"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.

For "debts" please read "levels" 😅.

Emma Hilton has good accessible explanations (and fewer typos) if you're interested in learning more.

(This infernal device also just tried to autocorrect 'interested' to 'intersex'...it's working against me but apparently has a sense of humour. I suppose that's balance!)

@Tandora ?

Keen to hear your views on this.

They are part of this conversation- they are directly harmed by the dogma of peoples beliefs about sex development and biology. Your claims are manipulative and designed to shut down honest sharing of scientific truths about sex development which are vital to any conversation about sexual, gender and how we should organise society around these categories.

Do some of them produce both gametes or a third kind?
If the answer is no, we don't care.
I don't produce any gametes any more. Still female.

If a man alters his "hormonal sex" due to cancer treatment and develops gynaecomastia has he become a woman?
What about a man who does the same due to gender feels?

Posters are quite correct to point out that the existence of people with DSDs is not relevant to describing people with a philosophical belief about their identity that doesn’t reflect their material reality.

Those who politically use the medical conditions of those with differences of sex development in this way are leveraging those people with this medical condition for political aims.

Having a DSD is a medical condition. There are no biological or neurological markers that can be used for diagnosing all people with transgender identities. The first should not be used to support the beliefs of the second.

But why does the fact that women with CAIS are, rightly, treated as women (despite being genetically male) mean that ANY person with XY chromosomes can claim womanhood? I really don't get it.

Almost, but I'm not sure their motivation is that they are scared of men.

On a different thread Tandora, someone said that trans people were either male or female and you said 'nope'.

Any explanation of what you meant?

Actually, lots of us do. But we don't debate it on MN because of the onslaught by the GC.

Most of my social circle see the nuances of this perspective. But they're not invested in obsessive online debate about it.

Are you aware of the many people with DSDs who have repeatedly asked to be left out of this debate? Why do you insist on making them part of it without their consent?

How does it help someone with a DSD to be used as a justification for why Lia Thomas should be allowed to compete in women's sports and Isla Bryson should be housed in a women's prison?

No, they’re really not. Being trans is completely separate from having a DSD. I know two people with DSDs and both of them are heartily pissed off at their medical issues being brought into a completely unrelated debate about people’s gender feels. Using people with DSDs like this is abhorrent.

Agree.

We do welcome the discourse, that's why we are engaging in it.

I outlined in my post, that you have replied to twice now, all the ways in which people have made this thread (created specifically for this conversation) a hostile environment. The evidence is there, you can't deny that some people have been very unpleasant. It's the same every time someone brings an alternative view to MN.

We can't help the fact that there are so many more of us who believe that sex is biological, not philosophical.

Tandora's argument concerns biology, not philosophy.

Perhaps Tandora and a few others should reflect on whether this is a niche view for the same reason that "the earth is flat" is a niche view.

Niche on this platform, perhaps. Niche in your circle, perhaps. Niche in the wider world? No. Lots of people (including my circle, my colleagues, my academic community) have the same views as Tandora.

Something about flat earthers: very rarely do you find they work in the field of astronomy.

"the GC"

You realise that this discussion has nothing to do with being gender critical, right?

We are discussing sex on this thread, not gender.

There are many trans people who would agree that Tandora's arguments about sex are fatally flawed.

Oscar Wilde sired two sons with his wife Constance.

Tandora is making batshit claims that deny women a word for ourselves by muddying the waters. That is why we're pressing the point. The evasion isn't helping.

Tandora seems to be saying that trans is some sort of DSD of the brain, without bringing forward any credible science on the matter. Also seems to be claiming that people who used to be seen as effeminate boys are trans in some way, rather than en route to growing up into contented gay men.

It pisses me off that people with DSDs are dragged into this. They didn't ask to be and have enough to deal with.

So you believe the batshittery?

And how many with his male sexual partners?

The American Democratic Party certainly seems to have prioritised protecting "how you feel about yourself" over retaining words to describe why abortion is an equality issue.

Thankfully we are a little less self centred in the UK.
.

@damsondamsel ?

Tandora's argument concerns biology, not philosophy.

Biologists are very clear that sex is binary and has nothing to do with brains. It's all about gametes for anyone with even the most basic understanding of evolution.

Astronomy is a real scientific discipline, unlike sociology and gender studies. So is biology, and Tandora clearly is not an expert in that.

All I am getting from your post is that you live in a privileged bubble consisting of people who either live in a fantasy world or are too cowardly to say they they don't believe in this nonsense either and are just pretending. Academia (particularly the humanities) is very bad for this.

There is only factor that defines biological sex. XX chromosomes. No need for any more research.

Females with a CAIS gene on one of their X chromosomes are not affected, per my paragraph about being carriers but having ovaries, womb, vagina etc. and completely unambiguous female sexual development in all senses and measures. They can't really be said to have a DSD, just be carriers of a gene that may cause one if they have sons.

Anyone affected by having CAIS is male, yes.

I suspect the confusion is that you are thinking of CAIS males as 'women' because of their lack of or underdeveloped penis and scrotum. That is an understandable confusion but not correct.

Incidentally they would not fulfil the SC definition of biologically female. I do not believe the SC offered a definition in its recent judgment.

There may of course be some debate but I understand that the legal meaning of that term was established during much earlier case law and was not about what was recorded at birth (I would need to dig to remind myself of exactly what was held but if memory serves it was to do with the physical body, not a certificate, not least because it's a fairly old case). Because we live in a common law system the last applicable case law would apply unless a relevant statute deals with it and until it is overturned by further case law. I expect this will either be legislated for or heard as a case at some point for clarity.

The conversation about women with CAIS came up because a pp asked how a person could be female if they had a y chromosome.

This thread is about how 'sex' is not just a singular, unitary measure but a multidimensional variable with multiple components.