I've just been called "unscientific" for saying that you cannot change sex

[CloudyMoment]

It's just a rant really, but also fishing for possible counter-arguments.

I thought that nobody really properly argues against the fact that sex is something you are born with, and that his cannot be changed.

Apparently those people think sex is not immutable. That it actually can change- because apparently also eye colour can change throughout life. I tried arguing against, that we are still born with a coded expression hair or eye colour, and that this does not change. I feel that this is very much a philosophical discussion to be had.. but meanwhile. How do you show robustly and scientifically that sex is immutable?

@NecessaryScene

Could be worse. They could be saying people can change sex due to quantum effects.

Hey! That worked for Sam Beckett at least once!

Ooh! It did, didn't it? 😁

@NecessaryScene

Do you know which slit that photon went through? No? Right, then how can you say whether someone is male or female? Huh?

If it went through it's an outtie so even if we don't know which slit , we know its sex?

You can't argue with stupid or faith, ask them about the other gametes

@MishyJDI, @MishyJDI
where are youuuuuuu???

So why when there is a skeleton found is DNA take and the Police start by saying it is either a male or a female.
I have never heard them say we have a Transwoman or Transman whom we can't identify,
Once they have researched they may say the deceased identified as.....

How about how human embryos can have a cell removed in vitro, such as preimplantation diagnosis, and that cell can be analysed for binary sex chromosomes?

Another actual biologist here, is there space on your bench? donquixotedelamancha

There seem to be quite a few scientists here labouring under the impression that mammals are immutably sexually dimorphic.

I can't wait for all this evidence showing we are mistaken. I love to learn. Educate me @MishyJDI

I am a scientist but not biologist

I have seen evidence that sex is binary snd immutable

I have seen no evidence to the contrary

I have seen evidence that DSD exist, snd also evidence of other genetic disorders such as downs

I have seen no evidence that this knowledge helps us understand trans people

My hair colour has gone from black to white. Doesn’t mean I believe I’m a flipping polar bear now.

Geneticist reporting for duty if there's still space on the biologist bench?

@Iamhangingin

My son was born with a birth defect which means he has a-typical genitalia. Which is a condition obviously that only effects boys. It doesn't mean sex is a spectrum or complicated, it's just sometimes during pregnancy things go wrong (in my case around the 12 week mark and sex is decided at the point the egg is fertilised). A chromosomal abnormality is just that, an abnormality not a 3rd sex.

Ann Boyle was born with an extra finger. I don't think anyone has argued this is proof that human hands are a spectrum with any number of finger options. It seems unbelievably cruel to be using terms like intersex and using these conditions to argue ideological points.

My son is now going through puberty and I'm horrified he might be exposed to this and the impact on his body image. I really feel for other parents who's children have complex medical issues, I can't imagine how upsetting the appropriation of DSD conditions (and the adding of I to LGBT) is for their families.

Yes. The fact is that there are some of us who've got something wrong with us. That's just a matter of fact. Most people have two working lungs, I've only got one, that doesn't mean that people are on a spectrum from say 3 to 1 lungs. I'm neither not a real human being, nor a challenge to the general rule that mammals have two lungs. I'm just a slightly flawed human being, as are people with DSDs.

@CuriousaboutSamphire

• titchy It's possible to have XY chromosomes and a uterus

Yes and such people are female. The Y doesn't work usually because it's on the wrong part of the chromosome. 
You really should stop knowing such stuff.*

Fair enough - I'm no biologist clearly!

I thought if the SRY didn't function for whatever reason then the foetus would develop as female.

If there is no Dsd where females can be XY that's great - apologies for getting it wrong.

First of all ask them what human sex is and how its defined.

Taken from NORD (national organisation for rare disorders)

Swyer syndrome is a rare disorder characterized by the failure of the sex glands (i.e., testicles or ovaries) to develop. Swyer syndrome is classified as a disorder of sex development (DSD), which encompasses any disorder in which chromosomal, gonadal or anatomic sex development is abnormal. Girls with Swyer syndrome have an XY chromosomal makeup (as boys normally do) instead of an XX chromosomal makeup (as girls normally do). Despite having the XY chromosomal makeup, girls with Swyer syndrome look female and have functional female genitalia and structures including a vagina, uterus and fallopian tubes.

Girls with Swyer syndrome lack sex glands (ovaries). Instead of sex glands, women with Swyer syndrome have “gonadal streaks”, in which the ovaries do not develop properly (aplasia) and are replaced by functionless scar (fibrous) tissue. Because they lack ovaries, girls with Swyer syndrome do not produce sex hormones and will not undergo puberty (unless treated with hormone replacement therapy).

Hope that answers your question.

[quote titchy]@CuriousaboutSamphire

• titchy It's possible to have XY chromosomes and a uterus

Yes and such people are female. The Y doesn't work usually because it's on the wrong part of the chromosome. 
You really should stop knowing such stuff.*

Fair enough - I'm no biologist clearly!

I thought if the SRY didn't function for whatever reason then the foetus would develop as female.

If there is no Dsd where females can be XY that's great - apologies for getting it wrong. [/quote]
I read it as Curious saying you were right.

As in, you shouldn’t know about these kinds of things because it makes it difficult for the TRAs to make their ridiculous points.

Maybe we’re both wrong hahah

I’m definitely no biologist

Oh gods! titchy I was being sarcastic, taking the mickey out of the poster you were responding to, not you.

Sorry, I should have added a 😁 or more words, perhaps.

Oh shit sorry

In my defence I've had one several gins too many tonight

And thanks to @justawoman76 for the explanation of Swyer syndrome.

Gin? No probs! All is understandable if gin is involved ☺️

Or not, depending on which side of the glass you are on.

I'm not a scientist but I am quite logical.

Even if it were true that sex is actually more complicated than we previously believed.... so what?

The type of people that have traditionally been called women still existed, and suffered disadvantage and discrimination, and had rights created to counterbalance that.

Even if we now have a more subtle understanding of sex such that another group of people that would previously not have been considered women now are, why does it follow that the rights created by and for the first group of people, which were based on the oppression they suffered due to characteristics that by definition the second group don't have because if they did they would have been included in the first group, must now apply to them just because they now share the same label?

Of course not. The label is not the determinant here. It's the people.

The other thing I keep thinking is that the difference between the high and low water marks on a beach is not proof that mountains are the same as oceans.

I’m a medic not a biologist strictly speaking. Is there room on the bench if I draw a nice picture of the Kreb Cycle?
I really hated the Kreb Cycle

Degree in animal biology and qualified RVN. Can I play?