproductive roles.

Also, i wonder how many trans identifying people would stand by the results of the scan? If it was established that they didnt have a mismatch, would they stop identifying as the opposite sex?

So I did a quick google and of course the research has been done - I found a study that looked 24 transgender women who had not had any HRT. Apparently there was some indication brain size had “shifted away” from an average man’s brain, but hadn’t reduced in size to match a woman’s brain.

And what can you really tell from measuring the size of brains in 24 people? Seems like more research could be interesting.

I would love to find a science-based, observable “reason” why some men think they are really women. It would help me reconcile my GC thinking with what the trans community keep insisting.