"Biological sex is a multidimensional variable with various components" - Discuss

[dunBle]

To save further derailment of the Sandie Peggie tribunal threads with people debating Tandora's statements on the above theme, I've started this thread to point them to instead.

It’s entirely unreasonable because it is

a) not true/ nothing to do with science.

b) profoundly harmful to real people who are actually living with this condition.

If you knew any actual women living with CAIS , and you understood anything about their real lives, you would feel emotional too (assuming normal levels of human empathy).

The existence of a trans woman does not redefine or diminish your womanhood in any way, your womanhood is personal to you, no one can change it, steal it, whatever else you claim trans people are doing to it.

Exactly . This is so obvious.

The self centred-ness of humans knows no bounds sometimes. why do they think the simple existence of another person has anything to do with them?

But you said earlier on the thread that some individuals with CAIS are male.

@Tandora At least you’ve learnt how to spell karyotype- that’s a start I guess.

'almost assigned female at birth'

What sex are are the others, then?

Yes, to be strictly accurate I should have said-

“There is no context where it is appropriate or justified to refer to a woman with CAIS as male. You can refer to the person as having a male karyotype, which is true. That is the end of any appropriate, scientific, reasonable, necessary application of the term “male” when it comes to women with CAIS.”

This refers to almost all people ever born with CAIS. There are a handful of historical cases where people with CAIS have been assigned male. It’s exceptionally rare.

If no-one can change womanhood, then there's no such thing as transitioning.

I wouldn't worry too much about that individuals opinion of you, they've said similar sensationalist things about me and other posters.

It's not personal, they are clearly very angry and their posts are usually full of made up words like transperbole and half written in caps.

You are contradicting yourself.

There is also one documented case from 2011 with a person with CAIS assigned female at birth with a male gender identity : https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20358272/

The self centredness of humans knows no bounds sometimes. Why do they think the simple existence of another person has anything to do with them.

This is an excellent description of men who claim to be women.

They have no regard for women only spaces, they want to insert themselves there to validate their self identity. They don’t care if they have a detrimental effect upon the sex class of people for whom the space has been designated; it’s as if women don’t actually exist.

The only existence that matters here is that of men, & the idea they hold that they are (obviously not) women. As you say, a boundless self centredness. At it’s worst you could imagine a woman being forced to share a prison cell with a man? Oh, hang on ….

Previous posters have explained the biological rationale behind why an individual born with CAIS, from an embryo created with a Y sperm cell, can be described as male, with reference to gonads and hormones. To say this approach is "nothing to do with science" is just wilfully silly. We are not the ones wanting to use feelings as a basis for classification.

If using clear, factual terminology is "profoundly harmful" then something has gone wrong with scientific literacy in this country.

I note that this NHS trust's website explains the condition whilst being careful to only refer to "indivduals" or "someone" with CAIS: https://www.uclh.nhs.uk/patients-and-visitors/patient-information-pages/complete-androgen-insensitivity-syndrome-cais

There is no context where it is appropriate or justified to refer to a woman with CAIS as male. or to refer to people with CAIS as a group as being male. People with CAIS are almost always female. There are an exceptionally few historical cases where people with CAIS are male.

When speaking of women with CAIS, or people with CAIS as a general group . You can refer to such people as having a male karyotype, which is true. That is the end of any appropriate, scientific, reasonable, necessary application of the term “male” when it comes to women with CAIS, or people with CAIS as a general group. .

No. Because they are taking about themselves , who they are, you are talking about who someone else is. See the difference?

You are still contradicting yourself.

But this isn't about who they are.

It's about what they are.

Do You understand the difference between a karyotype and a person?

If so, this really shouldn’t be hard for you.

people with CAIS have a male karyotype. True, scientific statement.

people with CAIS are male. Totally inappropriate, unscientific, meaningless statement, informed by ignorance and dogma.

In people without a DSD, male karyotype = male person.

In people with a DSD, their sex is determined according to what DSD they have.

CAIS is a male DSD therefore CAIS = male person, even if they may choose to live as if they were female for more valid reasons than trans women do.

Glad to see you can now spell karyotype correctly though. You have learned something from this thread at least.

No. It’s about the fact they’re men claiming to be women. So it’s about who they are - men - and who they’re claiming to be.

It’s about the fact that they have one idea of who they are, you have a different idea of who they are, and you seem to think your opinion on who they are is the most informed and important.

I understand, I just disagree.

Interesting thought experiment: if a couple paid for sex selective IVF requesting a boy, and had a baby with CAIS could they take the clinic to court? I assume the clinic would argue they fertilised a Y sperm with an egg and successfully implanted a male embryo, so not their problem.

It might not be their problem because it was no “error” of their own. It doesn’t logically follow from this that the baby is a boy.

I would gently suggest that it’s not really your place to disagree with the facts/ realities of other people’s personhood.

No. I don’t have an idea, or a belief, of who they are, they’re a man - it’s a material reality.
Who they say they are, believe/think they are, is nothing to do with their biological sex.
My opinion of them isn’t what prevents them from using female only spaces & services, the law does that.