I now think you may be trolling me.

You are talking, directly and obviously, about a theory which holds that gamete production is the determining factor for sex (male/female). It isn't., and I've been extremely clear about that. I have, not once, even intimated this was my position - yet it is the only one you are objecting to.

You have argued with a position I don't hold, despite my jettisoning it from my comments several times - and never even mentioning that position OTHER THAN TO DENY IT.

Sex is binary. There is no argument.
It is not based on gamete production (for the simple reason that anyone who used to, or will shortly begin producing gametes no longer has a sex on this conception).

As compared to? And in light of?

I also have many trans friends. I have worked with trans people. I simply do not care what the think and feel in their minds about their own identity. How could I? But even these, trans, people understand that your version of this story is inccomplete. — AmadeusD

I don't really understand your response.

1) I am not comparing the hatred of trans people with the hatred of any other groups. What is this, a hatred competition? I've seen plenty of trans phobia and it is unsafe to walk the street as a trans person around here.

2) My version of the story? What 'story'? I already said 'I have no theory of trans' so I have no 'story' I just have how I conduct myself in relation to the matter.

I simply do not care what the think and feel in their minds about their ownn identity. How could I? — AmadeusD

Well, I don't care that you do not care. :wink:

It is the activation (or not) of the SRY gene in utero which determines which (male or female) developmental cascade one undergoes (very basically, Mullerian or Wolffian). From that point, aberrations occur in about 0.018% of people qualifying them for the "DSD" label because their aberration returns a non-ideal (in the strict sense) phenotype with reference to the sex present in that individual. You will note, though, that DSDs are sex-specific in almost all cases and this is not an issue for the binary. The one's which can occur in both, occur differently in each sex (per SRY/not SRY).

Many professionals actually take this to be something 'determined' at conception, and merely expressed at a certain point during early gestation. — AmadeusD

You are an especially bad reader, reasoner and commenter.

(having had to go back, we're at least fully aligned on gender per se :ok: )

've seen plenty of trans phobia and it is unsafe to walk the street as a trans person around here. — Tom Storm

Around where? Czechnia?

I am not comparing the hatred of trans people with the hatred of any other groups. — Tom Storm

Then from what is it exceptional?

I have no 'story' I — Tom Storm

You literally just told us a story about your interactions with, and conception of Trans....

Well I don't care that you do not care. — Tom Storm

Sure. That's kind of the point - No idea why you're taking this as some kind of an attack. I am putting forward that your version of trans experience is entirely incomplete, and is leading you to an inaccurate view, necessarily missing parts of the global situation.

A pre-SRY structure which is altered during the proceeding hormonal cascade into either a phallus, or not (there is more to "not' but this suffices here).

No idea why you're taking this as some kind of an attack — AmadeusD

No idea why you're taking this as some kind of response to an attack.

Your assorted responses seem more like you're arguing for the sake of arguing. A game, perhaps? Just looks that way, but I don't know you so context isn't available.

This -

Around where? Czechnia? — AmadeusD

That's a nice line. How do I interpret this? You think Chechenia is deserving of being described as one of the last bigoted places on earth? Is that the gist, or are you just trying to say that trans people don't regularly face bigotry and assaults just for being trans? I'm basing this claim on our own service experiences. Perhaps trans people are safe everywhere on earth except where I am?

I am putting forward that your version of trans experience is entirely incomplete, and is leading you to an inaccurate view, necessarily missing parts of the global situation. — AmadeusD

So fill me in on the part I'm missing, then perhaps we'll be able to tell if I am indeed telling story.

1. That's exactly how it comes across *shrug* I like you; it seemed worth mentioning. Still feels that way. Defensive, and rhetorical more than exploratory.

2.

That's a nice line. How do I interpret this? — Tom Storm

I don't really think that's relevant. It was a quip. But I put forwrard a legitimate question, as well. I was responding to your claims, and wanting clarity. If this isn't something you're prepared to sort of 'debate' then fine.

trans people don't regularly face bigotry and assaults just for being trans? — Tom Storm

3. They claim to. That's all we have. Statistics in most Western countries outline quite clearly that trans individuals (males, more specifically) are more likely to harm others, than be harmed. Hence, my pointing out that you do not have the entire story. If we're going to go off self-report, I would think it something you're happy to dismiss as a non-problem. Otherwise, self-report wouldn't be the basis for the claim.
It seems like the motivation for this stype of story-telling is compassion. But compassion without investigation is nonsense.

↪Lionino It really, really isn't. But it will get there very quickly, i'm sure. — AmadeusD

We're there dude. @Lionino (sorry, f'd up tagging earlier)

So the Penis and the Clit come from the same? Starting to look more like a sliding scale than a binary. That's an easy position to overturn mate, I thought you would hold the harder one. Hence me using the Gametes. My apologies for upping your game for you. — Vaskane

Sorry, can you stop putting forth things I haven't said and then responding to them as if I have? Your ability to infer is seriously lacking, and so It's hard to deal with responses that prefer positions I don't hold for their basis.

Hmm. You have presented precisely nothing to 'overturn' the sex binary. There is no such thing as a human is not either male or female. You haven't presented even a theory about how that could happen. So, yeah. We're left with a binary. Phenotype is a sliding scale, absolutely. But this is not sex.

Well, your argument is highly lacking to posit sex binary1.. And you're being highly disingenuous when you rely on the SRY Cascading Hormone function to "cause a penis and testes"2. to be formed to be "male." Well, SRY may not trigger and XX may not have a penis and testes and thus may not fit your standard3. for being "male." Yet you're still basing them as being male because of the "XX." Or some other variable when the SRY cascading hormone function fails in making a fully fledged male4. — Vaskane

Mate, nothing here represents my views in any way that can be called reasonable. I say with literally not even a lick of negativity - I think you jmight be in one of your troughs. You went through one in November, i think, and came back to apologise about it.

(i've plotted bold numbers in your above comment so I can respond to points in turn)

1. No, it isn't. I have given a precise definition of binary sex which includes every single human being which has ever existed - it appears to be the one biologists use, and in any case is 100% apt for the thread topic, and solves OP's problem neatly;

2. I didn't, and don't say that, anywhere;

3. That's YOUR standard. Obviously. My standard encompasses any phenotype which has resulted from SRY-activated hormone cascade - whether aberrant or ideal (I also note that in this, you're committed to a 'male' having a fully functional penis and testes. Odd, given you're pretending to argue that its non-biinary). If this conception captures people you dont consider male thats fine, but it says nothing about hte position and conception; and

4. YOUR conception of a 'fully fledged male'. Mine requires SRY-activation and nothing more. Everything else you've said indicates your position on sex is that it is far more narrow and aesthetically-defined (i.e you're talking about the 'whole person' but require a penis and testes to be male, on these comments - I must assume this isn't your actual position, you've just confused yourself into sayings that entail it).

There is no such thing as a human(who) is not either male or female. You haven't presented even a theory about how that could happen. So, yeah. We're left with a binary. — AmadeusD

It is what it is (bolded edited in for sense).

Each of these points either contradicts your initial claims, or is nonsensical because you've made up a position and attributed it to me. Why are you making me defend a version of 'male' you've come up with? I've asked you outright not to do that multiple times. If you made another assertion about something I haven't said, attributed to me, What do you think I should do? Would you continue talking to someone who's making up things to argue with you about?

Me:

Keep your eye out for the direction of the trends over the coming decades concerning the usefulness of the concept of the male-female binary within the social and biological sciences, and the wider culture.

Amadeus to @Vaskane

You have presented precisely nothing to 'overturn' the sex binary. There is no such thing as a human is not either male or female. — AmadeusD

Male/female are extremely important in biology and biologists, on the whole, reject entire the attempts to trivialize them.But I would also add engineers to that list. They use the terms constantly to refer to something non-biological which is analogous. — AmadeusD

I’m not just making this stuff up. From a recent paper in a biology journal:

Biomedical scientists are increasingly calling the biological sex into question, arguing that sex is a graded spectrum rather than a binary trait. Leading science journals have been adopting this relativist view...

You may want to explain this as bowing to political pressure from the left, but the fact remains that the biological sciences are moving away from the male-female binary. It shouldn’t be difficult for you to find papers in biological journals justifying this position scientifically. Why don’t you read a few. I’m sure they can satisfy your questions better than we can. I’m not suggesting a new consensus has been reached yet. In fact, the paper I quoted from disagrees with the non-binary view.

This assumes genetic make up as-is, determines sex - where is does not. So, "harm" is probably not apt, but it is flatly incorrect to assign a status of 'sex' to a genetic variation within an established sex. This ruins your aim entirely. — AmadeusD

I'm surprised to hear you say this. So if I'm XX I can be male? Have you really thought this one through? What is your alternative and why is that better than genetics?

Again, sex is already established as somthing that genetic variation does not determine, so it is again, flatly wrong to attribute a 'sex' status to a genetic variation - this, aside from it being exactly against your purported aim for the thread. — AmadeusD

Where is this established?

Klinefelter syndrome
— Philosophim

Is strictly a condition present in males.. It is determined firstly, by the subject being male. The highlighted section in your link (i assume you were pointing me to that?) indicates this clearly, without ambiguity. Phenotype has merely a correlative relation to sex (extremely closely correlated, it must be said). The case study presented is concerned solely with phenotype. The researches know this person is male, and that is the basis for this being a novel case (well, novel, after three examples? lol). — AmadeusD

And my point is, "How do we determine what is male?" In this case, its likely genetalia and because the majority of cases exhibit more male secondary sex characteristics. But I can see another culture creating a new sex out of it. You're missing a major point: We make language up AmadeusD. The goal of language is to create a clear and simple line of communication within one's culture. So if a culture wants to call Klinefelter syndrome a new sex, makes sense. If they want to modify it off of only desiring to have two sexes, makes sense. It doesn't matter.

What does matter is blending gender and sex together, as there are clear logical distinctions between sex and gender that lead to poor logical thinking when blended. The two are distinct enough to warrant their own words.

In the good old days when men were men and I were a lad, men were men and women were grateful, or if they weren't so much the worse for them. And anything else was an abomination. I was an abominable long haired hippie.

Since then, there has been somewhat of a retreat; first long haired men then gays, then men with boobs, then men with micro penis, and now we have your final last stand that hormones and organs and orientation and gender can be ignored in favour of the sacred genome. That's ok, but why? What can we all derive as a practical consequence from this ruling?

That is; I assume there is something more to this than a mere idiosyncratic defined usage of words.

Since then, there has been somewhat of a retreat; first long haired men then gays, then men with boobs, then men with micro penis, and now we have your final last stand that hormones and organs and orientation and gender can be ignored in favour of the sacred genome. That's ok, but why? What can we all derive as a practical consequence from this ruling? — unenlightened

A very good question! Because clear and unambiguous language allows for clear and unabiguous thought. Have you heard of George Orwells definition of "newsspeak"?

In the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), by George Orwell, Newspeak is the fictional language of Oceania, a totalitarian superstate. To meet the ideological requirements of Ingsoc (English Socialism) in Oceania, the Party created Newspeak, which is a controlled language of simplified grammar and limited vocabulary designed to limit a person's ability for critical thinking. The Newspeak language thus limits the person's ability to articulate and communicate abstract concepts, such as personal identity, self-expression, and free will, which are thoughtcrimes, acts of personal independence that contradict the ideological orthodoxy of Ingsoc collectivism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

I have seen a host of problems by blending transgender and transsexual together. First, the concept of blending genetics and culture together is the root of stereotypes such as classism, racism, and sexism. The idea that I take on the culture of a woman, therefore am a woman, implies that there is some objective truth in genetics with culture. This argument can be applied to race as well, but we've learned that's a bad idea.

Second, there is much confusion among people who have gender dysphoria. Is it gender dysphoria, or sex dysphoria? They are very different. Gender, as in the cultural dysphoria, does not require one to get on drugs or get surgery to act culturally as the other gender. Understanding that gender is just cultural expectations by society means one can make different choices in adapting to and fulfilling their emotional desires.

Sex dysphoria on the other hand is often solved by physical disguises, drugs, or surgeries. Such things are last resort to solve issues, and yet I've come across people who think gender dysphoria should be solved by such changes, then regret the pain and loss they went through.

The point is that clear language allows a clear identity of issues. With clear identities, we can come up with clear solutions. The current lumping of the term which describes two separate issues is causing a confusion and mix within the community itself, and as such is causing great harm where decisions are incorrectly made for one's condition.

Finally, there is confusion outside of the community as well. Many people are willing to accept decision in regards to gender for gender issues, and sex regarding sex issues. But when people believe the subject is gender, and sex issues creep in, there can be backlash or disagreement. Thus, it serves everyone involved for the clearest language possible that describes the issue most accurately.

And what are your clear and unambiguous thoughts on the matter? Yes I am very familiar with Orwell. And that is why I am asking you what follows from this new definition of the sexes.

To be clear, it has to be new because genetics is new.

I have fixed the above post. If it did not answer your question, feel free to ask it again.

I guess that is some kind of joke that went over my head.

If it did not answer your question, feel free to ask it again. — Philosophim

Why do you want to redefine sex in terms of genetics?

I guess that is some kind of joke that went over my head. — unenlightened

You may have missed it, but I had posted a half post by accident. I had just fixed it when I saw you asked your question.

Why do you want to redefine sex in terms of genetics? — unenlightened

Because words should be as accurate as possible within reasonable means. Sex is immutable.
Genetics are very simple and immutable. Gender is mutable. This serves a very clear distinction between the two and avoids issues of ambiguity. As a response question, "Why should we not define sex by genetics?" Thanks.

Because words should be as accurate as possible within reasonable means. Sex is immutable.
Genetics are very simple and immutable. Gender is mutable. This serves a very clear distinction between the two and avoids issues of ambiguity. As a response question, "Why should we not define sex by genetics?" Thanks. — Philosophim

You are repeating your definition and declaring it to be the truth. Genes are immutable, snd you want to define sex in terms of genes. What will you do if/when progress in gene therapy allows "sex - change" to be real in your own definition? Sex would cease to be immutable and become a lifestyle choice - again.

You are repeating your definition and declaring it to be the truth. — unenlightened

That's an odd accusation. I'm pointing out why I'm defining things, feel free to disagree and explain why.

Genes are immutable, snd you want to define sex in terms of genes. What will you do if/when progress in gene therapy allows "sex - change" to be real in your own definition? — unenlightened

Nothing at that point. At that point sex would be mutable with surgery. But the definition of sex would not change. I see no problem with this at all.

Sex would cease to be immutable and become a lifestyle choice - again. — unenlightened

Sex has never been a lifestyle choice, just as race is not a lifestyle choice. You can choose to live the culture that society has associated with race or sex. Thus I can dress in hoodies, listen to rap, etc. if I want to live the lifestyle of inner city 'blacks', but it does not make me black. Same as a black person listening to Adelle and driving a Prius doesn't make them 'white', just living the lifestyle of an urban 'white' culture.

I want you to understand what you are implying very clearly. You are saying that living as a culture makes you a different type of body. This also implies that being a certain body, means you MUST have a particular type of culture. That is the definition of racism and sexism. Be very careful with that.

fact remains that the biological sciences are moving away from the male-female binary. — Joshs

Hmm. I don't think it does. It never really was, either

Bringing in a single speculative quote does not overturn the sex binary.

And in any case, some subset of biologists 'calling into question' something doesnt' represent a trend. I would also posit that in science, trends come and go. So, I hear your point - I think its very weak, and doesn't serve the claim you're making.

In fact, the paper I quoted from disagrees with the non-binary view. — Joshs

Seems to me, a rather odd conclusion given the claim quoted above. But, neither of us are biologists and I am open to your postion being hte case. I simply see no evidence for it. This type of stuff only turns up in pop sci.

Again, like I said, you're just bias towards your faith in science, and ignore the historical sense of things. I'm going to refer to you as a woman now too, since you don't care about what your friends think, they are either male or female based off your judgement. Hell you're neither man nor woman, don't have the intelligence. See how bias works? Obviously goes to show they're nowhere near your friends. So instead of constantly reverting back to your objective bias -- as men of resentment do -- perhaps ease up a little and consider your "friends," preferences. Otherwise, I say that gives everyone free game to ignore your preferences. Which I generally do ignore objective dogma.

That said, think we've beaten this topic to a pulp. Say whatever you want I won't be replying to it anymore, you probably can't even perform the sciences you have faith in. — Vaskane

Ok, well this is not much more than a rant and engages literally nothing i've said - including the fact that you're continually lying about what i've said. Feel free. Dummy-spitting is quite common. Your position makes no sense and you've contradicted yourself multiple times in service of making yourself feel better about condescending to someone who sees through your position as purely emotive. Not my circus.

I'm surprised to hear you say this. So if I'm XX I can be male? Have you really thought this one through? What is your alternative and why is that better than genetics? — Philosophim

Yep. Its called de la Chapelle syndrome.
Fwiw, "my" alternative doesn't derive from me but its certainly true that I 'prefer' a factor other than genetics to determine sex (largely, because of the problems you're dealing with in this thread). It is a standard used by biologists attempting to do exactly what you are - avoiding language complications to prevent productive research or discussion. Two names that come to mind are Colin Wright and Zach Elliot . These are not given as case-closers, just evidence i'm not bringing these things out of either an unrelated field, or my own mind.

The alternative, which is covers every human ever, and categorises into precisely two categories without (known) exception, and with full utility in the sense that once categorised, it gets set aside unless medically relevant, is to use the activation of the SRY gene as a marker for sex, given that this is determinant of which cascade of sexual development is engaged. This version actually lends far more support to intersex individuals as it posits that we should actually pay attention to one's sex, and no one's phenotype, as closely as we have. Also, aberrations down the track abound (sort of.. they're actually very rare) but cannot affect the determination, previous in time, of which sexed hormonal cascade was engaged. This would be the "potential" part of the whole gamete argument, if that was preferred by someone. The potential to produce each gamete is absolutely determined by which cascade is triggered.

Where is this established? — Philosophim

First, have a go at making sense of this piece: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2658794/ (the misuse of Gender here is palpable).

Then this https://www.sciencealert.com/a-baby-s-sex-is-about-more-than-just-its-x-and-y-chromosomes-new-research-reveals

And my point is, "How do we determine what is male?" I — Philosophim

have covered, multiple times throughout thread. And in this context, that the person has Klinefelter, as defined, means they are male. Like, someone experiencing menstruation is female. That's not arguable, is it?

What does matter is blending gender and sex together, as there are clear logical distinctions between sex and gender that lead to poor logical thinking when blended. The two are distinct enough to warrant their own words. — Philosophim

Absolutely. Am trying to establish how this delineation works - you seem resistant.

So if a culture wants to call Klinefelter syndrome a new sex, makes sense. — Philosophim

No it doesn't. Because that term belongs to a culture in which is it bounded to Males experiencing a certain genetic expression. That is what it symbolises in the culture in which it arose.

Another culture coming along and misappropriating the word isn't helpful, or sensible. At the very least, it violates, entirely hte premise of your attempt to solve the problem that exact thing causes. I'm unsure how this is not obvious.

I want you to understand what you are implying very clearly. You are saying that living as a culture makes you a different type of body. This also implies that being a certain body, means you MUST have a particular type of culture. That is the definition of racism and sexism. Be very careful with that. — Philosophim

How on Earth did you derive that from anything I have said? I haven't remotely implied anything like that. I described how attitudes to sex and gender have changed in my lifetime, and asked you why you think it so important to redefine sex, and what that will mean for people. And I still don't have much of an answer. What is the use of this wonderful clarity you propose we adopt?

See my problem is I never took a genetic test, so I don't know what my genes are. So I have to rely on presumptions based on old-fashioned things like having a penis, and being sent to a boys school, and so on. Mrs un, by the way, is at least just as white as she is black, if we are talking genetics, but that is seldom 'counted' by people that count these things for other folk. Except for certain types who like to pretend they 'cannot see race'. Clearly the genetics of race are more complicated than those of sex.

I think identity is always a complex interaction of adopted and assigned, and you are very much in the business of assigning a sexual identity. But your definition does not help, for example, the difficulties faced by sports governance, and I do not see that it helps people with "gender dysphoria" (another imposed identity).

And my point is, "How do we determine what is male?" — Philosophim

My point is that we do not have to determine that in the same way or even necessarily at all, in relation to every social situation. What works for this sport may not work for another sport and neither may be appropriate for prison segregation.

fact remains that the biological sciences are moving away from the male-female binary.
— Joshs

Hmm. I don't think it does. It never really was, either

Bringing in a single speculative quote does not overturn the sex binary.

And in any case, some subset of biologists 'calling into question' something doesnt' represent a trend. I would also posit that in science, trends come and go. So, I hear your point - I think its very weak, and doesn't serve the claim you're making.

In fact, the paper I quoted from disagrees with the non-binary view.
— Joshs

Seems to me, a rather odd conclusion given the claim quoted above. But, neither of us are biologists and I am open to your postion being hte case. I simply see no evidence for it. This type of stuff only turns up in pop sci — AmadeusD

Ok, is this still just ‘pop sci’?

Sex Redefined: The Idea of 2 Sexes Is Overly Simplistic.
Biologists now think there is a larger spectrum than just binary female and male

BEYOND THE BINARY

Biologists may have been building a more nuanced view of sex, but society has yet to catch up.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

Or this?

the term “biologic sex” is understood by many to be an outdated term, due to its longstanding history of being used to invalidate the authenticity of trans identities. Although sex is typically misconceptualized as a binary of male (XY) or female (XX), many other chromosomal arrangements, inherent variations in gene expression patterns, and hormone levels exist. Intersex categorizations include variations in chromosomes present, external genitalia, gonads (testes or ovaries), hormone production, hormone responsiveness, and internal reproductive organs. Medical classification of intersex individuals is not always done at birth, as many intersex traits do not become apparent until puberty or later in life. Currently, there are at least 40 known variations that fall into intersex classifications (Carpenter, 2018). Notably, complex biologic variations can occur in everyone, and sex may best be viewed as a spectrum comprised of many traits.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9355551/

Ok, is this still just ‘pop sci'?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/ — Joshs

Unfortunately, Scientific American has been pop science for awhile now, and is ever more commonly becoming little more than people expressing their politics.

Or this?

the term “biologic sex” is understood by many to be an outdated term, due to its longstanding history of being used to invalidate the authenticity of trans identities. — Joshs

That's rather sloppy political philosophy.

"...the term “biologic sex” is understood by many to be an outdated term..."

Many what? Many biologists? I seriously doubt it. Understanding sex is rather important in a lot of biological research.

And what are these "trans identities"? Is this a matter of science or of philosophical discussion?

Everything you've said is hollow and rests on multiple logical fallacies, to include anchoring, confirmation bias, and false dichotomy to name a few. There really is no point in engaging with that. — Vaskane

You said you wouldn't reply anyway. But you have, and not provided anything relevant. Not. My. Circus.

Yep. Its called de la Chapelle syndrome. — AmadeusD

The alternative, which is covers every human ever, and categorises into precisely two categories without (known) exception, and with full utility in the sense that once categorised, it gets set aside unless medically relevant, is to use the activation of the SRY gene as a marker for sex, given that this is determinant of which cascade of sexual development is engaged. — AmadeusD

Right, so the SRY gene is found on the Y chromosome. In the case of De La Chapelle syndrome it only happens because that piece gets broken off the Y and merges with an X. Really, I have no objection to the SRY gene to match all special cases, as long as its genetic.

What does matter is blending gender and sex together, as there are clear logical distinctions between sex and gender that lead to poor logical thinking when blended. The two are distinct enough to warrant their own words.
— Philosophim

Absolutely. Am trying to establish how this delineation works - you seem resistant. — AmadeusD

Relax, we're trying to do the same thing. An alternative to your viewpoint does not mean I'm not trying to establish a solid delineation either. I'm just making sure its clear, unambiguous, and not based on phenotype.

So if a culture wants to call Klinefelter syndrome a new sex, makes sense.
— Philosophim

No it doesn't. Because that term belongs to a culture in which is it bounded to Males experiencing a certain genetic expression. That is what it symbolises in the culture in which it arose.

Another culture coming along and misappropriating the word isn't helpful, or sensible. At the very least, it violates, entirely hte premise of your attempt to solve the problem that exact thing causes. I'm unsure how this is not obvious. — AmadeusD

The point is to demonstrate the logic around how language is formed and framed. Of course if another culture defined the term differently, we would have to come to an agreement on how it was defined. My point is there is nothing innate in only saying, "There are two sexes." Depending on one's approach, and if their definitions are clear and consistent, I can see the viability in declaring more than two, and I don't see any problem in noting this.

How on Earth did you derive that from anything I have said? — unenlightened

By you claiming that sex is a lifestyle choice. I clearly wrote this. Sex is what you are. Lifestyle choices are how you decide to live. Tying lifestyle with sex or race is the definition of sexism and racism.

And I still don't have much of an answer. What is the use of this wonderful clarity you propose we adopt? — unenlightened

You seem to be ignoring the clear reasons I've posted. Clarity of language for clarity of thought. Go back up and read my examples again as I've already replied to you.

See my problem is I never took a genetic test, so I don't know what my genes are. So I have to rely on presumptions based on old-fashioned things like having a penis, and being sent to a boys school, and so on. — unenlightened

This is a fair argument. If you wish to base sex off of genetalia, I see little objection to that. Since genetics determine genetalia, this seems consistent with my point.

I think identity is always a complex interaction of adopted and assigned, and you are very much in the business of assigning a sexual identity. — unenlightened

Sex is not an identity. Sex is an embodiment.

Mrs un, by the way, is at least just as white as she is black, if we are talking genetics, but that is seldom 'counted' by people that count these things for other folk. — unenlightened

Also another good point. But to my point, you don't think she has to act a certain way culturally because of her genetics right? If she never painted her nails or wore a dress she would still be a woman right?

But your definition does not help, for example, the difficulties faced by sports governance, and I do not see that it helps people with "gender dysphoria" (another imposed identity). — unenlightened

I am not addressing sports, but genetic markers would ensure proper biological separation. And I did address gender dysphoria. Go re-read the first reply I gave to you, I detailed it all out there.

And my point is, "How do we determine what is male?"
— Philosophim

My point is that we do not have to determine that in the same way or even necessarily at all, in relation to every social situation — unenlightened

Sure, not every social situation is determined by sex. But those that are, are. And we need a nice and clear delineation of what counts as sex for that. This is different from dividing social situations by gender. Gender expects you to act and look a certain way, so sex itself is not important in these situations.

Ok, is this still just ‘pop sci’? — Joshs

Yes. The article also notes the SRY-functional determination of sex and then just ignores it to wank on about phenotypical aberrations post determination. This is akin to that infographic SA posted (made by a social media manager) which claim sex wasn't binary, yet points out that the variations only occur within the determined sex groups.

For your second link, I need only look at your quoted passage:

" the term “biologic sex” is understood by many to be an outdated term, due to its longstanding history of being used to invalidate the authenticity of trans identities." that is literally politics. Not science. You can also tell this is the case with the following:

". Although sex is typically misconceptualized as a binary of male (XY) or female (XX), many other chromosomal arrangements, inherent variations in gene expression patterns, and hormone levels exist. "

The claim (that sex is typically misconceptualised) relies on the further assertions of the sentence to even be viable. That's again, not science, but politics. Those further elements don't affect one's sex determination. It affects ones 'sex expression' as it was put by Timothy.

And more;
"Moving forward, we should consider implications of sex beyond the binary categories of male (XY) and female (XX). "

That hasn't been the standard for a long time. Most TRAs are arguing with a ghost on this particular topic. Anyhow, this is an opinion piece. It is not supportive of a scientific claim about what sex is.

Relax, we're trying to do the same thing. — Philosophim

AS noted, you seem absolutely resistant to a fool-proof grammatical way of solving your problem. What would you have assumed, If i had rejected the same?

I'm just making sure its clear, unambiguous, and not based on phenotype. — Philosophim

That was the case from teh go - which is why the resistance seems to obtain, from my perspective. I'm not 'accusing' you of anything, i'm letting you know how it's coming across to me.

"There are two sexes." — Philosophim

Can only mean anything other than referring to the patent fact that dimorphic species reproduce by the existences of two sexes - if that other culture has usurped teh term and inculcated it into an entirely different system that represents exactly the same thing. Otherwise it is both grammatically, and empirically incorrect at worst, and misleading at best. So, while point is somewhat taken, it is so vanishing in this context I'm not seeing why its being addressed.

I can see the viability in declaring more than two, and I don't see any problem in noting this. — Philosophim

As 'sex' is defined, there is no viable option other than male or female. Again, if another culture usurps this word into a system that has a different word for sex(as we understand it) fine. But that's a ridiculous reason to accept that usurping.

By the way, Michel Foucault's "History of Sexuality," has some good insights for you. — Vaskane

It doesn't. Foucault was and remains risible, along with Nietzsche. You explain yourself with every name-drop.

Ok. Thanks mate.

Yes.

As such, I believe that labeling a transexual person as 'transgendered' creates confusion and harm. — Philosophim

I'm am just intrigued to understand why and how you think this creates harm.