But why are we discussing sex — Harry Hindu

Because some, like Malcolm Parry and AmadeusD, claimed that every single human without exception is either (unambiguously) biologically male or (unambiguously) biologically female.

I was simply responding to this to correct them. Human biology isn't as simple as they think it to be.

Intersex is not a trait that is passed down to the next generation — Harry Hindu

Sure, genetic disorders can be passed down to the next generation. — Harry Hindu

?

Intersex is not a trait that is passed down to the next generation like the traits that natural selection promotes for evolving into a new species. — Harry Hindu

See Report of Fertility in a Woman with a Predominantly 46,XY Karyotype in a Family with Multiple Disorders of Sexual Development:

A 46,XY mother who developed as a normal woman underwent spontaneous puberty, reached menarche, menstruated regularly, experienced two unassisted pregnancies, and gave birth to a 46,XY daughter with complete gonadal dysgenesis.

Is there ambiguity in being a human? — Harry Hindu

Yes, if by "human" you mean "homo sapiens".

Homo sapiens evolved from homo antecessor, but there was never some single generation where someone who was unambiguously homo antecessor gave birth to someone who was unambiguously homo sapiens.

It was a gradual development from one to the other, with generations of ambiguity inbetween.

The point is that it isn't an counterexample if we go by the definition that being anything means having a majority of the traits for that thing. — Harry Hindu

The particular question I asked was:

Given that some human has ovotesticular syndrome caused by 46,XX/46,XY chimerism, what is the biological feature that either makes them a male or makes them a female? Of particular relevance are those with bilateral ovotestis and/or streak gonads, as well as ambiguous genitalia.

In this case even your "having a majority of the traits" doesn't work, because they have both sets of karyotypes, both sets of gonadal tissue, and genitalia that is neither clearly male nor clearly female.

That is total number of cases of this disorder that are known. I would say 28 out of say 12 billion. is not statistically significant number to overhaul the binary nature of sex. — Malcolm Parry

Just one counterexample is sufficient to disprove your claim that every single human without exception is either (unambiguously) biologically male or (unambiguously) biologically female.

Can one be unambiguously human? — Harry Hindu

Do you mean to ask if one can be ambiguously human?

Because to answer your literal question, I would say that I am unambiguously human.

I think your question was an attempt to undermine the concept of biological sex. — frank

No, I am trying to explain to them that it is not the case that every single human without exception is either (unambiguously) biologically male or (unambiguously) biologically female.

There are real people who really exist who do not fit within such a neat and tidy dichotomy.

It's not important to categorize those people as male or female. — frank

Malcolm Parry and AmadeusD are claiming that every single human without exception is either (unambiguously) biologically male or (unambiguously) biologically female.

My question to them (and to which you respond) was an attempt to have them try to understand that human biology is not so black and white.

But then why are people born with less than 10 fingers, or born without legs still considered human? Isn't being human more than just having 10 fingers and two legs? Aren't there multiple traits that make one a human, and not just one? Wouldn't this mean that if you have a majority of those traits you're considered a human? Why would that not be the same for sex? — Harry Hindu

I'm responding to @frank's claim that someone is biologically male if and only if they (only) have an XY karyotype and biologically female if and only if they (only) have an XX karyotype.

He's the one trying to define "biologically male" and "biologically female" according to a singular trait, not me.

I don't know why it's important to work that out. It remains true that a biological male has XY AND no-XX. A biological female has XX AND no-XY. Simple. — frank

Because there are people who do not fit within this binary classification.

Therefore either a) these people are neither biologically male nor biologically female or b) your attempt at defining what it means to be a biological male and a biological female is wrong.

A man has XY & lacks XX. — frank

Some people have both XX and XY. Are they male or female?

Some people have XX male syndrome. Are they male or female?

Some people have XYY, some XXY, some XXXY, some XXXXY. Are they male or female?

I was corrected by AmadeusD.
Even if there are 500 anomalies that is exactly what they are. No spectrum — Malcolm Parry

Then I’ll ask the question I asked before:

Given that some human has ovotesticular syndrome caused by 46,XX/46,XY chimerism, what is the biological feature that either makes them a male or makes them a female? Of particular relevance are those with bilateral ovotestis and/or streak gonads, as well as ambiguous genitalia.

I was interested in the syndrome did a bit of googling and the conclusion was that some people were a bit of both. It was a syndrome with 500 known cases. I was corrected by a poster and was happy to be corrected because tiny pockets of developmental defects doesn’t seem change the science of 8 billion people on the planet.
Why is the change for the worse? — Malcolm Parry

I think he's pointing out that you started by claiming that every human is either unambiguously male or unambiguously female without exception, then you accepted that at least 500 people are an exception, but then later went back to claiming that there are no exceptions.

If they have active SRY, they are male. IN a female, there is no SRY active in/on any cells. — AmadeusD

See Report of Fertility in a Woman with a Predominantly 46,XY Karyotype in a Family with Multiple Disorders of Sexual Development

A 46,XY mother who developed as a normal woman underwent spontaneous puberty, reached menarche, menstruated regularly, experienced two unassisted pregnancies, and gave birth to a 46,XY daughter with complete gonadal dysgenesis.

...

Both the mother and daughter had normal SRY (sex-determining region of the Y chromosome) sequences...

Under your account, both of these people are biologically male?

Also of interest is Self-fertilization in human: Having a male embryo without a father

Chimeras are the result of fusion of two zygotes to form a single embryo, producing an individual with genetically different kinds of tissue. If the fused zygotes are of different sex, the individual develops both ovarian and testicular tissues. The majority of these people are best reared as females and many pregnancies with living offspring have been reported in persons reared as females, and several cases has fathered a child.

...

A scenario is presented here for a woman to have a son without a father: she is a chimera of 46,XX/46,XY type resulting from the fusion of two zygotes of different sex types and she develops both ovary and testis in her body.

...

Both gonads are functional and produce spermatozoa and oocyte respectively after puberty. At the time of ovulation, estrogens increase the motility of the oviduct on the left side which results in a negative pressure in the tube and oocyte and sperms are picked-up into the tube with the help of this vacuum effect, taking both gametes to the fertilization site in the oviduct. Since the sperm contains a Y chromosome, this fertilization gives rise to a XY male embryo.

Although there have been no documented cases of self fertilization, it is not prima facie biologically impossible.

If you disagree with my responses, that's fine - but you're arguing as if I haven't put a nice lid on it, from my side of things. — AmadeusD

I understand that you believe that a human is a biological male if and only if they have at least one cell with an active SRY gene (and female otherwise), and that having an active SRY gene is a binary trait with no ambiguity or degree.

And I am pointing out that this is a flawed understanding of both human biology and the English adjectives "male" and "female".

You know what, let's just all pretend we are all biological essentialists/determinists. — substantivalism

Let's not.

rather than some psychiatrist just says so — Harry Hindu

It’s not just “some” psychiatrist. It’s the DSM and the ICD.

Also from your quote:

Most reasoning of this kind is not fallacious, and much of our knowledge properly comes from listening to authorities.

I see no good reason to disbelieve the DSM and ICD in favour of your bare assertion that gender incongruence is a psychosis.

Appealing to authority IS a logical fallacy. You need to reconcile what you just said with this simple fact. — Harry Hindu

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

An argument from authority is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority figure (or figures) who lacks relevant expertise is used as evidence to support an argument.

The simple fact is that trained psychiatrists are far more qualified than you to determine what does or doesn’t count as a psychosis, and that it is reasonable for those who aren’t trained psychiatrists to defer to their decisions.

I suppose the rational counterargument would be: ridiculously rare genetic abnormalities aside, how does that change a thing? — Outlander

The claim that some are making is that every single human is either unambiguously male or unambiguously female, and that so-called “intersex” people don’t actually exist.

This claim is simply false, and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of both biology and the English language.

See 46,XX/46,XY.

46,XX/46,XY is either a chimeric or mosaic genetic condition characterized by the presence of some cells that express a 46,XX karyotype and some cells that express a 46,XY karyotype in a single human being. Individuals with these conditions are classified as intersex.

Some of their cells have an SRY gene, some don't. Are they male or female according to your distinction? Is the existence of a single SRY gene sufficient to qualify them as male, even if the majority of their cells have an XX karyotype and they are phenotypically female? Do they become female if we then cut out this single SRY cell? Or are they only male if the majority of their cells have an XY karyotype/have an SRY gene?

And let's consider some hypothetical 46,XX/46,XY person with an equal number of XX cells and XY cells, ambiguous genitalia, and either bilateral oviotestis or streak gonads. Are they male or female?

They believe they are man when they are a woman. That is the delusion. — Harry Hindu

You appear to be equivocating.

Here are two plausible interpretations of your claim:

1. They believe they are biologically male when they are biologically female. That is the delusion.
2. They believe they are non-biologically male when they are biologically female. That is the delusion.

If you mean (1) then your claim is false because they do not believe that they are biologically male.

If you mean (2) then your conclusion is a non sequitur.

Pleading to authority is a logical fallacy. — Harry Hindu

It's not a logical fallacy to defer to what mathematicians say about mathematics, to what physicists say about physics, or to what psychiatrists say about psychiatry.

Psychiatrists do not classify gender incongruence as a psychosis. Unless you have studied psychiatry you are not qualified to have an informed opinion.

That doesn't answer the question.

Given that some human has ovotesticular syndrome caused by 46,XX/46,XY chimerism, what is the biological feature that either makes them a male or makes them a female? Of particular relevance are those with bilateral ovotestis and/or streak gonads, as well as ambiguous genitalia.

But they are either male or female. They aren’t both. — Malcolm Parry

Then which are they? And what about them determines this?

Have you details of a person who is both male and female? — Malcolm Parry

In the most extreme case there's ovotesticular syndrome, where someone has both ovarian and testicular tissue, and can be caused by 46,XX/46,XY chimerism.

The historically recent phenomenon of trans people... — Baden

It's not even recent.

The galli eunuch priests of classical antiquity have been interpreted by some scholars as transgender or third-gender. The trans-feminine kathoey and hijra gender roles have persisted for thousands of years in Thailand and the Indian subcontinent, respectively. In Arabia, khanith (like earlier mukhannathun) have occupied a third gender role attested since the 7th century CE. Traditional roles for transgender women and transgender men have existed in many African societies, with some persisting to the modern day. North American Indigenous fluid and third gender roles, including the Navajo nádleehi and the Zuni lhamana, have existed since pre-colonial times.

Some medieval European documents have been studied as possible accounts of transgender persons. Kalonymus ben Kalonymus's lament for being born a man instead of a woman has been seen as an early account of gender dysphoria. John/Eleanor Rykener, a male-bodied Briton arrested in 1394 while living and doing sex work dressed as a woman, has been interpreted by some contemporary scholars as transgender. In Japan, accounts of transgender people go back to the Edo period. In Indonesia, there are millions of trans-/third-gender waria, and the extant pre-Islamic Bugis society of Sulawesi recognizes five gender roles.

In the United States in 1776, the genderless Public Universal Friend refused both birth name and gendered pronouns. Transgender American men and women are documented in accounts from throughout the 19th century. The first known informal transgender advocacy organisation in the United States, Cercle Hermaphroditos, was founded in 1895.

It's not clear to me what delusion you believe they have. We've already established that trans men don't believe that they were born with a penis or XY chromosomes, so it can't be that.

And neither the DSM nor the ICD classify gender dysphoria/incongruence as a type of psychosis, and unless you're a qualified psychiatrist you're in no position to question the professionals – or at the very least I have no good reason to believe you over them.

It is you that is focused on the bathroom issue when I have shown that is a symptom and not the cause. It is illogical to even discuss bathrooms when you haven't ironed out the psychological issue first. — Harry Hindu

I’m focused on actual people trying to live their actual lives. Trans people aren’t just some philosophical hypothetical. They exist and they often need to use public bathrooms. The studies show that it is safer to let trans men use men’s bathrooms and trans women use women’s bathrooms, so any law that tries to prevent this ought not be passed.

If you don’t understand trans people then fine. You don’t need to. Them going to the toilet has nothing to do with you - or anyone else.

The most relevant issue that you are avoiding is how do we determine when someone is telling the truth when they say they are a man or a woman? — Harry Hindu

You don't need to know. Just let people take a piss in peace. It's not hard. Why you are even thinking about other people's genitals or chromosomes or psychology when going to the toilet is beyond me. It's kinda creepy.

If trans-people's safety are threatened in bathrooms, then what makes you think a trans-man will be safe entering a men's bathroom? When you actually dig deep and think beyond the statistics you are providing, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, or is realistic. — Harry Hindu

What do you mean "think beyond the statistics"? You're suggesting we ignoring the facts? Because the facts are:

Among transgender men who used women’s restrooms (i.e., according to their sex assigned at birth), about 10% were denied access, and nearly 11% experienced verbal harassment in the past year, compared to those who used men’s restrooms (5% and 7%, respectively).

Among transgender women who used men’s restrooms (i.e., according to their sex assigned at birth), 7% were denied access, and nearly 9% experienced verbal harassment in the past year, compared to those who used women’s restrooms (5% and 7%, respectively).

Whether or not it "makes sense" to you is irrelevant. Your intuition – or whatever it is – is wrong.

I addressed the relevant issue. Trans people are at a greater risk when they use the bathroom according to their biological sex and cis women are not at a greater risk when trans women are allowed to use the women’s bathroom.

So if your concern is people’s safety then trans men ought use men’s bathrooms and trans women ought use women’s bathrooms.

Where are the statistics that show that trans-people are disproportionately assaulted in bathrooms as opposed to other places? — Harry Hindu

I don’t know if they’re disproportionately assaulted in bathrooms as opposed to other places, but they are at greater risk if forced to use bathrooms according to their biological sex, as quoted 8 days ago.

“Current policy debates about transgender people’s access to restrooms are based on a narrative, asserted without evidence, that safety and privacy in women’s spaces are at risk,” said lead author Jody Herman, Senior Scholar of Public Policy at the Williams Institute. “However, research shows that transgender people are the ones who face harm from others in these spaces, including being denied access, verbal harassment, and physical assault. Moreover, they are at greater risk of harm when laws require them to use restrooms according to their assigned sex at birth.”

So, to repeat myself; if you're concerned about people's safety, just let trans men use men's bathrooms and trans women use women's bathrooms.

The issue is men that are not trans entering women's bathrooms and locker rooms. — Harry Hindu

So trans women ought to suffer using men's bathrooms, risking being abused, because cis men might pretend to be trans women to use women's bathrooms? That seems unfair.

And perhaps read the first article I linked to:

There is no evidence that letting transgender people use public facilities that align with their gender identity increases safety risks, according to a new study from the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law. The study is the first of its kind to rigorously test the relationship between nondiscrimination laws in public accommodations and reports of crime in public restrooms and other gender-segregated facilities.

“Opponents of public accommodations laws that include gender identity protections often claim that the laws leave women and children vulnerable to attack in public restrooms,” said lead author Amira Hasenbush. “But this study provides evidence that these incidents are rare and unrelated to the laws.”

I'm more worried about the much larger portion that preys one women. — Harry Hindu

No link between trans-inclusive policies and bathroom safety, study finds

Transgender people over four times more likely than cisgender people to be victims of violent crime

Prohibiting transgender people from accessing bathrooms puts them at added risk of harassment

“Current policy debates about transgender people’s access to restrooms are based on a narrative, asserted without evidence, that safety and privacy in women’s spaces are at risk,” said lead author Jody Herman, Senior Scholar of Public Policy at the Williams Institute. “However, research shows that transgender people are the ones who face harm from others in these spaces, including being denied access, verbal harassment, and physical assault. Moreover, they are at greater risk of harm when laws require them to use restrooms according to their assigned sex at birth.”

If you're concerned about people's safety, just let trans men use men's bathrooms and trans women use women's bathrooms.

What I have said would support this, yes. Is there a problem? — Harry Hindu

You tell me. You seem to think that there are good reasons to separate bathrooms according some biological binary. What are those reasons? Perhaps when we examine those reasons we might conclude that, actually, we ought separate according to genitals, and that DNA, hormones, and mammary glands are irrelevant.

Notice though that we have moved from talking about trans-gender to trans-sexual, or intersex. How can this be if gender and sex are distinct? — Harry Hindu

I don't understand what you're asking here.

Again, why would one need to transition if gender is separate from sex? — Harry Hindu

Because of gender dysphoria.

But you are speaking for them, so you appear to know what they think. — Harry Hindu

I don't need to understand why they wish to transition to understand that trans men do not believe that they have a penis. Indeed, the very fact that they transition (if they do) proves that they know that they don't have a penis.

So it's unclear what delusion you think they're suffering from.

Yet you are notified of responses to your posts. — Harry Hindu

Yes, but is this post of yours that listed the biological criteria a reply to me? If not then I wouldn't have been notified of it.

Found the post, was a reply to me. I forgot about it over my 4 day absence from this discussion. Apologies.

I provided five traits that almost always occur together in females and males.
- chromosomes (in humans, XY is male, XX female)
- genitals (penis vs. vagina)
- gonads (testes vs. ovaries)
- hormones (males have higher relative levels of testosterone than women, while women have higher levels of estrogen)
- secondary sex characteristics that aren’t connected with the reproductive system but distinguish the sexes, and usually appear at puberty (breasts, facial hair, size of larynx, subcutaneous fat, etc.) — Harry Hindu

So were some hypothetical person to have:

1. XX chromsomes
2. A penis
3. Testes
4. Low testosterone and high estrogen
5. Breasts

Then they have 3 female traits and 2 male traits and so are female and ought use the women's changing rooms, compete in women's sports, etc.?

Then why do trans people modify there biology? If merely believing something is an affirmation, then there would be no need to modify one's biology. — Harry Hindu

Firstly, not all do. Secondly, you'll have to ask them, not me. Thirdly, the same can be asked about anyone who undergoes cosmetic surgery, whether transgender or not.

As I pointed out earlier in this thread that you appeared to have ignored, there are five traits that determine one's sex. — Harry Hindu

It's a long discussion and I haven't read every post.

How do you determine one's intention in this case? — Harry Hindu

I'm not a legal professional. I don't know how prosecutors prove intent beyond reasonable doubt.

The problem is affirming another's delusions for the purpose of using them as political pawns. — Harry Hindu

If someone born without a penis believes that they have a penis then they would be suffering from a delusion, but this isn't what trans men believe.

If you read the rest of my post, you would see that I had said that we can have body scanners at public bathroom entrances to scan for biological features... — Harry Hindu

What would it scan for? Chromosomes? Genitals? What if someone has XX chromosomes and a penis?

Is it right for a trans person to fool a homosexual into having intimate relations with them? — Harry Hindu

I don't know what the etiquette is regarding transgender people having one night stands, but I'd presume that if they present as men when clothed but have a vagina then this will come up in conversation before they start getting naked.

In a society where it is against the law for people to walk around naked... — Harry Hindu

Which society do you live in? Because there are plenty of places where it isn't against the law for people to walk around naked.

For example:

Firstly, it is not an offence to be naked in public in England and Wales. However, it can become an offence if it can be proven that the naked individual caused harassment, alarm or distress to another person. In the absence of any sexual context and intention to cause alarm and distress – being naked in public is within the law.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) notes in its guidance that every case should be considered on its own facts and merits and ‘a balance needs to be struck between the naturist’s right to freedom of expression and the right of the wider public to be protected from harassment, alarm and distress’. In assessing intention, there must be a serious reason to believe that the naked individual intended to cause alarm and distress.

Why would manly looking women now be an issue since it hasn't been before? — Malcolm Parry

Because of the anti-trans agenda. There is such an uproar in some circles against trans women using women's bathrooms that masculine-looking cis women have faced abuse.

Cis Woman Mistaken as Transgender Records Being Berated in Bathroom

Cis woman confronted by police officers in Arizona Walmart restroom for looking too masculine

Because they are a woman. They have every right to use a female space.

But why do we have this female space? You've said before that it's because cis women would be uncomfortable sharing a changing room with biological men. But they'll also be uncomfortable sharing a changing room with "passing" trans men. So if "making cis women uncomfortable" is a good reason to exclude biological men from these changing rooms it must also be a good reason to exclude "passing" trans men from these changing rooms.

If a person looks like a woman then there would be no issue. — Malcolm Parry

Well then now we get into murky territory. Who gets to decide whether or not a trans woman looks enough like a woman to use the women's changing room? Different people might have different opinions. And sometimes cisgender women are mistaken for men.

If a trans man wants to use a women's restroom they have every right should they wish. — Malcolm Parry

If a trans man (after having surgery) is indistinguishable from a cis man, then what rationale is there for allowing trans men in women's changing rooms but not cis men? We don't carry out genetic testing whenever someone enters the room, so no third party is going to know. The cis woman isn't going to know that the muscular, bearded person changing next to them was actually born a woman, and is going to be as uncomfortable with them being there as they would be a cis man being there.

Do you see no discomfort or risk from allowing males in changing rooms etc? — Malcolm Parry

If they've had surgery, how would you know?

What about trans men (esp. after hormones and surgery)? Ought they use women's changing rooms because they're biological women?