What is the biological definition of a woman (and man)?

[Wombat2WombatCombat]

I understand the argument for single sex spaces, but just for the avoidance of any doubt, does anyone have an exact, biological definition of a woman (or man) that we can hold people to? If we want to enforce the idea of single-sex spaces, we will need an exact criteria to determine who is or isn’t a ‘real’ woman, so I was wondering if anyone could tell me exactly what that is?

@Whatiswrongwithmyknee

* I have struggled to find much in depth information on how birth certificate sex is determined, but what I have found indicates that it is based on external genitalia appearance, which in some cases can be ambiguous, and which also conflicts with the previously stated definitions around gamete production. In countries like Germany, this is dealt with by also allowing the term ‘indeterminate’, which identifies a potential lack of a distinct binary*

No it just shows the fuzziness around the edges of the binary. It adds nothing to this conversation and yes of course it's determined by looking at genitals. What do you think this proves? You do seem to be running in circle with the same unconvincing arguments.

You've not answered my previous question - if you believe these categories are meaningless then why do we need any sex-segregated spaces or data at all?

I did not believe categories were meaningless going into this discussion, which was the context I believed in sex segregated spaces. From some of the discussions, it appears the specific, defined, binary of male and female distinction may not be viable (although I am still open to evidence for this being a workable, definable distinction, either in quoted previous responses by people that I have missed or misinterpreted, or in addition description given now). In that situation, presumably there would not cease to be categorisation in terms of biological traits such as testosterone levels, genitalia etc, rather the distinction broad distinction of male and female in the context of sex would cease to be used. Instead, the biological traits such as karyotype would be dealt with on an individual, case by case basis where they are considered insofar as they are necessary, and if a male/female distinction is needed still, it would done on the basis of gender, which seems to be far easier to set criteria for and determine. In some situations this may eradicate sex segregation entirely, while in other areas (such as sport), segregation would be done on a different basis to simple male/female sex, instead being done on a basis that takes into account the actual traits that have an impact rather than unnecessarily gathering them into single umbrella terms of male and female that may not properly express differences and may not be viable to maintain regardless. There is no reason why sex based data should cease - the traits will still exist regardless of whether they are contained in the terms of male or female sex, and gender aligns closely enough with sex still that it could potentially be a reasonable indicator of these traits as well. As I said earlier though, I am still open to both arguments of the validity of sex, even if currently due to lack of exact criteria that is less subjective than ‘hews closer to female than male’, I feel somewhat veering to the ‘unviable’ perspective

Wtf is your definition of woman ?

Abs what am I please ? Man woman or wombat?

@Whatiswrongwithmyknee

Rainbow people with DSD have been discussed throughout this thread. Do you think this is saying something different?

I'm saying that the existence of intersex/DSD people demolishes your argument that sex is determined by "every cell in your body", when you're already aware of instances where that criteria does not work.

[quote RainbowBridge67]@titchy

"You specified 'biologically' male. Biologically they are male. Every cell in their body is male. With a Y chromosome and everything. Medically you are male."

So, sex is determined by sex and chromosomes. Alright.

By those criteria, this woman who has given birth is biologically male. Meaning that a male has given birth:
www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mostly-male-woman-gives-birth-to-twins-in-medical-miracle-10033528.html

95% cells in her body are male, and she has a Y chromosome and everything. Which by your stated criteria, makes one biologically male.[/quote]
What have people with DSDs got to do with transgenderism?

Stop making out like we don't know who are the men and who are the women. We have known for millenia and the men have known exactly who to oppress based on nothing but their sex. We all know.

Your bullshit is so offensive to women who wish that they could navel gaze and obfuscate about who the men and who the women are.

The only danger is people like you insisting on reductive, trans-hostile language like "biologically male", when "trans woman" conveys a lot more medically useful information.

Just to be clear here - Rainbow has said that the only danger to trans people is language.

Not their murders, discrimination, risk of getting incorrect healthcare etc. But that language is the ONLY danger.

Your priorities are wrong, mate.

@Helleofabore

"Until you can magically dematerialise a body to it atoms and make changes at the cellular level"

No such thing should be necessary, as there already are women who are "biologically male" at a cellular level, who have given birth.
www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mostly-male-woman-gives-birth-to-twins-in-medical-miracle-10033528.html

Sex is not determined by cells.

"I have struggled to find much in depth information on how birth certificate sex is determined, but what I have found indicates that it is based on external genitalia appearance, which in some cases can be ambiguous"

You REALLY can't be this fucking obtuse. A baby born with a normal looking penis is male in 99.9% of cases. A baby born with a normal looking vulva is female in 99.9% of cases. Indeterminate sex is SO RARE that a clinician will probably NEVER encounter it in their lifetime, and in these case sex can be determined with further genetic tests.
We have never needed "tests" before. We use our eyes and our knowledge of science and anatomy.

And

Males taking synthetic cross sex hormones are and remain biologically MALE and still have prostates that need checked, exhibit heart attack symptoms differently, are more likely to have certain types of health issues like heart disease, and many other sex specific conditions. You're never going to have a prolapsed uterus or menstrual problems, endometriosis, birth injuries, post birth incontinence, PMT or PMS, menstrual cramps or flooding, experience menopause or childbirth. etc etc.

You will be treated as a man on any other medication and they will tailor your treatment to reflect the medications that you are on.

It doesn't change your fucking sex pal.

[quote RainbowBridge67]@Helleofabore

"Until you can magically dematerialise a body to it atoms and make changes at the cellular level"

No such thing should be necessary, as there already are women who are "biologically male" at a cellular level, who have given birth.
www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mostly-male-woman-gives-birth-to-twins-in-medical-miracle-10033528.html

Sex is not determined by cells.[/quote]
Again, tell me what that has to do with a male barging his way into female spaces on the basis that he 'identifies as a woman'?

I'll wait.....

You are however saying rubbish that people with DSD in particular find incredibly offensive

Making a political football out of very difficult disorders ?

nowt to do with transgender people who have no disorder of their sex chromosomes

I'm saying that the existence of intersex/DSD people demolishes your argument that sex is determined by "every cell in your body", when you're already aware of instances where that criteria does not work.

No-one has denied that people with DSD (very tiny number) are not always easily categorised into male or female. This does not mean that the criteria does not work though. It means there are disorder of sexual development - which we already knew. As people have said before, we know that the median average person has less than 2 legs. This does not mean it's incorrect to say that people have 2 legs and to design trousers to suit that.

I did not believe categories were meaningless going into this discussion, which was the context I believed in sex segregated spaces.

Your argument is a nonsense argument unless you define sex. You have chosen not to accept the scientific biological one but have not given another definition other than your wafty one of 'what someone says they are'. Even if we accepted that and didn't worry about the lack of any shared definition - tell us why we need to be segregated according to 'what someone says they are'? What do you think I have in common with a transwoman which justifies locking me in a prison cell with them? What do I have in common with them that I don't have in common with a man?

Rainbow. Stop using people with Differences of sex development to prop up your faulty claims.

They are not your political tools.

And yes, Rainbow, a male will always be a male. And I have never said anything about chromosomes. It is YOU utilising people’s medical conditions to prop up your faulty claims.

@bishophaha

The only danger is people like you insisting on reductive, trans-hostile language like "biologically male", when "trans woman" conveys a lot more medically useful information.

Just to be clear here - Rainbow has said that the only danger to trans people is language.

Not their murders, discrimination, risk of getting incorrect healthcare etc. But that language is the ONLY danger.

Your priorities are wrong, mate.

I said that in the context of medical care. The largest danger in medical care is trans-hostile language, as it might lead to trans women being treated like cis men, without accounting for medical transition, leading to improper treatment.

Likewise, misgendering the patient may cause mental distress and discourage trans women from seeking medical care at all, just like how you would be reluctant to consult doctors if you knew they'd you subject you to a day full of misogynistic, degrading commentary.

Your rhetoric is harmful.

Likewise, misgendering the patient may cause mental distress

So stop calling us cis then? Stop misgendering others? Have some respect?

What is gender ? and how it is categorized and recorded.

I said that in the context of medical care. The largest danger in medical care is trans-hostile language, as it might lead to trans women being treated like cis men, without accounting for medical transition, leading to improper treatment.

So in that case the medical professionals would be informed that they are dealing with a male who has taken artificial hormones and medication or has had surgery, to modify their male body, as this may have implications for their treatment.

What has that got to do with males and females as categories?

Yes. We are not cis at all.

@Helleofabore

Rainbow. Stop using people with Differences of sex development to prop up your faulty claims.

They are not your political tools.

And yes, Rainbow, a male will always be a male. And I have never said anything about chromosomes. It is YOU utilising people’s medical conditions to prop up your faulty claims.

"Noooo, stop pointing out the glaring hole in my definition of sex, t-that's offensive!!"

Stop having a shitty, easily-refuted definition of sex or pretending intersex/DSD people don't exist or should be ignored whenever their existence is inconvenient to you.

The fact remains, you cannot say sex is defined by cells or chromosomes, when there are clear examples indicating otherwise.

@Wombat2WombatCombat

Sorry for the lack of replies - it was getting late and I needed to call it a night. I will do my best to respond to give my thoughts on some of the points you’ve raised, however you guys have been very active, which while helpful, also makes it hard to keep track of everything

Give my thoughts on some of the points you’ve raised

I think you will find that most of the “points raised” are scientific fact , so an appropriate thought might be

“Isn’t it amazing how much clearer things are when you know the science.”

@Whatiswrongwithmyknee

I cannot speak for the biological aspects (that’s why I made the thread in the first place), but while I can’t speak for Rainbow, I would assume in the context of gender it is transitioning from identifying as one gender to identifying as another, something that would be extremely easy to determine as by nature it simply requires observing how the individual refers to themselves

How do we know that people are using language in similar ways to each other? If we're not then what is the meaning of how one refers to oneself? What about if they refer to themselves as one gender but actually feel like another due to perhaps fear, guilt or shame? Is identity always the same as how people refer to themselves? If that were the case then how can one ever change one's gender identity as the thought to want to would not be able to proceed the referring to oneself. Can you be less ambiguous please.

If someone, when asked what their gender identity is, stated ‘male’, they would be documented as ‘male’ under ‘gender identity’ - there is no scope for misinterpretation there. If someone is suppressing their gender identity out of fear etc then that is regrettable, and it should be worked towards to ensure those circumstances do not happen, but ultimately in the context of documentation and classification one can only go off of what is actually observed, so they were be classified as what they state. Identity in this context means how they refer to themselves when asked their gender identity - this can mean their pronouns, the term they wish to classify themselves as, or anything else to them, but in the context of classification it is what they state in response to the question. One can change how they refer to themselves and that by nature constitutes a change in gender identity. I hope that has clarified things for you

""Your rhetoric is harmful.""

Do you think it was harmful to the trans male who was so invested in their doctor thinking that they were a biological male, that they presented with a ruptured fallopian tube caused by an ectopic pregnancy, neglected to inform the medics that they were in fact a biological female, and subsequently died?

At least they died secure in the knowledge that the doctors thought they were a male.

Or not.

You know absolutely nothing about trans healthcare. The bodies of trans women undergoing medical transition are not medically the same as the bodies of cis men.

They would be if the "cis men" underwent the same transition. The transition has nothing to do with being a "trans woman" or not - lots of "trans women" don't take hormones and you don't have to be a "trans woman" if you take them. Any male taking cross sex hormones will undergo the same changes, regardless of their gender identity.

You seem a little bit out of date with the theology. I believe they call you "tru-scum" - suggesting medical treatment has something to do with being "trans".

The changes hormones make to one's sex are an important factor, and what is medically dangerous is disregarding these changes by regarding trans women as just "biologically male", a reductive and insufficient classification.

Who's using the word "just"? We're not. You put that in there yourself.

Obviously a male on hormones isn't "just" biologically male, they've been deliberately disrupting their endocrine system. That's certainly something that should be disclosed, alongside their biological sex, as it will have a significant effect on their treatment and diagnosis.

The only danger is people like you insisting on reductive, trans-hostile language like "biologically male", when "trans woman" conveys a lot more medically useful information.

Oh, boy, you are seriously out of date. The transgender crowd have left the transsexuals behind. Sorry, you've been outnumbered and replaced. "Trans woman" more often than not now means no medical procedures at all. It is medically meaningless.

The largest danger in medical care is trans-hostile language, as it might lead to trans women being treated like cis men, without accounting for medical transition, leading to improper treatment.

I'm interested - what exactly do you think the risks of an error in that direction are - treating a transitioned male as a non-transitioned male? I'm aware of a large number of risks of getting sex wrong.

But what are the potential failure modes for not knowing that a male is on female hormones, or has had genital surgery?

This is an interesting argument, but it just sounds like a "no you" response to us saying sex being important. Flesh it out a bit.

The fact remains, you cannot say sex is defined by cells or chromosomes, when there are clear examples indicating otherwise.

So how come sexual crime is perpetrated at a rate of 98% in favour of a particular class of human with a particular set of characteristics? Could we use that as some sort of marker?

It sure is a head scratcher.....

If someone, when asked what their gender identity is, stated ‘male’, they would be documented as ‘male’ under ‘gender identity’ - there is no scope for misinterpretation there. If someone is suppressing their gender identity out of fear etc then that is regrettable, and it should be worked towards to ensure those circumstances do not happen, but ultimately in the context of documentation and classification one can only go off of what is actually observed, so they were be classified as what they state. Identity in this context means how they refer to themselves when asked their gender identity - this can mean their pronouns, the term they wish to classify themselves as, or anything else to them, but in the context of classification it is what they state in response to the question. One can change how they refer to themselves and that by nature constitutes a change in gender identity. I hope that has clarified things for you

Not really. It seems that you are happy for people to just feel whatever even if that has no commonality. So what is the point in a categorisation system which has no commonality with others? What do we need segregation according to idiosyncratic personal definitions?

I really do need an answer to this specific question - what do you think I have in common with a transwoman that I don't have in common with a man?

This is what you're doing. Your objection to the term 'cis' is purely due to a spiteful refusal to treat trans people as in any way legitimate.

I don't like cis because I'm not prepared to be made a subset of my own sex class by males who have the audacity to tell me that my biology is irrelevant.

HTH.